KSUFans Archives
Sports => Frank Martin's OOD sponsored by the "Angriest Fans in America" => Topic started by: opcat on March 12, 2007, 04:55:48 PM
-
That Ncaa should expand from the 64 field. He made good points that NCaa always used to expand to include good teams and stopped doing it 20 years ago.
-
5 Good Minutes? I've got it on tape.
-
64 is enough. Hell, 65 is too many already. Just downgrade some of those conferences no one has ever heard of to D-1AA or something.
Or better yet, my friend had a great idea. Make the 16 worst conferences' tourney winners play 8 play-in games, to get rid of 8 worthless auto bids and open up more at-large opportunities for more worthy teams.
-
You don't really want more teams do you?
You guys know I have been firmly planted on the K-State should be in the tourney bandwagon, but I have to jump off if thats where this is going.
The tournament is big enough.
-
Or better yet, my friend had a great idea. Make the 16 worst conferences' tourney winners play 8 play-in games, to get rid of 8 worthless auto bids and open up more at-large opportunities for more worthy teams
Yes.
-
Don't expand.
-
Or better yet, my friend had a great idea. Make the 16 worst conferences' tourney winners play 8 play-in games, to get rid of 8 worthless auto bids and open up more at-large opportunities for more worthy teams
Yes.
I actually like this..
Going to 84 teams or something like that is just stupid.
Either split it into 2 or 3 divisions or go with play-in games. There's a reason no #1 seed has EVER lost...those 16 seeds are freaking HORRIBLE.
Hell, most of the 15 and 16 seeds are very, very bad.
-
Ummm, all of those play-in games basically are an expansion of the tournament. They're just seeded a little different.
-
Ummm, all of those play-in games basically are an expansion of the tournament. They're just seeded a little different.
Not at all.
-
Ummm, all of those play-in games basically are an expansion of the tournament. They're just seeded a little different.
Not at all.
Huh? By having all of those play-in games, you don't free up a bunch of at large spots?
Really?
-
It frees up 8 spots if you used his example of 16 teams in a play-in system
It wouldn't be a tournament system just eliminate the weaker teams
NOBODY cares about the 16 seeds except their few fans
Make these seeds more capable teams and you might see some 16s in the second round every once in a while
-
Ummm, all of those play-in games basically are an expansion of the tournament. They're just seeded a little different.
Not at all.
Huh? By having all of those play-in games, you don't free up a bunch of at large spots?
Really?
That isn't what I said, now is it? Those play-in games would be played prior to the Tourney, not on national TV, and the Tourney would stay at 64 teams. The quality of the product would be better, as well.
-
The purpose of the NCAA tournament is to determine a national champion. The secondary purpose is to reward great seasons. The last at large teams in the field get #12 seeds. Since no #12 seed has ever made a final four, they clearly aren't national title contenders. Two #11s have made the final four and they both lost on Saturday once they got there. The lowest seeded team to ever win it all is a #8.
This tournament doesn't need more middle of the road major conference teams. Teams like Syracuse and KSU this year didn't have great seasons and they had no shot at winning a national title even if they got in. I have no idea why people complain so much about teams that got left out while on the bubble. All those teams that got left out had plenty of chances to seperate themselves and get in. They all had chances to win their conference tournaments. Expanding the field is the worst idea ever and the only reason coaches want to do it is for their own job security.
-
Expand to 66 teams. Surely we'd be in.
-
Expanding the field is a dumb idea. Boeheim sounds like a whiney little kid, although I'm glad that it's at least calling some attention to the crappy job done by the committee.
I like Kougar's idea. Make the crappy conferences all play play-in games and open up at-large spots.
Something like relegation in soccer would also be nice to see with these crappy conferences. Your conference doesn't win a tourney game in, say, a 5 year period, and you're out. Get back to D-IAA or NAIA or whatever. These small conference autobids don't reward being good, because they're not. They don't even reward having good seasons, because a lot of the time some 5'8" skinny white kid from the middle of Iowa catches fire for some crappy team that finished fourth or fifth in the league and makes like 100 treys and they knock off the team that actually proved themselves during the season.
