Or make it a rematch of the Final Four.
College Sports (Basketball)
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
As somebody else said yesterday, the days of that sort of thing standing in for cold, hard cash are over, the "blue bloods" can't just warehouse all the top players anymore.
The Sprouting Divot
Invisible and Bulletproof
- Miracle Mile
This is so plainly obvious and such a guaranteed success that it will never happen.
The whining by Michigan State would reach unfathomable decibel levels if they got booted from this, especially for Michigan
How about the Final Four teams from the previous season all play each other in an MTE. Winners of the games play for the championship, losers play for 3rd. Make it an annual charitable event. Same conference opponents on opposite sides. If they do play, it doesn't count against conference record.
OrangeBlue98
Iowa is not in a great spot right now (LvilleILL1)
- Des Moines, IA
The biggest testament to an athletic director is that those in the department are in demand to become ADs themselves.
Big shoes to fill, but I foresee these openings to be in very high demand.
The issue there is tournaments try very hard to avoid conference matchups in non-conference, so having both Michigan and Illinois in an MTE would be avoided (if anything they'd go with the 4 1 seeds since that actually works out this year).
Honestly, it's the best testament to any type of leader.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
"NCAA reveals details of Fordham point-shaving plot" sounds like a headline from 1953
The field of 68 has some rebranding to do…
I think the implication is additional at-large teams pitted against each other in an expanded play-in. I was hoping more of the worst autobid teams would play each other to help make the round of 64 more interesting (it might not actually get better teams in as the 15 or 16 seed, but it would reduce the number of spots for those really bad autobid teams, bumping the 12 and 13 seeds onto the 13 and 14 seed lines, etc)
Last edited:
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
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.
Last edited:
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.
Hate this. Why change something that isn’t broken.
All about the $$$. Why not just make it 124 teams then?
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
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.
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.
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 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.