thornski
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 155
|
Post by thornski on Apr 2, 2010 16:18:00 GMT -5
Hifi - you make a good point that there are a lower % of teams in the field of 96 that are not 1 of the best 96 best teams in the country than is currently the case with the 65 team field. But then why not expand to 128 or 256, cause then you'll get an even lower percentage of teams that don't truly belong. And then you solve the potential problems of the 24 seed playing the 8, etc. You just have the 1 seed playing the 32 seed or 64 seed. At some point you just have to draw the line, and I think the current system is just great.
And I also wouldn't mind reseeding for the first round - but at the same time that would completely kill off the office pool.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 2, 2010 16:52:26 GMT -5
I can't believe much thought has gone into this from a scheduling aspect, especially if they are looking to impliment this for next year. The way this reads they almost have to schedule the 3rd round and regionals at the same location. which would encompass booking the arena from monday through saturday. Sweet Sixteen plus 16 doesn't have much of ring to it. let alone having a fan base spend almost an entire weekin a glamor spot like Newark or Syracuse. I think they are making this like the tourney use to to be prior to the expansion back in the early eghties
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 2, 2010 17:05:10 GMT -5
I can't believe much thought has gone into this from a scheduling aspect, especially if they are looking to impliment this for next year. The way this reads they almost have to schedule the 3rd round and regionals at the same location. which would encompass booking the arena from monday through saturday. Sweet Sixteen plus 16 doesn't have much of ring to it. let alone having a fan base spend almost an entire weekin a glamor spot like Newark or Syracuse. I think they are making this like the tourney use to to be prior to the expansion back in the early eghties The other issue is what to do with sites that have already been selected next year? For example, the Pepsi Center in Denver has first and second round games. Do you play rounds 1-3 there, and what about the Nuggets and Avs? The Prudential Center in Newark has the second weekend. Do play round 3-5 there? What about the Devils?
|
|
momzer
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 560
|
Post by momzer on Apr 2, 2010 17:15:38 GMT -5
While I am totally against the expansion, the way to keep the integrity of neutral court is to have the play-in games 33-96 or 32 games be held on Tuesday and Wed at 4 sites, 4 games a day for two days and then have the Tuesday teams play on Thursday and Wed teams play on Friday. You could use Dayton (like it is now) and three other spots. You don't need huge arenas, because other than those teams in it, no one gives a hoot.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 2, 2010 17:46:36 GMT -5
KC thats my point the same thing will happen at the Phone Booth next year as well. I can just Imagine a 12 th seeded team playing in the ACC tourney championship on sunday afternoon and making plans to get to Denver for monday. Just Hope you don't get one of those Monster spring snow storms in Denver.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Apr 2, 2010 17:57:30 GMT -5
It's pretty absurd to imagine a team playing Friday, Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday.
And for everyone discussing some sort of tricky seeding method, is it unfair that a #1 seed currently has to face a team seeded no lower than 9 in round 2, and a 4/5 seed can easily get to the Sweet 16 playing 2 games against a 12 and 13 seed? If they did expand, it would definitely be a 9/24, 10/23, etc. One potential alternative would be just not seeding teams 65-96 and matching them up randomly with teams seeded 9-16. And by randomly I mean matching up any team from North Carolina seeded 9-16 with the worst team in the tournament, and matching up as many teams from the multi-bid mid-majors as possible.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Apr 2, 2010 19:19:18 GMT -5
I hear what you guys are saying, but just look at it for how it sets up in that mock bracket. A 1 seed would start its tourney run of 6 straight games by playing South Florida. That's a beast. Even for a team like Gtown, we'd up against Az State, and still have to win 6 games.
To me, the only benefit of the highest seeds is that they have a pretty easy first game. Obviously, they could still lose (see Gtown). But, what is even the benefit of a 1 seed in this system? You could easily end up with a harder game than a 2-7 seed.
My suggestion is that the opening round is just an extension of the play-in. Line up 8 16 seeds to play against each other for the right to play a #1. Line up 8 15-seeds to play for the right to play a #2, and so on.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,216
|
Post by hoyarooter on Apr 2, 2010 20:27:26 GMT -5
Playing Arizona State might have been a blessing. Perhaps then we would have won a tournament game.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Apr 2, 2010 23:50:28 GMT -5
I just wrote a rather eloquent and informative response to some of these comments, only to have them vanish, somewhere in the internet black hole. I don't feel bad for me. No, I feel bad for you all. Though I will try with all I have within me, I doubt that even I will be able to come close to recreating what was akin to a literary masterpiece, albeit at a different level. But you guys deserve it, so here goes:
(before you ask, yes, I did enjoy an adult beverage or 2ish earlier)
thornski wrote:
Hifi - you make a good point that there are a lower % of teams in the field of 96 that are not 1 of the best 96 best teams in the country than is currently the case with the 65 team field. But then why not expand to 128 or 256, cause then you'll get an even lower percentage of teams that don't truly belong. And then you solve the potential problems of the 24 seed playing the 8, etc. You just have the 1 seed playing the 32 seed or 64 seed. At some point you just have to draw the line, and I think the current system is just great.
