College Sports (Basketball)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#102      
The combination of a level of blind obsession with chasing the money and delusionally inept middle manager energy it takes to think expanding the NCAA Tournament is a good idea is both breath taking and astonishly common among the people who decide this stuff, lol.

I really don’t think it’s as simple as fat cat executives knowing they’re screwing up the mystique of March Madness and laughing all the way to the bank … I think the types of people who are in the room talking are actually so out of touch that they think anybody wants this purely as a fan.
 
#103      
All the play-in teams, first 12 whatever the heck they are going to call it needs to all be At-Large teams. No more 16 v 16. No one wants to see that anymore. I shouldn't speak for everyone but I know I don't.
True, but the tradeoff is less exciting games in the round of 64. The 14 and 15 seeds were already bad enough. Now two would-be 16 seeds will be 15 seeds and two would-be 15 seeds will be 14 seeds (and so on).

In the interest of getting closer to having the top 64 teams in the real tournament, I was hoping it would go the other way. But I guess it's a better "reward" for the top seeds to get to face worse competition, and I do like that.
 
#106      
Why? It is a complete money play, and it would simply mean more bubble teams play in play-in games on Tues/Wed. I don't see how this fundamentally makes the tourney worse.

Sure it makes the last teams in (more) super flawed, but I have enjoyed the at-large play in games. I am all for adding eight more of those games.

As long as the best teams don't have to play more games, then it is fine by me. I simply do not like the 16v16 games (the quality of those games have not matched the at-large play in games). I personally think AQ teams should be exempt from play in games.
I like the 16v16 games. They are easily ignored and get two horrible teams out of the field.

What I'd like is to see the bottom 24 teams (seeds 13-18) all participate in the play in. Cut the chaff before the real tournament begins.
13v18, winner faces 3 seed
14v17, winner faces 2 seed
15v16, winner faces 1 seed

I know it won't happen. I think it would be least damaging to the product.
 
#112      
True, but the tradeoff is less exciting games in the round of 64. The 14 and 15 seeds were already bad enough. Now two would-be 16 seeds will be 15 seeds and two would-be 15 seeds will be 14 seeds (and so on).

In the interest of getting closer to having the top 64 teams in the real tournament, I was hoping it would go the other way. But I guess it's a better "reward" for the top seeds to get to face worse competition, and I do like that.
I say this because if you win your conference tournament and get an automatic bid you should be playing in the actual tournament and not playing your way into the tournament. If it is less exciting games so be it, most of those games are less exciting anyway.
 
#113      
ryan reynolds hd GIF
 
#115      
I say this because if you win your conference tournament and get an automatic bid you should be playing in the actual tournament and not playing your way into the tournament. If it is less exciting games so be it, most of those games are less exciting anyway.
I wish the best KenPom team from each conference got an autobid. The conference tourneys are as much a crapshoot as the NCAAT.

But I also wish we could take the 16 best KenPom/Torvik teams and have 7-game series to determine the winner, so you probably shouldn't ask me :ROFLMAO:
 
#116      
The ESPN article says "The expansion would lead to an additional eight men's games, meaning the Tuesday and Wednesday of the NCAA tournament would feature 24 of the 76 men's teams. That number now includes eight teams who would have qualified for the traditional bracket that would square off against the eight at-large additions."

I read this to mean the play-in games will be: two 16v16 games (four teams), and ten games between bubble teams (twenty teams).
 
#117      
Hate this. Why change something that isn’t broken.

All about the $$$. Why not just make it 124 teams then?
I was initially against when the field was expanded to 68, but I can't imagine it now without the first 4 games. I'm fine with more of those.
 
#118      
Really not interested in seeing more sub .500 conference-record teams from major conferences get in. I’d rather see the low- or mid- major teams that dominated their conference play that just somehow lost their conference tournament get in finally. That’s the best way to expand this thing.
 
#119      
To be clear I think this is the equivalent of painting a Facebook ad onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling and I would literally send people to jail for it if I could, HOWEVER putting more auto qualifiers into play-in games will actually make the 16 and 15 seeds quite a bit stronger and more likely to beat 1's and 2's, all else being equal.

You'll have one of the 2's playing a team that would have been a 13 seed pre-2011.
 
#122      
I fully expect Illinois to be on the top 10 from now until eternity so this really won't matter to me. but it does kinda suck

there is a small plus side. since I go to Vegas every year for March madness, I wouldn't mind being and to go to a game in Vegas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back