-
Expanding the field is a dumb idea. Boeheim sounds like a whiney little kid, although I'm glad that it's at least calling some attention to the crappy job done by the committee.
I like Kougar's idea. Make the crappy conferences all play play-in games and open up at-large spots.
Something like relegation in soccer would also be nice to see with these crappy conferences. Your conference doesn't win a tourney game in, say, a 5 year period, and you're out. Get back to D-IAA or NAIA or whatever. These small conference autobids don't reward being good, because they're not. They don't even reward having good seasons, because a lot of the time some 5'8" skinny white kid from the middle of Iowa catches fire for some crappy team that finished fourth or fifth in the league and makes like 100 treys and they knock off the team that actually proved themselves during the season.
Sweet, then you'd have the 43rd at large team b*tching and moaning about not getting in the field. Seriously, why do we need more at large spots? Where is the evidence that these teams have a shot at the national title?
-
Expanding the field is a dumb idea. Boeheim sounds like a whiney little kid, although I'm glad that it's at least calling some attention to the crappy job done by the committee.
I like Kougar's idea. Make the crappy conferences all play play-in games and open up at-large spots.
Something like relegation in soccer would also be nice to see with these crappy conferences. Your conference doesn't win a tourney game in, say, a 5 year period, and you're out. Get back to D-IAA or NAIA or whatever. These small conference autobids don't reward being good, because they're not. They don't even reward having good seasons, because a lot of the time some 5'8" skinny white kid from the middle of Iowa catches fire for some crappy team that finished fourth or fifth in the league and makes like 100 treys and they knock off the team that actually proved themselves during the season.
Sweet, then you'd have the 43rd at large team b*tching and moaning about not getting in the field. Seriously, why do we need more at large spots? Where is the evidence that these teams have a shot at the national title?
You are completely missing the point. Keep trying.
-
Expanding the field is a dumb idea. Boeheim sounds like a whiney little kid, although I'm glad that it's at least calling some attention to the crappy job done by the committee.
I like Kougar's idea. Make the crappy conferences all play play-in games and open up at-large spots.
Something like relegation in soccer would also be nice to see with these crappy conferences. Your conference doesn't win a tourney game in, say, a 5 year period, and you're out. Get back to D-IAA or NAIA or whatever. These small conference autobids don't reward being good, because they're not. They don't even reward having good seasons, because a lot of the time some 5'8" skinny white kid from the middle of Iowa catches fire for some crappy team that finished fourth or fifth in the league and makes like 100 treys and they knock off the team that actually proved themselves during the season.
Sweet, then you'd have the 43rd at large team b*tching and moaning about not getting in the field. Seriously, why do we need more at large spots? Where is the evidence that these teams have a shot at the national title?
You are completely missing the point. Keep trying.
What is your point? All the points in this thread that are trying to be made are irrational and angry and ridiculous.
-
The tourney doesn't need expanding. It is perfect with the # of teams we have now. The system could use some tweaking, but the # of teams is fine. By the way, Drunko, the tourney is not just to crown a nat'l champ. If that is the case, we don't need 64/65 teams. If a #8 is the lowest to ever win it, that means 32 teams is all we really need. The rest is a reward for a good season, and for smaller conference champs that would never make the NCAA's at 32 teams. How about the top 4 teams from each of the BCS conferences, the top 2 teams from the next tier, and so on. If a team that is not top 4 in your conference wins your tourney, your #4 doesn't go. Some criteria like that would make the conference relevant, instead of trying to make it less relevant like the selection committee is doing. After all, does Arkansas or Illinois really have a prayer to win it, anyway? Duke, a #7 seed in the ACC gets in as a #6 in the NCAA. Make teams earn it in conference. Then seed the tourney and separate teams from the same conference, like they do now.
-
Expanding the field is a dumb idea. Boeheim sounds like a whiney little kid, although I'm glad that it's at least calling some attention to the crappy job done by the committee.