And I also wouldn't mind reseeding for the first round - but at the same time that would completely kill off the office pool.
The answer that you like it as it is, is entirely acceptable. And I think I agree. That's probably why I said that I don't like the idea of expansion, even though when I break it down, I can't figure out why ... at least aside from the bracket feasability issue. But as for the "fairness," I think you see my point. The only certainty that the current system gives us is that there will be roughly a dozen conference champions that really have no business being in the "elite 65." But as for somehow "cheating" the top seeds, I honestly disagree with that argument. But I also don't agree with those who whine about the way the NBA does its playoffs, and that comes from someone who cares very little about the NBA anyway.
sleepy wrote:
The way this reads they almost have to schedule the 3rd round and regionals at the same location. which would encompass booking the arena from monday through saturday. Sweet Sixteen plus 16 doesn't have much of ring to it. let alone having a fan base spend almost an entire weekin a glamor spot like Newark or Syracuse.
That was what I was thinking at first as well. But even "if" the expansion happens, the specific format is, at least officially, still undecided. But if we are understanding it correctly, then I agree with you, even if it didn't happen to be a Newark or Syracuse. That much time in Chicago, LA or almost anywhere except Vegas could get really expensive really quickly.
momzar wrote:
While I am totally against the expansion, the way to keep the integrity of neutral court is to have the play-in games 33-96 or 32 games be held on Tuesday and Wed at 4 sites, 4 games a day for two days and then have the Tuesday teams play on Thursday and Wed teams play on Friday. You could use Dayton (like it is now) and three other spots. You don't need huge arenas, because other than those teams in it, no one gives a hoot.
While that makes some sense, that still increases the expenses tremendously for everyone involved except the 32 teams that lose their first game, and for them it's a wash with less to show for it. I think the best way to do the added round would be at the sites where the teams will be anyway, and again, I think expanding to 16 sites instead of 8 would be a huge advantage for almost everyone anyway, but especially with an added round.
freemoney wrote:
And for everyone discussing some sort of tricky seeding method, is it unfair that a #1 seed currently has to face a team seeded no lower than 9 in round 2, and a 4/5 seed can easily get to the Sweet 16 playing 2 games against a 12 and 13 seed? If they did expand, it would definitely be a 9/24, 10/23, etc. One potential alternative would be just not seeding teams 65-96 and matching them up randomly with teams seeded 9-16. And by randomly I mean matching up any team from North Carolina seeded 9-16 with the worst team in the tournament, and matching up as many teams from the multi-bid mid-majors as possible.
Ha ha to the last part. We all "know" that the committee doesn't care about the Dukes and UNCs of the world ... that's just some silly conspiracy theorists idea ... right??? As for the 1 facing an 8/9, I guess I see your point, in the same way that I really, REALLY don't want to be an 8 or 9 seed. In my mind, you typically have a game that isn't much different than you would being a 10 or 11, but if you win, you have a 1 staring you in the face. Same argument, from the opposite side. But at some point, isn't protecting the top seeds taken to an extreme ... even if they aren't named Duke?
GUJook wrote:
I hear what you guys are saying, but just look at it for how it sets up in that mock bracket. A 1 seed would start its tourney run of 6 straight games by playing South Florida. That's a beast. Even for a team like Gtown, we'd up against Az State, and still have to win 6 games.
To me, the only benefit of the highest seeds is that they have a pretty easy first game. Obviously, they could still lose (see Gtown). But, what is even the benefit of a 1 seed in this system? You could easily end up with a harder game than a 2-7 seed.
My suggestion is that the opening round is just an extension of the play-in. Line up 8 16 seeds to play against each other for the right to play a #1. Line up 8 15-seeds to play for the right to play a #2, and so on.
As for your first comments, I just think that is something that will happen at some point. The fact that it happens earlier because the top seeds have already "advanced" because they got byes can't really be blindly dismissed. As for your second suggestion, that is very similar to what I have said all along. The single play in game is a friggin joke. But if you were to have 4 of them, featuring similarly competitive small conference champions, then I think you could turn a negative into a positive. Your idea only expands on that further. And if we are going to expand anyway, then that's a good suggestion to consider.
