Quote: Originally Posted By nbstowman on 4/23/2010
The 4 playins, all at large teams, should get the 16 seeds. Thus all the teams in the tournament need to actually play 6 real games to become the champion. Yes,yes whats the benefit of being the one seed then?....Thoughts?

Quote: Originally Posted By cornfused on 4/23/2010This is a great change, assuming that the play-in games stay as 16 vs 17.

If you're a bubble team (Dayton, U of I, VT kind of thing) you get in as an 11 or 12 instead of playing the NIT.

If you're an undeserving low-conference champ, you still get the status quo: you're going to get crushed by a 1 or a 2 seed in the first round. But actually, you'll get a competitive game in the NCAA tournament first, too. If I were a 16 seed, I'd rather lose a close one in the play-in game than show up and have my only NCAA experience be a forty-point loss where half of the other team's points are on alley-oop dunks.

If you're a deserving low-conference champ (Ohio, Siena, Cornell, that kind of thing,) the worst that happens to you is that you move one seed down (maybe Cornell gets a 13 instead of a 12 'cause Illinois, VT, RI get 11s.)

And if you're a fan, you get less blowouts and more of those sorta-deserving NIT-final-four-type teams playing in the 5-12, 6-11, and 4-13 games.

Plus, you get 67 televised games.

Oh, and the expansion to 96 teams didn't happen. So I'm really happy about that, too.

Quote: Originally Posted By l_eustachy on 4/23/2010

Quote: Originally posted by vandydave on 4/22/2010
all this earning your way in by beating a bunch of bad teams in a bad conference talk is awful. most small conference champions shouldnt even be there to begin with.

get rid of automatic bids.

Technically I think you are right VD, although as I'm fond of saying if the qualifier "technically" describes your argument then your argument is not strong.
To me those small teams are part of the magic of the tournament, when david does defeat goliath. As a Cyclone fan I know of which I speak; in 2001 when 15-seed Hampton knocked out my 2-seed Cyclones (who had admittedly overachieved that season), while I smarted at the loss as a fan of the Cyclones, I was also--as a fan of the Game--tickled to see the joy of those kids who just went out and played with nothing to lose, and won.
Those kind of moments make a big part of tournamant memories for me, and I think for many others. And so, for that reason, while I agree that those teams are not going to win it (and by that perhaps don't belong), I want them to stay.

If we want to get rid of teams that don't belong perhaps we reduce the size of the tournament to 32 teams and simply take the top 32 teams. But I'm guessing you wouldn't favor that approach. Am I right

Quote: Originally Posted By cburton23 on 4/23/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By cornfused on 4/23/2010
This is a great change, assuming that the play-in games stay as 16 vs 17.

If you're a bubble team (Dayton, U of I, VT kind of thing) you get in as an 11 or 12 instead of playing the NIT.

If you're an undeserving low-conference champ, you still get the status quo: you're going to get crushed by a 1 or a 2 seed in the first round. But actually, you'll get a competitive game in the NCAA tournament first, too. If I were a 16 seed, I'd rather lose a close one in the play-in game than show up and have my only NCAA experience be a forty-point loss where half of the other team's points are on alley-oop dunks.

If you're a deserving low-conference champ (Ohio, Siena, Cornell, that kind of thing,) the worst that happens to you is that you move one seed down (maybe Cornell gets a 13 instead of a 12 'cause Illinois, VT, RI get 11s.)

And if you're a fan, you get less blowouts and more of those sorta-deserving NIT-final-four-type teams playing in the 5-12, 6-11, and 4-13 games.

Plus, you get 67 televised games.

Oh, and the expansion to 96 teams didn't happen. So I'm really happy about that, too.

That is an awful reason. Do you really think that VT, Illinois, or RI belonged in the tourney this year. By making those at large teams play in the play-in game they get one last chance to answer the question of if they belong or not. Thats how it needs to be

Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 4/23/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By cburton23 on 4/23/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By cornfused on 4/23/2010
This is a great change, assuming that the play-in games stay as 16 vs 17.

If you're a bubble team (Dayton, U of I, VT kind of thing) you get in as an 11 or 12 instead of playing the NIT.

If you're an undeserving low-conference champ, you still get the status quo: you're going to get crushed by a 1 or a 2 seed in the first round. But actually, you'll get a competitive game in the NCAA tournament first, too. If I were a 16 seed, I'd rather lose a close one in the play-in game than show up and have my only NCAA experience be a forty-point loss where half of the other team's points are on alley-oop dunks.

If you're a deserving low-conference champ (Ohio, Siena, Cornell, that kind of thing,) the worst that happens to you is that you move one seed down (maybe Cornell gets a 13 instead of a 12 'cause Illinois, VT, RI get 11s.)

And if you're a fan, you get less blowouts and more of those sorta-deserving NIT-final-four-type teams playing in the 5-12, 6-11, and 4-13 games.

Plus, you get 67 televised games.

Oh, and the expansion to 96 teams didn't happen. So I'm really happy about that, too.

