Column On How To Do The 68 Team Tourney

SUMG · June 29, 2010

http://florida.scout.com/2/980435.html

I'm sorry for the conferences that have been getting stuck in the play-in games. But that is the only fair way to do this. The teams determined to be teams 61-68 should be in the play-in games. If you do some kind of rotational crap...how fair is that? One year you might have say the 56th team playing a play-in game....while the 68th doesn't have to. If your league and teams are so bad...the onus is on your league/teams to get better and avoid play-in games that way. And I say this....even if a SBC team (like UNT) was to be considered 61-68. If we're rated that low...we should have to play in the play-in game.

CMJ · June 29, 2010

Yeah, it really needs to be the last 8 seeded teams in the field. Hell, if they don't change the way shares work - the winners of those opening round games will get more money than teams that lose in the traditional first round.

Edited June 29, 2010 by CMJ

GoMeanGreen1999 · June 30, 2010

http://florida.scout.com/2/980435.html

I'm sorry for the conferences that have been getting stuck in the play-in games. But that is the only fair way to do this. The teams determined to be teams 61-68 should be in the play-in games. If you do some kind of rotational crap...how fair is that? One year you might have say the 56th team playing a play-in game....while the 68th doesn't have to. If your league and teams are so bad...the onus is on your league/teams to get better and avoid play-in games that way. And I say this....even if a SBC team (like UNT) was to be considered 61-68. If we're rated that low...we should have to play in the play-in game.

Agree. I think they ought to just expand the thing to 96 or 128.

Army of Dad · June 30, 2010

Agree. I think they ought to just expand the thing to 96 or 128.

I disagree. I do not want it expanded any more. They have all the teams they need right now (actually they had them all back when they had 64). Besides, any expansion will not help UNT.

I can see both sides of making the last teams in the field play their way in. I actually like that idea a lot. No more pissing and moaning about being a bubble team. Prove you are good enough to be here by winning. On the other hand that would make travel and seeding more a problem.

I think we can all agree that the NCAA will find a way to screw it up somehow.

SUMG · June 30, 2010

I can see both sides of making the last teams in the field play their way in. I actually like that idea a lot. No more pissing and moaning about being a bubble team. Prove you are good enough to be here by winning. On the other hand that would make travel and seeding more a problem.

I think we can all agree that the NCAA will find a way to screw it up somehow.

I wouldn't have a problem if they made those bubble teams, the last ones in the tourney....have to play play-in games. As a matter of fact--I would love that. Make them earn it.

But I don't think that will ever happen. Because those bubble teams....are often teams from the power conferences.....AND they are usually better than the typical 64th or 65th teams (or the 61-68 in the new field). Therefore, the #1 seeds will still want opening round games against Prairie View, Coppin State or whatever....instead of say an opening round game against Mississippi State.

GoMeanGreen1999 · June 30, 2010

I disagree. I do not want it expanded any more. They have all the teams they need right now (actually they had them all back when they had 64). Besides, any expansion will not help UNT.

I can see both sides of making the last teams in the field play their way in. I actually like that idea a lot. No more pissing and moaning about being a bubble team. Prove you are good enough to be here by winning. On the other hand that would make travel and seeding more a problem.

I think we can all agree that the NCAA will find a way to screw it up somehow.

I guess the reason I say that is because I am tired of hearing this "expanding" talk year after year only for them to add one or two teams ever so often - I just think they are headed to the 96 or 128 eventually anyways. I thought the tourney was fine with 64 teams. I never watch the play in game...nor will I watch any of the expanded games in the future (unless we are in it or them).

Edited June 30, 2010 by GoMeanGreen1999

SUMG · June 30, 2010

I guess the reason I say that is because I am tired of hearing this "expanding" talk year after year only for them to add one or two teams ever so often - I just think they are headed to the 96 or 128 eventually anyways. I thought the tourney was fine with 64 teams. I never watch the play in game...nor will I watch any of the expanded games in the future.

What if we're in the play-in game? A very real possibility.

Army of Dad · June 30, 2010

What if we're in the play-in game? A very real possibility.

I am going to think positively and say that we will be so awesome that we will never be in a play-in game!

CMJ · June 30, 2010

More than likely we woul've been last year (not sure who the highest 15 seed was, only they would've been safe).

GoMeanGreen1999 · June 30, 2010

What if we're in the play-in game? A very real possibility.

I fixed my post. Of course I will watch our guys if we are in the tourney. For the most part though without us in them (or the Hogs) I won't watch it. It is kind of like all of the bowls. Outside of the mainstay bowls, if the Mean Green or the Hogs are not in the games, I don't watch them.

GrayEagle · July 1, 2010

I wouldn't have a problem if they made those bubble teams, the last ones in the tourney....have to play play-in games. As a matter of fact--I would love that. Make them earn it.
But I don't think that will ever happen. Because those bubble teams....are often teams from the power conferences.....AND they are usually better than the typical 64th or 65th teams (or the 61-68 in the new field). Therefore, the #1 seeds will still want opening round games against Prairie View, Coppin State or whatever....instead of say an opening round game against Mississippi State.

I know that the #1 seed wants to play a gimme but wouldn't it make more exciting games if #1 played #9 in the upper bracket, #2 played #10 in the lower bracket, #3 vs. #11 in the upper bracket, #4 against the 12th seed in the lower, etc.? The higher seeds would still mostly win but the games should be much closer.

CMJ · July 1, 2010

That wouldn't really be fair though? Usually if you're the 1 seed in any spore you're gonna get the last team into the playoffs in the first round. Unless a Wild Card team is from the same division as the overall top seed (like happens in baseball with some regularity) - those teams never play in the Division round...only the LCS.

Edited July 1, 2010 by CMJ

Army of Dad · July 1, 2010

That wouldn't really be fair though? Usually if you're the 1 seed in any spore you're gonna get the last team into the playoffs in the first round. Unless a Wild Card team is from the same division as the overall top seed (like happens in baseball with some regularity) - those teams never play in the Division round...only the LCS.

Fair isn't the right word for this, at least not where the actual games are concerned.

#1 seeds are supposed to win at least 2-3 games. That means 2-3 shares. The power schools & conferences will never support a system that could endanger some of "their" money. Giving a #1 seed a tougher first round match up will eventually cost them some money.

CMJ · July 1, 2010

Fair isn't the right word for this, at least not where the actual games are concerned.

#1 seeds are supposed to win at least 2-3 games. That means 2-3 shares. The power schools & conferences will never support a system that could endanger some of "their" money. Giving a #1 seed a tougher first round match up will eventually cost them some money.

Well, nine seeds are often power conference teams as well.

Army of Dad · July 1, 2010

Well, nine seeds are often power conference teams as well.

Unless I misunderstood you, you were responding to GrayEagle's point about making bubble teams play in would create more exciting first round matchups. In that case we aren't talking about 1 vs. 8/9 where the #1 already won one game and is guaranteed to have two shares we are talking about being one and done and getting just one share.

CMJ · July 1, 2010

No, GrayEagle was saying 1's should play 9's first round and so on down the line till you get to 8 vs 16's. I don't think that would properly benefit teams that had great seasons - conference be damned. An 8 seed would probably be more likely to have an easy win than a 1 seed, which makes no sense.