I like Kougar's idea. Make the crappy conferences all play play-in games and open up at-large spots.
Something like relegation in soccer would also be nice to see with these crappy conferences. Your conference doesn't win a tourney game in, say, a 5 year period, and you're out. Get back to D-IAA or NAIA or whatever. These small conference autobids don't reward being good, because they're not. They don't even reward having good seasons, because a lot of the time some 5'8" skinny white kid from the middle of Iowa catches fire for some crappy team that finished fourth or fifth in the league and makes like 100 treys and they knock off the team that actually proved themselves during the season.
Sweet, then you'd have the 43rd at large team b*tching and moaning about not getting in the field. Seriously, why do we need more at large spots? Where is the evidence that these teams have a shot at the national title?
If it's only about having a shot at a national title, then we have 32 too many teams as it is, according to your calculations. Part of it is about having the chance to win a game or two and knock off somebody that might have a chance to win the national title and impact the national championship picture that way (see: Bucknell, Bradley, UTEP). Making the Sweet Sixteen is actually a pretty proud accomplishment itself for a lot of programs.
Right now, we have at least 5 teams (and probably closer to 8 ) every year who statistically have no chance to impact the tourney results in any way whatsoever. They're basically bye-game filler...there for an exhibition warm-up so the #1 and most of the #2 seeds don't have a day off. Get rid of those completely worthless teams, and add a few more at large teams who have a chance to actually impact the way the tourney plays out.
-
Irrational and ridiculous is the committee that picked the teams. Kansas State should have been in...and when they won the whole thing everyone would have seen how wrong they were. Doesn't matter...next year, Beasley, Evans and a stronger and more dominant Bennett. 1 seed.
-
Expanding the field is a dumb idea. Boeheim sounds like a whiney little kid, although I'm glad that it's at least calling some attention to the crappy job done by the committee.
I like Kougar's idea. Make the crappy conferences all play play-in games and open up at-large spots.
Something like relegation in soccer would also be nice to see with these crappy conferences. Your conference doesn't win a tourney game in, say, a 5 year period, and you're out. Get back to D-IAA or NAIA or whatever. These small conference autobids don't reward being good, because they're not. They don't even reward having good seasons, because a lot of the time some 5'8" skinny white kid from the middle of Iowa catches fire for some crappy team that finished fourth or fifth in the league and makes like 100 treys and they knock off the team that actually proved themselves during the season.
Sweet, then you'd have the 43rd at large team b*tching and moaning about not getting in the field. Seriously, why do we need more at large spots? Where is the evidence that these teams have a shot at the national title?
You are completely missing the point. Keep trying.
What is your point? All the points in this thread that are trying to be made are irrational and angry and ridiculous.
It's not about expanding the Tourney. It's about filling the bottom half of the bracket with teams from legit conferences who are more worthy than these auto bids from crappy conferences no one has ever heard of.
That is neither irrational nor ridiculous.
-
I am also of the opinion that "Division I" has been watered down way too much. 300+ teams in one division is ridiculous. Did anyone see the press conference for Niagra? Did you see their gym? My middle school had a bigger gym. Why are they in Division I? And I'm not trying to rag on them or anything, I'm just asking where is the line drawn?
-
Expanding the field is a dumb idea. Boeheim sounds like a whiney little kid, although I'm glad that it's at least calling some attention to the crappy job done by the committee.
I like Kougar's idea. Make the crappy conferences all play play-in games and open up at-large spots.
Something like relegation in soccer would also be nice to see with these crappy conferences. Your conference doesn't win a tourney game in, say, a 5 year period, and you're out. Get back to D-IAA or NAIA or whatever. These small conference autobids don't reward being good, because they're not. They don't even reward having good seasons, because a lot of the time some 5'8" skinny white kid from the middle of Iowa catches fire for some crappy team that finished fourth or fifth in the league and makes like 100 treys and they knock off the team that actually proved themselves during the season.
Sweet, then you'd have the 43rd at large team b*tching and moaning about not getting in the field. Seriously, why do we need more at large spots? Where is the evidence that these teams have a shot at the national title?