That is an awful reason. Do you really think that VT, Illinois, or RI belonged in the tourney this year. By making those at large teams play in the play-in game they get one last chance to answer the question of if they belong or not. Thats how it needs to be.

just absurd, a VT or Illinois sure as heck belongs more than some 150 RPI team that didnt beat a quality opponent all season

Quote: Originally posted by cornfused on 4/23/2010This is a great change, assuming that the play-in games stay as 16 vs 17.

If you're a bubble team (Dayton, U of I, VT kind of thing) you get in as an 11 or 12 instead of playing the NIT.

If you're an undeserving low-conference champ, you still get the status quo: you're going to get crushed by a 1 or a 2 seed in the first round. But actually, you'll get a competitive game in the NCAA tournament first, too. If I were a 16 seed, I'd rather lose a close one in the play-in game than show up and have my only NCAA experience be a forty-point loss where half of the other team's points are on alley-oop dunks.

If you're a deserving low-conference champ (Ohio, Siena, Cornell, that kind of thing,) the worst that happens to you is that you move one seed down (maybe Cornell gets a 13 instead of a 12 'cause Illinois, VT, RI get 11s.)

And if you're a fan, you get less blowouts and more of those sorta-deserving NIT-final-four-type teams playing in the 5-12, 6-11, and 4-13 games.

Plus, you get 67 televised games.

Oh, and the expansion to 96 teams didn't happen. So I'm really happy about that, too.

Quote: Originally Posted By blackdog3377 on 4/23/2010

Quote: Originally posted by cornfused on 4/23/2010 This is a great change, assuming that the play-in games stay as 16 vs 17.

If you're a bubble team (Dayton, U of I, VT kind of thing) you get in as an 11 or 12 instead of playing the NIT.

If you're an undeserving low-conference champ, you still get the status quo: you're going to get crushed by a 1 or a 2 seed in the first round. But actually, you'll get a competitive game in the NCAA tournament first, too. If I were a 16 seed, I'd rather lose a close one in the play-in game than show up and have my only NCAA experience be a forty-point loss where half of the other team's points are on alley-oop dunks.

If you're a deserving low-conference champ (Ohio, Siena, Cornell, that kind of thing,) the worst that happens to you is that you move one seed down (maybe Cornell gets a 13 instead of a 12 'cause Illinois, VT, RI get 11s.)

And if you're a fan, you get less blowouts and more of those sorta-deserving NIT-final-four-type teams playing in the 5-12, 6-11, and 4-13 games.

Plus, you get 67 televised games.

Oh, and the expansion to 96 teams didn't happen. So I'm really happy about that, too.

Most important part of all of this IMO


There's nothing precluding it from happening in the future, though. Interim NCAA president Jim Isch said that "for now" they were expanding to 68 teams instead of 96, and that "everything was [still] on the table".

And the 14-year television deal with CBS allows for expansion during that timeframe. CBS Sports president Sean McManus said that the new TV deal the field size completely at the discretion of the NCAA.

So yeah, 68 is definitely better than 96, but I fully expect it is only an incremental step towards a much larger field in the not-too-distant future.

Quote: Originally Posted By cburton23 on 4/23/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 4/23/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By cburton23 on 4/23/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By cornfused on 4/23/2010
This is a great change, assuming that the play-in games stay as 16 vs 17.

If you're a bubble team (Dayton, U of I, VT kind of thing) you get in as an 11 or 12 instead of playing the NIT.

If you're an undeserving low-conference champ, you still get the status quo: you're going to get crushed by a 1 or a 2 seed in the first round. But actually, you'll get a competitive game in the NCAA tournament first, too. If I were a 16 seed, I'd rather lose a close one in the play-in game than show up and have my only NCAA experience be a forty-point loss where half of the other team's points are on alley-oop dunks.

If you're a deserving low-conference champ (Ohio, Siena, Cornell, that kind of thing,) the worst that happens to you is that you move one seed down (maybe Cornell gets a 13 instead of a 12 'cause Illinois, VT, RI get 11s.)

And if you're a fan, you get less blowouts and more of those sorta-deserving NIT-final-four-type teams playing in the 5-12, 6-11, and 4-13 games.

Plus, you get 67 televised games.

Oh, and the expansion to 96 teams didn't happen. So I'm really happy about that, too.

That is an awful reason. Do you really think that VT, Illinois, or RI belonged in the tourney this year. By making those at large teams play in the play-in game they get one last chance to answer the question of if they belong or not. Thats how it needs to be.

just absurd, a VT or Illinois sure as heck belongs more than some 150 RPI team that didnt beat a quality opponent all season.

Who does VT belong in over? Who? The only arguement is to get rid of the automatics from crap conferences. But that would be bad for basketball and more importantly is never going to heppen, so lets deal with reality and make the best of what we have

Quote: Originally Posted By cburton23 on 4/23/2010One aspect of all of this that I found interesting is the TV portion. While all games will be nationally televised, many of them will be on cable channels. Not everyone has TBS and TNT, and nobody I know has or has even heard of truTV

Quote: Originally Posted By emy1013 on 4/23/2010Of course, had there been a basketball BCS in place, Dave's beloved Dookies wouldn't have won the championship this season. Would have been either Kansas or Kentucky