The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 06:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
You always have the teams like Maryland, ND, or close mid-majors that get left out and you have these small conferences or upset conf. tournament winners as 13th-16th seeds.

Why not have play in games for all the 13th thru 16th seeds. That gives more deserving teams a shot and adds a better chance of upsets in the first round by putting 64 quality teams into the field.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 07:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally posted by Bush in 2004
They do have play in games for the 13-16 seeds. It's called the First round, and it's coming Thursday and Friday on CBS when seeds 13-16 get to play seeds 1-4 in their respective regions.

If ya ask me, Oakland and Alabama A & M shouldn't be the ones playing in the play-in game tonight. They EARNED their spot in the real tourney by winning their conference tournies. Nothing at all subjective about them getting in. They oughtta make 2 of the last "at-large" teams, kinda like UAB or Northern Iowa to name a couple, "qualify" by playing in the play-in game.

Not that Northern Iowa and UAB would not spank Oakland or Alabama A&M by 15+ points.

The day a 16th seed makes the final 4 will be when they "qualified" to be in the tournament.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 07:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
You always have the teams like Maryland, ND, or close mid-majors that get left out and you have these small conferences or upset conf. tournament winners as 13th-16th seeds.

Why not have play in games for all the 13th thru 16th seeds. That gives more deserving teams a shot and adds a better chance of upsets in the first round by putting 64 quality teams into the field.
I think they call that the NIT.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 07:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
You always have the teams like Maryland, ND, or close mid-majors that get left out and you have these small conferences or upset conf. tournament winners as 13th-16th seeds.

Why not have play in games for all the 13th thru 16th seeds. That gives more deserving teams a shot and adds a better chance of upsets in the first round by putting 64 quality teams into the field.
I think they call that the NIT.
What are the most exciting games of the first round? 5 vs 12, 6 vs 11, 7 vs 10, and 8 vs 9 so why not have REAL games in the 4 vs 13, 3 vs 14, 2 vs 15 and 1 vs 16 too?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 07:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
You always have the teams like Maryland, ND, or close mid-majors that get left out and you have these small conferences or upset conf. tournament winners as 13th-16th seeds.

Why not have play in games for all the 13th thru 16th seeds. That gives more deserving teams a shot and adds a better chance of upsets in the first round by putting 64 quality teams into the field.
I think they call that the NIT.
What are the most exciting games of the first round? 5 vs 12, 6 vs 11, 7 vs 10, and 8 vs 9 so why not have REAL games in the 4 vs 13, 3 vs 14, 2 vs 15 and 1 vs 16 too?

You're saying 13 v 16, 14 v 15, 1 v 4, 2 v 3 in the first round?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 07:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
You always have the teams like Maryland, ND, or close mid-majors that get left out and you have these small conferences or upset conf. tournament winners as 13th-16th seeds.

Why not have play in games for all the 13th thru 16th seeds. That gives more deserving teams a shot and adds a better chance of upsets in the first round by putting 64 quality teams into the field.
I think they call that the NIT.
What are the most exciting games of the first round? 5 vs 12, 6 vs 11, 7 vs 10, and 8 vs 9 so why not have REAL games in the 4 vs 13, 3 vs 14, 2 vs 15 and 1 vs 16 too?

You're saying 13 v 16, 14 v 15, 1 v 4, 2 v 3 in the first round?
No I'm saying make the bottom teams that are road kill for the top seeds play at-large teams to earn the 13th-16th seeds.

So instead of NC beating Oakland/Alabama A&M winner by 40 you might see them playing a team that missed the field. You'd get the best 64 in and have competitive games all the way through the seedings and not just from 5 vs 12 to 8 vs 9.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 10:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,910
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
You always have the teams like Maryland, ND, or close mid-majors that get left out and you have these small conferences or upset conf. tournament winners as 13th-16th seeds.

Why not have play in games for all the 13th thru 16th seeds. That gives more deserving teams a shot and adds a better chance of upsets in the first round by putting 64 quality teams into the field.
That pretty much ruins the entire idea of seeding. By earning a #1 seed, your reward is that you play the #16 seed. It's kinda how it works. Hello? Just cuz' the season is over doesn't mean you have to dive headlong into the old marijuana habit.
Z
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 10:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
You always have the teams like Maryland, ND, or close mid-majors that get left out and you have these small conferences or upset conf. tournament winners as 13th-16th seeds.

Why not have play in games for all the 13th thru 16th seeds. That gives more deserving teams a shot and adds a better chance of upsets in the first round by putting 64 quality teams into the field.
I think they call that the NIT.
What are the most exciting games of the first round? 5 vs 12, 6 vs 11, 7 vs 10, and 8 vs 9 so why not have REAL games in the 4 vs 13, 3 vs 14, 2 vs 15 and 1 vs 16 too?