You are completely missing the point. Keep trying.
What is your point? All the points in this thread that are trying to be made are irrational and angry and ridiculous.
It's not about expanding the Tourney. It's about filling the bottom half of the bracket with teams from legit conferences who are more worthy than these auto bids from crappy conferences no one has ever heard of.
That is neither irrational nor ridiculous.
Again I ask, why do we need more middle of the road teams from big conferences that had mediocre seasons? What is the point? These teams have no shot at winning the tournament and didn't have great seasons that deserve to be rewarded. If you want to get rid of the really low level leagues, fine. But the solution then is to make the field smaller, not add more teams that had average seasons that don't have a shot to win it all.
All these posts are coming out of anger. You said yourself that you won't get over this for weeks. Most of this stuff is stupid. The tournament is considered the best thing in sports by most people. It gets fantastic ratings. It makes a crapload of money. A large part of that is the cinderella teams and the small teams that get a shot. It's not about rewarding big schools that were mediocre. That isn't part of the draw.
-
Expanding the field is a dumb idea. Boeheim sounds like a whiney little kid, although I'm glad that it's at least calling some attention to the crappy job done by the committee.
I like Kougar's idea. Make the crappy conferences all play play-in games and open up at-large spots.
Something like relegation in soccer would also be nice to see with these crappy conferences. Your conference doesn't win a tourney game in, say, a 5 year period, and you're out. Get back to D-IAA or NAIA or whatever. These small conference autobids don't reward being good, because they're not. They don't even reward having good seasons, because a lot of the time some 5'8" skinny white kid from the middle of Iowa catches fire for some crappy team that finished fourth or fifth in the league and makes like 100 treys and they knock off the team that actually proved themselves during the season.
Sweet, then you'd have the 43rd at large team b*tching and moaning about not getting in the field. Seriously, why do we need more at large spots? Where is the evidence that these teams have a shot at the national title?
You are completely missing the point. Keep trying.
What is your point? All the points in this thread that are trying to be made are irrational and angry and ridiculous.
It's not about expanding the Tourney. It's about filling the bottom half of the bracket with teams from legit conferences who are more worthy than these auto bids from crappy conferences no one has ever heard of.
That is neither irrational nor ridiculous.
Again I ask, why do we need more middle of the road teams from big conferences that had mediocre seasons? What is the point?
Middle-of-the-pack schools from conferences that matter have a much greater chance of knocking off big guns in the first round than crappy no-name teams who won the Middle Of Nowhere conference tournament and got an autobid. Hence, they would actually affect the outcome of the Tournament. Quit relating everything to chances of winning the national championship. That isn't the sole purpose of the Dance.
-
Expanding the field is a dumb idea. Boeheim sounds like a whiney little kid, although I'm glad that it's at least calling some attention to the crappy job done by the committee.
I like Kougar's idea. Make the crappy conferences all play play-in games and open up at-large spots.
Something like relegation in soccer would also be nice to see with these crappy conferences. Your conference doesn't win a tourney game in, say, a 5 year period, and you're out. Get back to D-IAA or NAIA or whatever. These small conference autobids don't reward being good, because they're not. They don't even reward having good seasons, because a lot of the time some 5'8" skinny white kid from the middle of Iowa catches fire for some crappy team that finished fourth or fifth in the league and makes like 100 treys and they knock off the team that actually proved themselves during the season.
Sweet, then you'd have the 43rd at large team b*tching and moaning about not getting in the field. Seriously, why do we need more at large spots? Where is the evidence that these teams have a shot at the national title?
You are completely missing the point. Keep trying.
What is your point? All the points in this thread that are trying to be made are irrational and angry and ridiculous.
It's not about expanding the Tourney. It's about filling the bottom half of the bracket with teams from legit conferences who are more worthy than these auto bids from crappy conferences no one has ever heard of.
That is neither irrational nor ridiculous.
Again I ask, why do we need more middle of the road teams from big conferences that had mediocre seasons? What is the point?
