royski
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,296
|
Post by royski on Feb 1, 2010 17:53:23 GMT -5
This blows, I hope it's not true.
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Post by Madgesdiq on Feb 1, 2010 18:03:41 GMT -5
Esherick would still be coaching if this had been in place 10 years ago.
Insert urinal joke here.
|
|
|
Post by daytonahoya31 on Feb 1, 2010 18:13:35 GMT -5
Stupidest, most greedy idea ever. Just a bunch of greedy people making the best sporting event of the year that much more meaningless.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 1, 2010 18:21:46 GMT -5
Steward Mandel of SI has tweeted about an expansion to a 96 team tournament supposedly being a "done deal." bit.ly/aBgkP3What would 96 teams mean for Georgetown and the Big East? We could coast through the regular season? That is a terrible idea. Anyone gets in at that rate. There are already too many teams that don't belong. The regular season has to mean SOMETHING!
|
|
geedell
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 837
|
Post by geedell on Feb 1, 2010 18:27:03 GMT -5
This is silly. Can you imagine the blind resume comparison between Iona and Murray St?
Pretty bad move.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Feb 1, 2010 18:32:26 GMT -5
It is pointless and probably bad overall, but I don't think a 96 team tournament is quite as ridiculous as people are making it out to be, if done properly. If you play the first round games at campus sites (and give home court advantage to the higher seeds), it doesn't mean much more travel- the visiting teams will lose 75% of those games and go home, then the real tournament starts. As for making the regular season "meaningless," I don't see that either. Playing for seeding will be just as important as always, if not moreso when things like home court and byes could be at stake. The group that is hurt by this is low-major auto-qualifiers who miss out on the thrill of their one game in the real big dance. Effectively they are all going to Dayton now, and that is a bit sad. I would be shocked if the NCAA ever gave any team a home game in the tournament, much less 32 of them. Too much of an advantage, and too much complaining from the visiting teams. Then again, for the right TV deal, who knows. So being at home is going to be the deciding factor in the 17 vs 24 match up? Id say it will be the outrageous difference in talent level, but that is just me. 96 teams doesnt help mid majors or bubble teams as some people say. It only help major conference teams that suck, like virginia or south florida. They have to do less to get in and because they will have played and beaten more NCAA team (only NCAA teams because the field is expanded) they will be over seeded. This would kill the small conferences who only get auto bids. Florida A&M will go from a 16 seed to a 22 seed. Then they will never win a game in the tourney. The only time you need to expand the Tournament is when parity occurs. but as of yet a 16 has never won and only 4 15 seeds have. that is hardly parity. The BCS sucks and is inaccurate because of increased parity not because it is logically unsound. The NCAA Tournament is both logically sound and good and is not effected by parity, so dont fix what aint broke.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlemania on Feb 1, 2010 18:34:41 GMT -5
There are simply not 32 teams getting jobbed each year on Selection Sunday. Houston, we have a winner. In any given year I can't recall more than a half dozen teams having a legitimate complaint that the committee shafted them. The 96-team idea is just a roundabout way of dealing with what the teams ranked 65-96 are really whining about, i.e., small conference schools like Monmouth and Alabama A&M taking slots away from low-end major and decent mid-major teams, only to get blown out by a 1 or 2 seed in the first round. Every year. So do you go the Bilas route (pick the 64 best teams, regardless of conference), or keep giving participants' ribbons to smaller schools to give the appearance of equal opportunity to compete? Not an easy problem but 96 teams is not the answer.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Feb 1, 2010 18:49:10 GMT -5
Can you imagine what this does to the NIT?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 1, 2010 18:53:31 GMT -5
Can you imagine what this does to the NIT? I imagine that the NCAA, which bought the NIT a few years ago, discontinues it. It makes little sense to have bought it at that point, unless they were afraid of anti-trust elements.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Feb 1, 2010 18:59:33 GMT -5
There are simply not 32 teams getting jobbed each year on Selection Sunday. Houston, we have a winner. In any given year I can't recall more than a half dozen teams having a legitimate complaint that the committee shafted them. The 96-team idea is just a roundabout way of dealing with what the teams ranked 65-96 are really whining about, i.e., small conference schools like Monmouth and Alabama A&M taking slots away from low-end major and decent mid-major teams, only to get blown out by a 1 or 2 seed in the first round. Every year. So do you go the Bilas route (pick the 64 best teams, regardless of conference), or keep giving participants' ribbons to smaller schools to give the appearance of equal opportunity to compete? Not an easy problem but 96 teams is not the answer. While part of me does not like the charity of giving every conference an auto bid, it does prevent what goes on in football, where good teams in small conferences are avoided by the big boys so they dont have the possibility of that terrible loss on their resume giving every conference an auto bid corrects this by making sure that some team in the SWAC who is really good but didnt have a difficult schedule still gets in. if they win then great, if they lose, too bad but it doesnt mean they dont deserve the chance
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Feb 1, 2010 19:08:48 GMT -5
You know, the more I think about this the less it outrages me.
You play one extra round Tuesday and Wednesday with teams 33-96 playing off into the exact same format as today. The 64 kicks off Thursday. I really think this has more of an impact on my liver and sick days than anything else. It actually places more of a premium on the regular season in some ways. Who cares if you're an 8 or 9 seed before. Now a 9 seed has to play an extra game.