You're saying 13 v 16, 14 v 15, 1 v 4, 2 v 3 in the first round?
No I'm saying make the bottom teams that are road kill for the top seeds play at-large teams to earn the 13th-16th seeds.

So instead of NC beating Oakland/Alabama A&M winner by 40 you might see them playing a team that missed the field. You'd get the best 64 in and have competitive games all the way through the seedings and not just from 5 vs 12 to 8 vs 9.
I don't think we need a larger field of teams.

IMO they should just invite 32 teams but that will never happen. But it would eliminate the road kill games.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 12:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
You always have the teams like Maryland, ND, or close mid-majors that get left out and you have these small conferences or upset conf. tournament winners as 13th-16th seeds.

Why not have play in games for all the 13th thru 16th seeds. That gives more deserving teams a shot and adds a better chance of upsets in the first round by putting 64 quality teams into the field.
That pretty much ruins the entire idea of seeding. By earning a #1 seed, your reward is that you play the #16 seed. It's kinda how it works. Hello? Just cuz' the season is over doesn't mean you have to dive headlong into the old marijuana habit.
Z
Way to go for an uncalled for insult. I might add that the top seeded team still plays the 64th seeded team, the difference is by doing it my way they have a helluva lot better chance of playing the 64th best team and not the 200th.

Too bad your comprehension skills were not good enough to understand that.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 02:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
For me the charm of the NCAA tournament is seeing the little guy get his chance to knock of the Goliath. I live for the Hampton over Iowa State, the Richmond over Syracuse, Princeton's near miss of Georgetown, and that miracle shot by Drew against Ole Miss.

If you eliminate these first round mismatches, I wouldn't even bother to watch the tournament. I can see Kentucky play Indiana during the regular season. What we need the tournament for is to help us understand that Kent State and Nevada are capable of playing some great basketball and it is a shame that if it weren't for the NCAA tourney most of the country would never get a chance to see them play. The big TV network folks are always showing Duke or Michigan and hence tons of money pours into those conferences and programs.

Give the little guy a chance.


PS Digger and Notre Dame can SHUT UP about being snubbed now that Holy Cross cleaned their golden dome.


Edited with thanks to TriggerMN for the upset correction!

[Edited by Nevadaref on Mar 16th, 2005 at 10:56 PM]
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 08:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 744
As much as I hate to admit it, Hampton beat Iowa State.

Coppin State beat South Carolina.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 08:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 235
Thumbs down

There are enough games already. The big schools had their chance to play in the tournament and they blew it. Those schools almost all the time get the at-large bids. The little guys have to win their conference tournament to get a shot. Out play those in your conference and you get in.
__________________
Treat everyone as you would like to be treated.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 10:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NV
Posts: 153
The NCAA has set a pretty good line with the number of teams in that we have never had a 16 beat a 1 but we have had 15s beat 2s. So it would appear that 4 regionals with 16/17 teams per regional works out pretty well.
The money generated from this tournament is tremendous and every team shares in this. No matter if you are a 16 or a 1.
As a matter of fact - Let 3 more teams in and let them share in the moneys too. Let each #1 seed play the winner of a play-in game.
Anything more might be bordering on excessive. But what is our society about though - excess, right - so why not!!
AAR
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 01:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally posted by Almost Always Right
The NCAA has set a pretty good line with the number of teams in that we have never had a 16 beat a 1 but we have had 15s beat 2s. So it would appear that 4 regionals with 16/17 teams per regional works out pretty well.
The money generated from this tournament is tremendous and every team shares in this. No matter if you are a 16 or a 1.
As a matter of fact - Let 3 more teams in and let them share in the moneys too. Let each #1 seed play the winner of a play-in game.
Anything more might be bordering on excessive. But what is our society about though - excess, right - so why not!!
AAR
Having the 1 playin game is just as excessive as playing 4 playin games.

If I were to pick any expansion, it should go to 96 teams...or 128.

With a 96 teams bracket, #33-#96 would play...eliminating 32 teams...back to 64.

For 128, to keep it for extending longer for everyone, I would play #65-#128, to reduce to 96 teams then play the 96 as above.

Both of these would let more people into the tourney but would not extend the number of games for anyone likely to make it deep in the brackets. It would also reduce the number of 1st day demolitions.

All that said, I think 64 is sufficient...get rid of the playin game.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 01:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 98
Bush did have a point a long time ago in this stitch.
how come two teams that won their conference tournements were in the play in game?
Did they not both get the automatic bid to the tournement?
Or is that why they changed the name to the opening round.
__________________
The trouble with officials is they just don't care who wins.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1