Middle-of-the-pack schools from conferences that matter have a much greater chance of knocking off big guns in the first round than crappy no-name teams who won the Middle Of Nowhere conference tournament and got an autobid. Hence, they would actually affect the outcome of the Tournament. Quit relating everything to chances of winning the national championship. That isn't the sole purpose of the Dance.
The purpose of the tournament is to crown a national champion and to reward teams that had very good seasons. How does adding more middle of the road teams from big leagues contribute to either of those things?
What are the other purposes of the tournament in your opinion?
-
Expanding the field is a dumb idea. Boeheim sounds like a whiney little kid, although I'm glad that it's at least calling some attention to the crappy job done by the committee.
I like Kougar's idea. Make the crappy conferences all play play-in games and open up at-large spots.
Something like relegation in soccer would also be nice to see with these crappy conferences. Your conference doesn't win a tourney game in, say, a 5 year period, and you're out. Get back to D-IAA or NAIA or whatever. These small conference autobids don't reward being good, because they're not. They don't even reward having good seasons, because a lot of the time some 5'8" skinny white kid from the middle of Iowa catches fire for some crappy team that finished fourth or fifth in the league and makes like 100 treys and they knock off the team that actually proved themselves during the season.
Sweet, then you'd have the 43rd at large team b*tching and moaning about not getting in the field. Seriously, why do we need more at large spots? Where is the evidence that these teams have a shot at the national title?
You are completely missing the point. Keep trying.
What is your point? All the points in this thread that are trying to be made are irrational and angry and ridiculous.
It's not about expanding the Tourney. It's about filling the bottom half of the bracket with teams from legit conferences who are more worthy than these auto bids from crappy conferences no one has ever heard of.
That is neither irrational nor ridiculous.
Again I ask, why do we need more middle of the road teams from big conferences that had mediocre seasons? What is the point?
Middle-of-the-pack schools from conferences that matter have a much greater chance of knocking off big guns in the first round than crappy no-name teams who won the Middle Of Nowhere conference tournament and got an autobid. Hence, they would actually affect the outcome of the Tournament. Quit relating everything to chances of winning the national championship. That isn't the sole purpose of the Dance.
The purpose of the tournament is to crown a national champion and to reward teams that had very good seasons. How does adding more middle of the road teams from big leagues contribute to either of those things?
What are the other purposes of the tournament in your opinion?
10-6 in the Big XII >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> XX-0 in some no-name conference. Period.
-
I think the NIT should consist of 16 teams, and the final 4 get to go to the Dance...
-
The purpose of the NCAA tournament is to determine a national champion. The secondary purpose is to reward great seasons. The last at large teams in the field get #12 seeds. Since no #12 seed has ever made a final four, they clearly aren't national title contenders. Two #11s have made the final four and they both lost on Saturday once they got there. The lowest seeded team to ever win it all is a #8.
This tournament doesn't need more middle of the road major conference teams. Teams like Syracuse and KSU this year didn't have great seasons and they had no shot at winning a national title even if they got in. I have no idea why people complain so much about teams that got left out while on the bubble. All those teams that got left out had plenty of chances to seperate themselves and get in. They all had chances to win their conference tournaments. Expanding the field is the worst idea ever and the only reason coaches want to do it is for their own job security.
God damn you are &@#%ing retard.
We didn't have a great season? Did you follow Arkansas at all this year? Stanford?
Also,
If only teams that have a legit shot of winning the National Title should get invitted...then why have 1's play 16's at all?
Or try explaining why a team like Texas Corpus Christi gets a SHOT...to win the National Title over a team that WON the National Title four years ago. I'm talking about Syracuse, who beat Kansas btw...ha
-
The purpose of the NCAA tournament is to determine a national champion. The secondary purpose is to reward great seasons. The last at large teams in the field get #12 seeds. Since no #12 seed has ever made a final four, they clearly aren't national title contenders. Two #11s have made the final four and they both lost on Saturday once they got there. The lowest seeded team to ever win it all is a #8.