Also this is better for today's #16 seeds. They have to play a #9 seed quality team. So they won't go 800 years without a win, or the cash that comes with it. For the major conference lovers, the small schools will fade away before anyone is even paying attention MOST of the time.
And remember, you don't need 32 good matchups on these days. You need 8 (one for each time slot over two days) and the cut-ins to Utah State hitting a buzzer beater versus UVA. It'll work.
The only problem? It gets a lot harder to win this thing. A team on the #3 line could have plucked a low major without a home. Now instead of Jacksonville, you're facing Cincinnati. Good luck.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,440
|
Post by lichoya68 on Feb 1, 2010 20:16:18 GMT -5
IF THEY MAKE IT BIGGER LET EVERYONE PLAY YUP EVERYONE can see a july fourth final four at the beach maybe pretty cool oh no thats PRETTY WARM IN JULY
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 1, 2010 20:20:02 GMT -5
As much as we're all fans of a team from a top conference, I think part of the thrill of the tournament is the inclusion of the little schools. As it is, I hate the play-in game, as it deprives one of the auto-qualifiers of the chance to play in the "real" tournament. An expansion would only further reward mediocrity by allowing teams that go 6-10 in the ACC a chance to keep playing. If you're a major conference team that has that kind of season, you don't deserve to be in the NCAA tournament. Sure, you can probably beat the MEAC and MAAC champions, but that's not the point--you had a bad season, you shouldn't be dancing.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Feb 1, 2010 20:59:58 GMT -5
As much as we're all fans of a team from a top conference, I think part of the thrill of the tournament is the inclusion of the little schools. As it is, I hate the play-in game, as it deprives one of the auto-qualifiers of the chance to play in the "real" tournament. An expansion would only further reward mediocrity by allowing teams that go 6-10 in the ACC a chance to keep playing. If you're a major conference team that has that kind of season, you don't deserve to be in the NCAA tournament. Sure, you can probably beat the MEAC and MAAC champions, but that's not the point--you had a bad season, you shouldn't be dancing. Wait a minute, I don't like the play-in either because it's two lousy teams that get excluded. That's not this. Of the additional 32, if you look at regular selection criteria, this year that would include William and Mary, Utah State, VCU, Tulsa, Harvard...you get the point. This gives a lot more smaller schools a chance including conference champs that get upset in their tournaments. And this is the "real" tournament. Alcorn St v Farleigh Dickinson isn't real because nobody's watching. William and Mary vs Illinois is the biggest audience for a William and Mary game ever. That's a big difference.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Feb 1, 2010 21:14:43 GMT -5
Not going to happen if I have anything to do with it, which I don't. But still a bad idea. It will make the NCAA like the NBA - the two worse teams do not go.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 1, 2010 21:22:18 GMT -5
If you think there is a lot of moaning now because the 66th and 67th teams think they are better than the 62nd and 63rd teams and deserve to get in, can you imagine the even FINER line between teams ranked 95, 96, 97 and 98. And don't think for a SECOND that the teams that just miss getting in won't be whining and moaning and griping at least as much as teams do with the current system.
It should be an HONOR to play. 96 teams makes it a joke! or even more of a joke than it already is. We don't need 6, 7 or 8 teams from big conferences. They had an entire season to justify getting in. If they couldn't do it then, they have nothing about which to complain -- at least, legitimately complain.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 1, 2010 21:25:08 GMT -5
Here's a question--do people (not die hards, but your average sports fan / office worker) still fill out brackets if it's a 96 teams (and byes and complicated) instead of 64?
That's a lot more effort (even if all you're doing is a token effort) and makes it much harder to get right (and so people stop caring after their bracket is wiped out early).
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 1, 2010 21:42:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure I fill out a bracket if it is 96.
I'd certainly do just a 64-team bracket if given a choice.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 1, 2010 21:46:37 GMT -5
As much as we're all fans of a team from a top conference, I think part of the thrill of the tournament is the inclusion of the little schools. As it is, I hate the play-in game, as it deprives one of the auto-qualifiers of the chance to play in the "real" tournament. An expansion would only further reward mediocrity by allowing teams that go 6-10 in the ACC a chance to keep playing. If you're a major conference team that has that kind of season, you don't deserve to be in the NCAA tournament. Sure, you can probably beat the MEAC and MAAC champions, but that's not the point--you had a bad season, you shouldn't be dancing. Wait a minute, I don't like the play-in either because it's two lousy teams that get excluded. That's not this. Of the additional 32, if you look at regular selection criteria, this year that would include William and Mary, Utah State, VCU, Tulsa, Harvard...you get the point. This gives a lot more smaller schools a chance including conference champs that get upset in their tournaments. And this is the "real" tournament. Alcorn St v Farleigh Dickinson isn't real because nobody's watching. William and Mary vs Illinois is the biggest audience for a William and Mary game ever. That's a big difference. I guess I was going a bit far in comparing this directly to the play-in game, but I'm still a little suspicious of how seeding would go. I guess I'm not sure I believe that the crappy teams from big conferences wouldn't be considered "better."
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Feb 1, 2010 21:55:23 GMT -5
All about whining coaches complaining they can't keep their jobs.
|
|