|
|
Post by dcatdynasty on Jan 29, 2008 21:34:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 29, 2008 21:46:56 GMT -5
I would love if the Bracketography worked out so we could romp Vandy again. Honestly, at the time, their coach and players were classy about the whole travel controversy. I respect them as a school/team. But I'd like to unequivocally beat them.
|
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by idhoya on Jan 29, 2008 21:48:00 GMT -5
The play-in-game is some BS! How do you reward a team that wins its conference with the play-in game? If you win your conference your supposed to get an automatic bid. Its always the small schools; namely the HBCU's. The play-in should be reserved for the last two at-large teams that are selected.
Case in point: conference championship on sunday-play-in game on tuesday. Going home on wednesday. BS
|
|
|
|
Post by Offsidz on Jan 29, 2008 21:55:17 GMT -5
Totally agree about the Play-In in game! A huge part of going to the NCAA tournament is about the experience, the atmosphere, etc... How in the world the two teams involved in the Play-In game even feel like they're part of the "Big Dance" is beyond me!
|
|
Just Cos
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Eat 'em up Hoyas
Posts: 1,506
|
Post by Just Cos on Jan 29, 2008 22:11:00 GMT -5
Disagree. Those teams are awful that play in the play in game. At least this way they get a chance to actually win a tournament game, unlike every other 16 seed. Also, the winning team does get to play on Thursday, not Wednesday, so at least one team gets to be part of the field of 64. Finally, those teams have almost two weeks rest as their conference tourneys are very early in the conference tournament schedule.
|
|
PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on Jan 29, 2008 22:24:47 GMT -5
The play in game is BS money grubbing by the big conferences. I forget which conference gained eligibility to have an automatic bid, but instead of doing the sensible thing and just dropping one automatic bid, the powers that be in the NCAA decided it couldn't take away that cash from the power conferences and added a play in game to screw some poor conference champion out of a real spot in the tourney. God forbid that the 5th best team in the ACC or 6th best Big 10 team has to play in the NIT!
Don't give me that trite line about one of them getting a NCAA win. That game is ignored by the media for the most part. Additionally, given all the talk we hear of "tired legs" it then forces one of the 16 seeds to play on relatively short rest against a 1 seed (as if they needed more advantages). I say it's time to expand 2 rounds and add an extra weekend. It would allow practically every Div I team to compete, and can you imagine the madness of 192 games being played on the opening weekend of the tournament?
|
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Jan 29, 2008 22:32:45 GMT -5
The play in game is BS money grubbing by the big conferences. I forget which conference gained eligibility to have an automatic bid, but instead of doing the sensible thing and just dropping one automatic bid, the powers that be in the NCAA decided it couldn't take away that cash from the power conferences and added a play in game to screw some poor conference champion out of a real spot in the tourney. God forbid that the 5th best team in the ACC or 6th best Big 10 team has to play in the NIT! The game started in 2001, I think, after the Mountain West split from the WAC. Strangely enough, the women's tourney didn't have any trouble cutting the # of at large berths by one so that is why they still have the 64 team field. I too have a really hard time figuring out why two legitimate conference champions should be relegated to the University of Dayton for their "tournament" game while "really deserving" teams that couldn't manage to put together a convincing resume to lock down a spot get a free pass to a game against a 6 or 7 seed. |
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by idhoya on Jan 30, 2008 0:00:51 GMT -5
word
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 30, 2008 0:04:28 GMT -5
The play-in-game is some BS! How do you reward a team that wins its conference with the play-in game? If you win your conference your supposed to get an automatic bid. Its always the small schools; namely the HBCU's. The play-in should be reserved for the last two at-large teams that are selected. Case in point: conference championship on sunday-play-in game on tuesday. Going home on wednesday. BS I've heard allegations before that there is some kind of argument about play-ins specifically being used, sort of, against black colleges and universities. Do you know any more behind that or if that's ever actually been studied? |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 30, 2008 0:45:16 GMT -5
The play-in-game is some BS! How do you reward a team that wins its conference with the play-in game? If you win your conference your supposed to get an automatic bid. Its always the small schools; namely the HBCU's. The play-in should be reserved for the last two at-large teams that are selected. Case in point: conference championship on sunday-play-in game on tuesday. Going home on wednesday. BS I've heard allegations before that there is some kind of argument about play-ins specifically being used, sort of, against black colleges and universities. Do you know any more behind that or if that's ever actually been studied? I don't think that's the intention of the play-in game, it's just the way it happens to have played out. I do like the idea of putting at-large teams into the play-in game. For that matter, I think they should have a play-in game for each section, all composed of at-large teams. Considering the fact that the last at-large team is probably a stronger team than the worst conference champion, I think it would be best in that scenario to have the play-in game winners enter the Tournament as #9 seeds instead of #16 seeds, since you still want to give the #1 seeds the easiest game possible. |
|
Just Cos
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Eat 'em up Hoyas
Posts: 1,506
|
Post by Just Cos on Jan 30, 2008 1:48:31 GMT -5
I say it's time to expand 2 rounds and add an extra weekend. It would allow practically every Div I team to compete, and can you imagine the madness of 192 games being played on the opening weekend of the tournament? That would be like the BET moving to allow all teams into the tournament! |
|
PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on Jan 30, 2008 3:38:14 GMT -5
I say it's time to expand 2 rounds and add an extra weekend. It would allow practically every Div I team to compete, and can you imagine the madness of 192 games being played on the opening weekend of the tournament? That would be like the BET moving to allow all teams into the tournament! Which was also a good move. The only difference being that if you just held the tournament over one extra weekend it wouldn't wear down the teams significantly (the way the extra games in the BET do being held on consecutive days). |
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Post by Madgesdiq on Jan 30, 2008 9:39:03 GMT -5
I think the play in game should feature the last 2 at-large teams fighting to be selected, generally. Better ratings for sure, and the winner of the game should then wind up as a 12 seed.
