A change I'd like to see in the NCAA tournament

[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.

[blindzebra]

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.

[Dan_ref]

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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

[zebraman]

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by zebraman

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.

[Nevadaref]

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]

[TriggerMN]

As much as I hate to admit it, Hampton beat Iowa State.

Coppin State beat South Carolina.

[PS2Man]

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.

[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

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Rick82358]

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.