|
Post by wrestlemania on Feb 1, 2010 21:55:44 GMT -5
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 Not sure I agree. The committee has made it clear that teams put themselves at risk if they play too many out-of-conference cupcakes (*cough* Pops *cough*), so these days teams are more likely to schedule teams that might beat them (although the top teams usually only agree to play them at home or at a neutral site). I think the problem isn't so much scheduling as it is the nature of the RPI -- to use your example, even a really good SWAC team usually has a low RPI, since most of their games are against relatively weak in-conference teams. Having the opportunity to play a team or two from a top conference won't change that.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Feb 1, 2010 22:37:39 GMT -5
With 96 teams, imagine what this board would look like if we EVER missed the tourney again?
April Madness anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 1, 2010 23:11:16 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. Hear, hear SirSaxa. I might support the idea of a 96 (or 72) team tourney ... if a 15 would beat a 2 more than once a decade or a 16 ever beat a 1. Until then, forget it. It's awesome the way it is. Even though the Hoyas have been on the bubble a couple times and not made it in, I wouldn't trade making it for a whole mess of crappy teams getting in to get us in. The idea of a sub-.500 team---overall or in conference---getting in without winning their conference tourney makes me shudder.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Feb 2, 2010 9:17:43 GMT -5
|
|
GPHoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 466
|
Post by GPHoya on Feb 2, 2010 9:59:06 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with eliminating whiny coaches as there will be open wounds at both the 32 line and the 96 line. Indeed, it promotes more, not less, bubble talk for the true passionate fan base.
It only has to do with money and, in the short run, it will generate more of it both in television and in first round site value. In the long run (a perspective never taken), it may kill the office bracket because of the short time window in which to complete a 96 team bracket and brackets are what drives interest beyond the base. Like lots of expansion, this could kill a good thing, but it is going to happen.
You would feel differently about this if you were a fan of St. John's, Seton Hall, Providence, USF, Rutgers or Depaul because it makes a bid attainable if you can have a reasonable regular season and make the top 10-12 in the Big East. It would have helped Georgetown last year, but we know that missing the tournament was what we deserved.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Feb 2, 2010 10:03:30 GMT -5
It'll basically make makin the tournament no longer the mark of a good season. It'd make all our NCAA banners in mc donough look pretty silly to someone who grew up watchign the 96 team tournament.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 2, 2010 10:20:41 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with eliminating whiny coaches as there will be open wounds at both the 32 line and the 96 line. Indeed, it promotes more, not less, bubble talk for the true passionate fan base. It only has to do with money and, in the short run, it will generate more of it both in television and in first round site value. In the long run (a perspective never taken), it may kill the office bracket because of the short time window in which to complete a 96 team bracket and brackets are what drives interest beyond the base. Like lots of expansion, this could kill a good thing, but it is going to happen. You would feel differently about this if you were a fan of St. John's, Seton Hall, Providence, USF, Rutgers or Depaul because it makes a bid attainable if you can have a reasonable regular season and make the top 10-12 in the Big East. It would have helped Georgetown last year, but we know that missing the tournament was what we deserved. Yep - short term monetary increase (though less than they'd expect, I'd bet) at the possible expense of a long term branding/product quality loss. The NBA's ratings are drop consistently from the early 90s on -- and in the end, it mostly had to with diluted product, I think. The NHL almost ceased to exist, and a significant reason was over-expansion.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Feb 2, 2010 10:27:50 GMT -5
I would ask the NCAA to take a look at the Indiana state high school basketball tourney. WHen they went from a single class system to a multi-class system, the attendance and hype around the event died and now they struggle for attendance in the finals.
The mark of a good team was winning a sectional or advancing to semi-state and beyond. We had better teams in the late 80's & early 90's at my high school but never won a state title (even though we were ranked nationally) and now the kids have won a number of state titles but never get to go against the big schools that we used to routinely beat.
A sweet sixteen is a big deal now. That will be diluted with sub-par teams getting in and the opening rounds which are some of the greatest TV of the year will be pointless.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Feb 2, 2010 12:12:11 GMT -5
I'm not sure how much more money it generates. As it stands now, Thursday and Friday are my two of my favorite sports watching days of the year. Does the casual fan get excited about the 33rd-96th teams playing on Tuesday/Wednesday? I'd watch, but even I'm not especially excited about that. And it then takes away a lot of what's special about Thursday/Friday.