This tournament doesn't need more middle of the road major conference teams. Teams like Syracuse and KSU this year didn't have great seasons and they had no shot at winning a national title even if they got in. I have no idea why people complain so much about teams that got left out while on the bubble. All those teams that got left out had plenty of chances to seperate themselves and get in. They all had chances to win their conference tournaments. Expanding the field is the worst idea ever and the only reason coaches want to do it is for their own job security.
God damn you are &*$@!ing retard.
We didn't have a great season? Did you follow Arkansas at all this year? Stanford?
Also,
If only teams that have a legit shot of winning the National Title should get invitted...then why have 1's play 16's at all?
Or try explaining why a team like Texas Corpus Christi gets a SHOT...to win the National Title over a team that WON the National Title four years ago. I'm talking about Syracuse, who beat Kansas btw...ha
You missed the other purpose. To reward teams that had very good seasons and to give every team in division 1 a shot. Part of the greatness of this tournament is that everybody gets a shot. KSU had their shot and didn't get it done. Same with Syracuse. And anybody arguing that this Syracuse team had a shot to win the national title this year either hasn't seen Syracuse play much or doesn't know anything about basketball.
And kougar, 10-6 in the Big 12 where 9 of those wins came against teams that aren't even good enough to make the NIT isn't as good as XX-0 in a smaller conference. It just isn't.
You guys need to take a step back and take time to think about the things that make this tourney great. Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney. Had KSU made it instead of Arkansas and Arkansas fans were complaining, I would be saying the exact same things.
-
Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.
Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse
who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.
-
Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.
Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse
who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.
The committee makes the decision. Do Florida St, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, West Virginia, and KSU have an argument that they deserve to get in? Yes. Do they have an argument that shows that they definitely are better than the teams that made it? No. Does it matter to the quality and the integrity of the tournament if one of those teams gets in instead of Arkansas or Stanford? No. Not one of those teams had exceptional years and not one of them had(or has in the cases of Ark and Stanford) a shot at winning it all. Those are the filler teams and they all have very similar resumes and any of them can win a game or two, but that is about it.
-
That isn't what I said, now is it? Those play-in games would be played prior to the tourney, not on national TV, and the Tourney would stay at 64 teams. The quality of the product would be better, as well.
They would be administered by the NCAA tournament, because they would have to be. Who else would oversee games played between champions of different conferences? All you are doing is adding 7 additional play-in games to the one that currently exists. Right now 65 teams are in the tournament, you'd have it be 72.
That's fine, it might be time for that. But call it what it is. Expansion.
-
And kougar, 10-6 in the Big 12 where 9 of those wins came against teams that aren't even good enough to make the NIT isn't as good as XX-0 in a smaller conference. It just isn't.
Please tell me you're f***ing joking. K-State, Tech, and OSU would all win any one of those sh***y conferences. I mean, I'd feel pretty f***ing good about our chances against Long Beach St. in a conference tourney.
-
And kougar, 10-6 in the Big 12 where 9 of those wins came against teams that aren't even good enough to make the NIT isn't as good as XX-0 in a smaller conference. It just isn't.
Please tell me you're f***ing joking. K-State, Tech, and OSU would all win any one of those sh***y conferences. I mean, I'd feel pretty f***ing good about our chances against Long Beach St. in a conference tourney.
Maybe you guys should go join the Big West Conference to see if that really is the case. As it is, I'm all for rewarding the little guy who had a great season in their league rather than some middle of the road big guy that didn't come close to winning their league or their league tourney.
-
Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.
Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse
who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.
The committee makes the decision. Do Florida St, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, West Virginia, and KSU have an argument that they deserve to get in? Yes. Do they have an argument that shows that they definitely are better than the teams that made it? No. Does it matter to the quality and the integrity of the tournament if one of those teams gets in instead of Arkansas or Stanford? No. Not one of those teams had exceptional years and not one of them had(or has in the cases of Ark and Stanford) a shot at winning it all. Those are the filler teams and they all have very similar resumes and any of them can win a game or two, but that is about it.
