The W
Views: 100755248
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.14 0416
The W - Basketball - NCAA men's basketball tournament going to 68 teams Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.69
Pages: 1
(278 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 49 days
Last activity: 22 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.78
NCAA on verge of 68-team men's tournament

So much for the ideas of an 80- or 96-team tournament. And good thing, I say! I assume with a 68-team format that means four play-in games, and that would be just fine by me. If this gets in four extra bubble teams, great! I can't imagine too many complaints being made about this particular change.

But the really BIG news in my opinion is the joint deal for broadcasting rights between CBS and Turner. That means starting next year, EVERY SINGLE GAME will be shown live. Now we'll be able to channel surf between CBS, TBS, TNT, and truTV. I don't know what this means for DirecTV's Mega March Madness package, but frankly I don't care. Yay!

- StingArmy

(edited by StingArmy on 22.4.10 1353)
Promote this thread!
Psycho Penguin
Liverwurst








Since: 24.6.07
From: Greenacres FL

Since last post: 1505 days
Last activity: 1501 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.32
If they make the 4 bubble teams play each other, good. If they make 4 conference champions play each other so a team that lost 7 or 8 conference games can get blown out by round 2, no.



http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/9471.html


http://www.runningondew.com


"I think that in five years, Orton is far more likely to be in Billy Gunn Land than being a major player in WWE." - Big Bad - 11/22/03
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 49 days
Last activity: 22 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.78
    Originally posted by Psycho Penguin
    If they make the 4 bubble teams play each other, good. If they make 4 conference champions play each other so a team that lost 7 or 8 conference games can get blown out by round 2, no.

I doubt it would be either of the situations you described.

They're adding three teams to the field. So I would assume the Opening Round (which is the official name for the play-in game) would become more like an ACTUAL round where we have four play-in games instead of just one, and the four winners would go on to play the four #1 seeds in the First Round. Those eight Opening Round teams would all be conference champions from smaller conferences who all would be getting into the field anyway, but under the current format they would probably be 13-, 14- or 15-seeds.

The three new teams getting into the field thanks to expansion would probably be seeded somewhere between 8-12. These new teams wouldn't necessarily be playing each other, just whoever they happened to be seeded against (8v9, 7v10, 6v11, 5v12, etc).

- StingArmy
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 482 days
Last activity: 443 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.40
I like it. I don't see why one #1 seed should get to face a 16 that has already come off another game when none of the other #1s do.

Plus they can get rid of the unspoken rule where the teams from the MEAC and the SWAC (the two conferences of historically black colleges) aren't allowed to be in the play in game against each other, even if they're the two worst teams in the field.
Psycho Penguin
Liverwurst








Since: 24.6.07
From: Greenacres FL

Since last post: 1505 days
Last activity: 1501 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.32
I can't wait til 200 teams are in the tournament and everyone gets a trophy.

    Originally posted by StingArmy
      Originally posted by Psycho Penguin
      If they make the 4 bubble teams play each other, good. If they make 4 conference champions play each other so a team that lost 7 or 8 conference games can get blown out by round 2, no.

    I doubt it would be either of the situations you described.

    They're adding three teams to the field. So I would assume the Opening Round (which is the official name for the play-in game) would become more like an ACTUAL round where we have four play-in games instead of just one, and the four winners would go on to play the four #1 seeds in the First Round. Those eight Opening Round teams would all be conference champions from smaller conferences who all would be getting into the field anyway, but under the current format they would probably be 13-, 14- or 15-seeds.

    The three new teams getting into the field thanks to expansion would probably be seeded somewhere between 8-12. These new teams wouldn't necessarily be playing each other, just whoever they happened to be seeded against (8v9, 7v10, 6v11, 5v12, etc).

    - StingArmy


Actually you just described my second situation perfectly. Why give a conference champion that's earned the right to play in the tournament a 'play in game' while a team that can't even come in better than 5th or 6th place in their conference gets into the real tournament?


    like it. I don't see why one #1 seed should get to face a 16 that has already come off another game when none of the other #1s do.