Also, the 9/10/11 seeds get really hurt by this. You've got to beat a team (granted, this team is one of the bottom 12 conference champions, but you still have to prepare) and then turn around two days later and play a team that is fully rested and has had an eternity to scout you. To make it to the second week of play, you have to win three games in five days. Once people start realizing upsets are more and more unlikely, I think interest in the first week starts to wane.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 2, 2010 12:57:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure how much more money it generates. As it stands now, Thursday and Friday are my two of my favorite sports watching days of the year. Does the casual fan get excited about the 33rd-96th teams playing on Tuesday/Wednesday? I'd watch, but even I'm not especially excited about that. And it then takes away a lot of what's special about Thursday/Friday. Also, the 9/10/11 seeds get really hurt by this. You've got to beat a team (granted, this team is one of the bottom 12 conference champions, but you still have to prepare) and then turn around two days later and play a team that is fully rested and has had an eternity to scout you. To make it to the second week of play, you have to win three games in five days. Once people start realizing upsets are more and more unlikely, I think interest in the first week starts to wane. It's still more money. It is 32 more games. Invariably, there will be a bunch of mediocre state schools in there which have enough alumni to watch and fill an arena. Don't be surprised to see the first leg not at a neutral site. If it isn't, the home game alone will be enough to incent schools. Add in that much of the games will probably occur when ESPN is showing bowling and they will pay something for them. Extra money is almost pure profit is your labor costs are free. I'm not sure upsets are less likely -- What's the turnaround time for a 9/8 seed? If they add a third weekend, why would that affect it. Who really gets screwed are the 1, 2 and maybe 3 and 4 seeds which have much less meaning. The current 13-16 seeds will likely drop much further, leaving the 1-4 seed to play the winner of the "new" 16/17 game -- which is more or less a 12/13 seed. Given there's a whole crew of mediocre schools right around the bubble, the four seeds will likely play a similar brand of team, but the 1 seed will get a substantially tougher team. Which might actually lead to more upsets. I personally HATE byes. Losing that first game sucks even if you already are in the "second round." It just feels worse.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 2, 2010 14:40:24 GMT -5
Who really gets screwed are the 1, 2 and maybe 3 and 4 seeds which have much less meaning. The current 13-16 seeds will likely drop much further, leaving the 1-4 seed to play the winner of the "new" 16/17 game -- which is more or less a 12/13 seed. Given there's a whole crew of mediocre schools right around the bubble, the four seeds will likely play a similar brand of team, but the 1 seed will get a substantially tougher team. Which might actually lead to more upsets. I personally HATE byes. Losing that first game sucks even if you already are in the "second round." It just feels worse. These issues bother me as well. I think the only way to do it right, to avoid the problems of byes and weird resulting seeding, would be to go to 128, which I think is way too big.
|
|
cincyhoya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 165
|
Post by cincyhoya on Feb 2, 2010 14:53:48 GMT -5
Not sure I follow the hate on this idea. What's wrong with letting UNC (say #10 in the ACC and maybe an 18 seed in this format) play Harvard (say #2 in the Ivy and maybe a 15 seed in this format). Now if I'm GU at the #2 seed line, I don't like the prospect of facing one of these teams instead of Morgan State like in the current format, but....
On the flip side, if I'm Morgan State and as a 23 seed and get a crack at Cal as a 10 seed, maybe, just maybe, I have a shot - certainly a better shot than at GU. And if I'm Morgan State and win that game and then get Butler, well hell, who's to say that's a lock? If anything, I think this opens up the possibility for more upsets rather than less.
All that said, an over .500 record has to be a mandate, though I don't think in conference should be a big issue. If the Big XII is having a fantastic year and say the Big East has 4 putrid teams, you should include / exclude based on resulting inflated / depressed conference records.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Feb 2, 2010 15:18:54 GMT -5
I don't liek the idea of crappy major conference teams getting rewarded for mediocrity. I think we all assume the new spots will mostly go to weak major confernece teams rather than mid majors and the mid majors that do get in will be forced to play in this opening round sure they might have a more likely shot at winning a game but they have a lot less of a shot to reach a sweet 16 or pull a George Mason.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Feb 2, 2010 17:20:10 GMT -5
Obviously this is tv revenue driven but i just cant see that it will work how they want. All those teams playing on the first two days are mediocre teams playing mediocre teams. You know what that is? the regular season. No one wants to watch Iowa State play Kent St. in the first round, even people from Iowa State and Kent state. The games you would get are just NIT games being called NCAA games. Maybe you get a little more revenue because its another game that is on. but no one is going to skip work (well no sane people or enough to make much of a difference) to watch the first round games.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Feb 3, 2010 0:36:34 GMT -5
This is a really dumb idea. With 96 teams, the regular season and the conference tournaments will become absolutely meaningless. Any incremental revenue the NCAA would gain from the extra games would be dissipated with more lost revenue during the regular season. With everyone watching hockey until the real basketball season begins in mid-March, most people won't even care anymore once the real season games begin on March 15th. Who is the moron pushing this idea? This is a suicide proposal for big time college basketball.
|
|
lurkerhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by lurkerhoya on Feb 3, 2010 10:51:43 GMT -5
My solution to the awful play in game has always been this.