In fact, to make it really interesting, I would schedule 4 "Bracket Buster" games among the last 8 "at-larges" to seed all of the 12 seeds. I'd let the Florida A&M's and other conference winners of the world have their moment in the sun on Thurs-Friday. The play in games should involve the bubble teams.
Using current bracketology the games could be
Illinois State vs. UMASS
Miami vs Seton Hall
Syracuse vs Arkansas
Saint Joseph's vs Providence
winners are slotted in as 12 seeds in each region.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 30, 2008 9:50:03 GMT -5
I think the play in game should feature the last 2 at-large teams fighting to be selected, generally. Better ratings for sure, and the winner of the game should then wind up as a 12 seed. In fact, to make it really interesting, I would schedule 4 "Bracket Buster" games among the last 8 "at-larges" to seed all of the 12 seeds. I'd let the Florida A&M's and other conference winners of the world have their moment in the sun on Thurs-Friday. The play in games should involve the bubble teams. Using current bracketology the games could be Illinois State vs. UMASS Miami vs Seton Hall Syracuse vs Arkansas Saint Joseph's vs Providence winners are slotted in as 12 seeds in each region. Completely agree. Nothing says "We're contractually obligated to put you in the tournament" like this play-in game. That team earned its way in and should play in the main draw. |
|
|
|
Post by dajuan on Jan 30, 2008 10:16:12 GMT -5
I don't mind the play-in game. In fact, I don't see why they don't add 3 at large teams and have 4 play-in games. I know it's a bummer for those 16 seeds, but that's why they're 16 seeds. No one said the tournament was fair. If you "earn" a 16 seed by weakly winning a weak conference, then you may have to win a game for the right to lose to the 1 seed. Those are the breaks.
I do like how this Bracketography has Georgetown playing at the VC for the first weekend, which is not possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by dajuan on Jan 30, 2008 10:22:03 GMT -5
I've heard allegations before that there is some kind of argument about play-ins specifically being used, sort of, against black colleges and universities. Do you know any more behind that or if that's ever actually been studied? 's_Division_I_Basketball_Play-In_Game Since 2002, one HBC has played in the play in game every year. The HBCs records in those games is 1-5, with Florida A&M winning in 2004. I'm not making any arguments, just providing facts. |
|
|
|
Post by FHillsNYHoya on Jan 30, 2008 10:28:56 GMT -5
Madgesdiq's ID is perfect - might be the first time I 100% agreed w/you since I signed up for that class on Katherine Anne Porter
|
|
PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on Jan 30, 2008 13:09:13 GMT -5
I know it's a bummer for those 16 seeds, but that's why they're 16 seeds. No one said the tournament was fair. If you "earn" a 16 seed by weakly winning a weak conference, then you may have to win a game for the right to lose to the 1 seed. Those are the breaks. Actually many times the play in game is due to a surprise conference winner that hadn't played well til their tournament, but then somehow went on a run in the conference tourney that got them a spot. I don't have any history, but I'm guessing it's rare that a conference frontrunner all season that wins their conference (no matter how weak) ends up in the play in game. Regardless, I certainly wouldn't refer to a weak team that pulls it all together in the conference tourney as less deserving than the 6th place Big 10 team that lost to another midling Big 10 team in the first round. That's the beauty of the conference tourney -- anybody can still make it in regardless of how their regular season went. |
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by idhoya on Jan 30, 2008 15:46:51 GMT -5
dajuan,
That arguement only holds weight cause the playing field ain't level in collegiate athletics. The smaller schools suffer cause they're smaller. They're smaller cause the bigs have all the money and won't share cause they don't have to and don't give a D!
I made that point cause AAMU played in it in 2005. They won the SWAC on a sunday evening (ESPN dictated Sunday eve) and played in Dayton on Tuesday evening. Where's the time to scout, travel, rest and practice? The NCAA is saying "just be glad we let you in", which is a racist, elitist mentality. This can be corrected, but that's a whole nother soapbox.
|
|
|
|
Post by dajuan on Jan 30, 2008 15:59:39 GMT -5
dajuan, That arguement only holds weight cause the playing field ain't level in collegiate athletics. The smaller schools suffer cause they're smaller. They're smaller cause the bigs have all the money and won't share cause they don't have to and don't give a D! I made that point cause AAMU played in it in 2005. They won the SWAC on a sunday evening (ESPN dictated Sunday eve) and played in Dayton on Tuesday evening. Where's the time to scout, travel, rest and practice? The NCAA is saying "just be glad we let you in", which is a racist, elitist mentality. This can be corrected, but that's a whole nother soapbox. Newsflash - the playing field is never level! What's your point? I'm not making any arguments about the timing of games, but I am saying that we might as well have 4 play-in games if we're going to have 1. This would lead to more televised basketball and fewer weak teams who won some weak-ass conference from taking the spot of a better team from big or mid major conference that has the potential to make some real noise in the tournament. Why are people so quick to defend the 16 seeds and play-in game losers? Those teams are not going to win their first round game anyway, so why not make them fight for the chance to lose in the 1 seed in the first round. At least my way 4 teams get the glory of winning an NCAA tournament game (albeit a play-in). |
|