Because they're the top seed.



http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/9471.html


http://www.runningondew.com


"I think that in five years, Orton is far more likely to be in Billy Gunn Land than being a major player in WWE." - Big Bad - 11/22/03
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.89
    Originally posted by Psycho Penguin

      I don't see why one #1 seed should get to face a 16 that has already come off another game when none of the other #1s do.


    Because they're the top seed.
It probably *should* have worked that way, but it didn't. For example, this year Duke played the play-in, and Kansas was deemed the top #1 seed.



It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects.
"This topic is going to suck to read in three years." -Psycho Penguin
"Well. Shit." -hansen9j
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 49 days
Last activity: 22 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.78
Yeah, unless I missed something it's more or less random which #1 seed gets to play the winner of the play-in game. I too thought that honor should go to the overall #1.

- StingArmy
The Game
Boudin rouge








Since: 5.5.09

Since last post: 411 days
Last activity: 411 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.99
*Sigh of relief*; the NCAA expanded the number of teams but not to the ridiculous amount as many expected. I am just glad to see the NCAA not butchering March Madness with the 96 or 80 team field as planned.
supersalvadoran
Landjager








Since: 10.1.08
From: westbury, new york

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.90
I'm ok with 68. It won't help the play-in teams from getting crushed by the #1 seeds, but it might give them a little more publicity for their schools and may help bring attention to their future programs. It may not mean much now, but with enough time, a 16 seed may get a run like Butler with a little footstep like this. Anymore games outside of this is overkill though. It would drag March madness too late into April and would kill some of the long-term interest.

As far as the TV deal goes... fuck, fuck ,fuck. I can't stand CBS' coverage. It's probably the worst out of any major sporting event I see all year. And TBS isn't that much better.






Psycho Penguin
Liverwurst








Since: 24.6.07
From: Greenacres FL

Since last post: 1505 days
Last activity: 1501 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.31
Reading "The Last Dance" by John Feinsten right now and he makes the point that these play in games are not real tournament games/real tournament atmosphere (played in Dayton, no one comes, etc.) and it's unfair to give smaller schools that won't get the chance too often probably this smaller opportunity when you can make the first two (I guess now 4) teams out since they'll probably have more chances to get into the real tournament in the future.

And CRZ replies with a 'witty', unfunny, and mean reply that adds nothing. Shocking!

And I know NCAA only cares about money, but what makes more money, the equivalent of MEAC vs SWAC twice or the equivalent of ACC vs SEC twice? I assume people will go to actual tournament games regardless, so it comes down to getting them to go to the play in games.

(edited by Psycho Penguin on 23.4.10 1424)

(edited by Psycho Penguin on 23.4.10 1428)

http://www.gamefaqs.com/​​features/​​recognition/​​9471.html


http://www.runningondew.com


"I think that in five years, Orton is far more likely to be in Billy Gunn Land than being a major player in WWE." - Big Bad - 11/22/03
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.85
    Originally posted by Psycho Penguin
    Reading "The Last Dance" by John Feinsten right now and he makes the point that these play in games are not real tournament games/real tournament atmosphere (played in Dayton, no one comes, etc.) and it's unfair to give smaller schools that won't get the chance too often probably this smaller opportunity when you can make the first two (I guess now 4) teams out since they'll probably have more chances to get into the real tournament in the future.
You are now posting so quickly that your English is blurring into incoherency.



Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 482 days
Last activity: 443 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.40
    Originally posted by Psycho Penguin
    Reading "The Last Dance" by John Feinsten right now and he makes the point that these play in games are not real tournament games/real tournament atmosphere (played in Dayton, no one comes, etc.) and it's unfair to give smaller schools that won't get the chance too often probably this smaller opportunity when you can make the first two (I guess now 4) teams out since they'll probably have more chances to get into the real tournament in the future.

    And CRZ replies with a 'witty', unfunny, and mean reply that adds nothing. Shocking!