That is enough for now. I hope I haven't butchered the language too much. I took one of my contact lenses out .. but man it feels better!
|
|
|
Post by weknowbball on Apr 5, 2010 2:21:18 GMT -5
This is crap. It irritates me so much I feel the need to complain on two boards. I want to see my Hoosiers earn their way back to the big dance.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Apr 5, 2010 8:54:32 GMT -5
I still say: 1. Expansion is a bad idea, period; and 2. If they are going to expand they should go to 72 for a three-year trial period to see how it plays out before jumping full-bore into 96; and 3. If they are going to go to 96, that extheblog method looks pretty good. I like that it protects the top 8 seeds.
|
|
dailey247
Century (over 100 posts)
Deleted
Posts: 126
|
Post by dailey247 on Apr 5, 2010 15:07:19 GMT -5
Just wanted to give a visual representation of one of the ideas kicking around this thread... If the new 1st round matched up teams evenly in every game, such that the top 8 seeds would still play their first game against an opponent of similar quality to the matchups from the first round of the current format, here's what the Midwest would have looked like this year: tinyurl.com/y9ehj2p
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 5, 2010 15:16:14 GMT -5
I still say: 1. Expansion is a bad idea, period; and 2. If they are going to expand they should go to 72 for a three-year trial period to see how it plays out before jumping full-bore into 96; and 3. If they are going to go to 96, that extheblog method looks pretty good. I like that it protects the top 8 seeds. It is a good thought in theory, but do you really think at the end of the three-year trial period, the NCAA's "evaluation" of the limited 72-team expansion would be anything short of a standing ovation?? They don't care what people think about it, they're going ahead with this no matter what. Might as well just do it, so we can get used to it faster.
|
|
PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on Apr 5, 2010 17:46:54 GMT -5
It seems likely to me that 96 is really just a precursor to 128 (which is some ways makes more sense than 96). It would end this hand wringing over which seeds play which in round two, as well as give them even more revenue. I wouldn't be shocked to see it proposed within 5 years of the switch to 96. Also, I'm kinda surprised by how much of the reaction to this move on this board and elsewhere is some element of disliking it because it's a change from the way things have always been (at least within the lifetimes of most of the board members). The NCAA wasn't always 64 teams, did moving to 64 from 53 teams ruin the tournament in 1984? Is our championship that much less valuable because we didn't have 11 more competitors that year? If this year's upset filled opening rounds proved anything, it's that there is more competitive parity deeper within men's basketball than ever before (and less in women's, but that's another matter), and that probably means it's safe to expand things to accommodate more teams. Are any of the teams currently missing likely to be a winner - no. That doesn't mean their inclusion somehow weakens the tournament. In a lot of ways the NCAA is just looking at it from a simple dollars and cents perspective. They currently own/host two tournaments, one of which is a money printing machine, the other of which is 40 years past it's heyday. Merging them makes a heck of a lot of sense in that it increases profits while decreasing costs. You may hate it as a purist, but exactly what are we being so sacred about if this will be the 10th change in field size since the tournament's inception?
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Apr 6, 2010 13:10:29 GMT -5
I think I would find it hard to invest in season tickets if we go to a 96 team tourney. Basically half the universe gets in. The regular season games, especially the ones in February have a little less meaning to me. I would rather save my money for the tournament and pay the price to see everyone in March. Instead of helping teams with more revenue, it can hurt the bigger schools, by selling less season tickerts and getting less donations.
|
|
damnhoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 650
|
Post by damnhoya on Apr 16, 2010 13:21:37 GMT -5
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Apr 16, 2010 15:29:08 GMT -5
It will not happen for next season. The NCAA has already sold all the fan tickets for the tournament except the final four. It would be a legal mess to change them. Mine went on my card two months ago, so they would get sued, just like charging an entry fee to get in the FF ticket lottery. Someone sued them over $5 fee for everyone-winners and losers
|
|
PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on Apr 16, 2010 16:09:51 GMT -5
It will not happen for next season. The NCAA has already sold all the fan tickets for the tournament except the final four. It would be a legal mess to change them. Mine went on my card two months ago, so they would get sued, just like charging an entry fee to get in the FF ticket lottery. Someone sued them over $5 fee for everyone-winners and losers Exactly how would it cause a legal mess? They've sold tickets for the round of 64 and 32. Those tickets will still be valid for the rounds of 64 and 32. Any new tickets would be for the 32 extra games in the round of 96. Essentially they'd be adding an event that in no way devalues the previously sold tickets. Of course anybody can sue over anything, but I'd be surprised if that claim would get very far. Exactly what would the complaint be, "I paid to see crappy games and they are now giving me the opportunity to see slightly less crappy ones?"
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Apr 16, 2010 17:06:52 GMT -5
The gambling lobby would never allow a re-seeding - it would wipe our the bracket contests - and remember - the NCAA doesn't pay attention to gambling as a draw just as much as the NFL doesn't.
And don't worry about the mid and low majors being freaked out by 20,000 seat arenas - there are only going to be 3,000 people at most of these games - they'll feel right at home with a 15% full house. Can you imagine how small the crowds will be for these games and how few tickets each school will get with 4 more teams at each site?
Plus the economy will go in the tank as two more days of worker productivity go down the drain.
|
|