Expand the field to 72.
Make the 8-9 seeds the winners of play-in games. Not only are you adding those few bubble teams that we're actually getting concerned are left out, but then you actually have games people would watch midweek.
I too like the small teams getting their shots and this preserves it while making this teams claiming they deserve it, prove it.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Mar 31, 2010 16:49:18 GMT -5
As I mentioned in another thread, apparently the Commissioner of the Big 10 was at the NIT semifinals last night and during an interview said that expansion next year was "probable." I didn't hear the actual interview, so I don't know whether the 96 team suggestion was specifically mentioned by him or not, but all day they have been talking about it as it is 96 teams. So for discussion purposes, I will presume that is the "number."
The best suggestion within this framework that I have heard works like this:
1. Top 32 teams get byes.
2. The next 64 teams play the first round on the campus of the higher seeded team, so in this example, the team seeded 33rd would host the team seeded 96th and so forth.
3. The remaining 64 teams commence in a manner similar to what we have now, but with one exception. They need to have 16 sites instead of 8. That would increase fan interest and attendance, as schools will be twice as likely to be closer to campus. Additionally, when they get 8 teams at one site, there is just too little interest in too many of the games among the fans who make the trip.
4. Lastly, the teams that lose in the first round game -- mostly the road teams, many of which currently comprise the 14th through 16th seeds now, become the field for the NIT.
There you have it.
Thoughts?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Mar 31, 2010 17:48:08 GMT -5
As I mentioned in another thread, apparently the Commissioner of the Big 10 was at the NIT semifinals last night and during an interview said that expansion next year was "probable." I didn't hear the actual interview, so I don't know whether the 96 team suggestion was specifically mentioned by him or not, but all day they have been talking about it as it is 96 teams. So for discussion purposes, I will presume that is the "number." The best suggestion within this framework that I have heard works like this: 1. Top 32 teams get byes. 2. The next 64 teams play the first round on the campus of the higher seeded team, so in this example, the team seeded 33rd would host the team seeded 96th and so forth. 3. The remaining 64 teams commence in a manner similar to what we have now, but with one exception. They need to have 16 sites instead of 8. That would increase fan interest and attendance, as schools will be twice as likely to be closer to campus. Additionally, when they get 8 teams at one site, there is just too little interest in too many of the games among the fans who make the trip. 4. Lastly, the teams that lose in the first round game -- mostly the road teams, many of which currently comprise the 14th through 16th seeds now, become the field for the NIT. There you have it. Thoughts? That's a ridiculously over-complicated proposal. For starters, some teams out there (like Georgetown) would have trouble scheduling a post-season game on their own turf. Getting a Verizon Center date would be very tough, and would we really play an NCAA Tournament game in McDonough? 16 sites would also be bad. As anybody who's gone to first round games can tell you, there's always a LOT of empty seats, although they're probably all sold. It looks bad on TV, it's bad for atmosphere, and doubling the number of sites would just make it worse. It's also more expensive for the NCAA, so it will never happen. The best proposals I've heard are the ones that add play-in games, and have only at-large teams playing in the play-in games.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Mar 31, 2010 20:00:08 GMT -5
= The best proposals I've heard are the ones that add play-in games, and have only at-large teams playing in the play-in games. That would be the best case, though i am still very against the whole deal. At least this way the smaller conferences are rewarded for winning their conference. It would have been an injustice if this years cornell team had to play a play-in then a real tournament game
|
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 376
|
Post by mchoya on Mar 31, 2010 22:16:57 GMT -5
4. Lastly, the teams that lose in the first round game -- mostly the road teams, many of which currently comprise the 14th through 16th seeds now, become the field for the NIT. Wait - I thought the NCAA wanted to get rid of paying the operating costs for the NIT - why would they expand and then have an NIT afterwards? That's absolutely asinine. I thought the NCAA was killing the golden goose by expanding to 96- now it looks like they're gonna kill it but they don't know whether it's with an axe or by strangling it.
|
|