    (edited by Psycho Penguin on 23.4.10 1424)

I'd say that if you think the NCAA actually cares about fairness (as opposed to making money), you're fooling yourself.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.85
The problem with editing your old replies is there's a danger that the people who have responded to you won't see your responses if they only look at new posts. Fortunately, Mr. Boffo is a tattletale. Hopefully he saw your retroactive reply as well, since you edited it TWICE.
    Originally posted by Psycho Penguin
    And CRZ replies with a 'witty', unfunny, and mean reply that adds nothing. Shocking!
I have to disagree. In my opinion, it was HILARIOUS. "Mean" is when I say "SHUT UP, PSYCHO PENGUIN" - and believe me, we're close to that step today, so keep trying me, pal.

That said: I'm sorry - somehow my point was lost on you. Please allow me to try again.
    Originally posted by Psycho Penguin
    and it's unfair to give smaller schools that won't get the chance too often probably this smaller opportunity when you can make the first two (I guess now 4) teams out since they'll probably have more chances to get into the real tournament in the future.
I've now read this several times more than I'd ordinarily care to, and it STILL doesn't make any sense to me.

The only thing I can guess is that you meant "take" instead of "make" - but even if THAT'S the case, I don't get the argument that taking those teams out of the tournament somehow gives them more chances to get in in the future - so that's probably NOT your point. But what IS? WHAT - IS - YOUR - POINT? Obviously you want the entire world to know what it is; why can't you just put a SMALL amount of effort into using the correct words in the correct order so that we can properly make fun of you later?



Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 482 days
Last activity: 443 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.40
I don't know if I should talk or let him talk. Oh, screw it.

He's saying it's unfair that the current 15 and 16 seeds are going to have to have their opening round games, because these teams only make it to the tournament when they win their conference, which means at best they probably only make it every fourth year or so (some much less often than that).

Instead, he would rather have the last 8 bubble teams (the teams that don't win their conference) play in the opening round game. He responded to my comment ("All the NCAA cares about is money") by saying that opening round games between bubble teams would make more money, because the bubble teams have more fans than the 16 seeds do.

My response would be that I think when you're dealing with 15/16 seeds, it's probably a zero sum game. The opening round games may do better since they're not in them, but then the first round games that they do play in will be just as bad.

Plus the NCAA is already saying that the bubble teams are better than the 16 seeds by virtue of their seeding. It seems weird to make 11/12 seeds play an extra game that the 15/16 seeds don't have to play.

Double Edit: If you were going to do that, I think you'd want to seed all the conference champions from #1 seeds down to #8 seeds or whatever, and then have the bubble teams be the #9 seeds on down. But I don't think the NCAA would do that either.
(edited by Mr. Boffo on 23.4.10 1428)

(edited by Mr. Boffo on 23.4.10 1450)
Psycho Penguin
Liverwurst








Since: 24.6.07
From: Greenacres FL

Since last post: 1505 days
Last activity: 1501 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.31
What is so hard to understand that a ACC or Big 10 bubble team has more chances in the future than a lower conference school where only 1 team from the conference gets in each year? That's why it is probably fair to let teams like Coppin State and Sam Houston State into the real tournament and have teams from conferences that traditionally get quite a few bids battle it out for the last 4 spots.

Also, just because they rank bubble teams higher than conference champions doesn't mean they're always right, nor does it mean they should have teams that earned their way into the tournament play their way AGAIN into the tournament. They are 'play in games'. Meaning the teams should be playing for a right to go to the tournament. Thats why these conference champions won their tournament.

And please tell me how they would NOT make money on making the bubble teams play each other? Unless I am missing the huge buckets of cash the play in games traditionally get, I'm lost.

And would you prefer I edit future posts (which I assume can still be read!) or keep adding posts? Wait, don't answer that.



http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/9471.html


http://www.runningondew.com


"I think that in five years, Orton is far more likely to be in Billy Gunn Land than being a major player in WWE." - Big Bad - 11/22/03
Thread rated: 4.69
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Celtics advance, 4-1
Next thread: First to advance: the Orlando Magic!
Previous thread: End of Season Awards & Analysis
(278 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I'll be crude enough to say what so many are thinking. Lesbians = Ratings
- too-old-now, Sheryl Swoopes (2005)
Related threads: Duke 61 Butler 59 - tourney pool - Report claims NCAA Tournament to expand to 96 teams - More...
The W - Basketball - NCAA men's basketball tournament going to 68 teamsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.121 seconds.