You keep talking about how certain teams don't have a shot at winning it all, which is absolutely false. Any team can win it and it is just a matter of time until an even higher seed (than previous winners) wins the NC.
-
Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.
Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse
who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.
The committee makes the decision. Do Florida St, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, West Virginia, and KSU have an argument that they deserve to get in? Yes. Do they have an argument that shows that they definitely are better than the teams that made it? No. Does it matter to the quality and the integrity of the tournament if one of those teams gets in instead of Arkansas or Stanford? No. Not one of those teams had exceptional years and not one of them had(or has in the cases of Ark and Stanford) a shot at winning it all. Those are the filler teams and they all have very similar resumes and any of them can win a game or two, but that is about it.
You keep talking about how certain teams don't have a shot at winning it all, which is absolutely false. Any team can win it and it is just a matter of time until an even higher seed (than previous winners) wins the NC.
Realistically, they don't have a shot. Statistically, the chance is so minimal that it's ridiculous. It's not just a matter of time before it happens. There is a reason that a 16 seed hasn't ever won a game and there is a reason that when ku won as a 6 seed it was considered one of the biggest upsets in tourney history. It's just such a statistical improbability that it takes a very strange chain of events for it to happen. And that is just a 6 seed.
-
Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.
Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse
who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.
The committee makes the decision. Do Florida St, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, West Virginia, and KSU have an argument that they deserve to get in? Yes. Do they have an argument that shows that they definitely are better than the teams that made it? No. Does it matter to the quality and the integrity of the tournament if one of those teams gets in instead of Arkansas or Stanford? No. Not one of those teams had exceptional years and not one of them had(or has in the cases of Ark and Stanford) a shot at winning it all. Those are the filler teams and they all have very similar resumes and any of them can win a game or two, but that is about it.
You keep talking about how certain teams don't have a shot at winning it all, which is absolutely false. Any team can win it and it is just a matter of time until an even higher seed (than previous winners) wins the NC.
Realistically, they don't have a shot. Statistically, the chance is so minimal that it's ridiculous. It's not just a matter of time before it happens. There is a reason that a 16 seed hasn't ever won a game and there is a reason that when ku won as a 6 seed it was considered one of the biggest upsets in tourney history. It's just such a statistical improbability that it takes a very strange chain of events for it to happen. And that is just a 6 seed.
Someone call up all the 9 seeds and tell them not to show up, seeing as how they have no shot to win it all. :jerkoff:
Your argument as to why K-State should have been snubbed is getting more retarded by the post.
-
Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.
Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse
who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.
The committee makes the decision. Do Florida St, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, West Virginia, and KSU have an argument that they deserve to get in? Yes. Do they have an argument that shows that they definitely are better than the teams that made it? No. Does it matter to the quality and the integrity of the tournament if one of those teams gets in instead of Arkansas or Stanford? No. Not one of those teams had exceptional years and not one of them had(or has in the cases of Ark and Stanford) a shot at winning it all. Those are the filler teams and they all have very similar resumes and any of them can win a game or two, but that is about it.
You keep talking about how certain teams don't have a shot at winning it all, which is absolutely false. Any team can win it and it is just a matter of time until an even higher seed (than previous winners) wins the NC.
Realistically, they don't have a shot. Statistically, the chance is so minimal that it's ridiculous. It's not just a matter of time before it happens. There is a reason that a 16 seed hasn't ever won a game and there is a reason that when ku won as a 6 seed it was considered one of the biggest upsets in tourney history. It's just such a statistical improbability that it takes a very strange chain of events for it to happen. And that is just a 6 seed.
Someone call up all the 9 seeds and tell them not to show up, seeing as how they have no shot to win it all. :jerkoff:
Your argument as to why K-State should have been snubbed is getting more retarded by the post.
My argument about KSU is that you weren't snubbed. Your resume wasn't any better than the resumes that Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, and Florida St had.
My argument about the teams not having a shot to win it all is an argument against the ridiculous idea to expand the field. Why in the world would it be good to expand the field to include more teams that can't win it all?
I'm sorry that you weren't able to follow the thread to see what I was arguing.