goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: cas4ksu on March 20, 2010, 02:01:19 PM
-
You may be asking. WTF is cas doing? Why is this punk asking for help on his comp paper on goEMAW.com? Well as an distinguished English professor already established, goEMAW.com is a beautiful thing.
Argumentation topic: Why the NCAA Tournament field should NOT be expanded to 96 teams.
I've already est. the following, "I argue that the NCAA Tournament should not expand the field because it would decrease the value of the regular season, the selection process would still be under question, the quality of basketball would be diluted, and it would make the tournament less of a spectacle."
So yeah. Help would be great. Poster intimidation is also welcome.
-
can't think of any good reason why they shouldn't.
Perhaps because old people like things the way they are, with any sort of change rattling them to the core? I'd roll with that.
-
opening round would be crap, they would either move all the conference champs so they play inferior competition and therefore have less impressive upsets or they would have teams more deserving of bids playing an extra game. The bitching about who makes it or not would be the same but instead about who gets a bye.
-
I'd include that one way to ensure a competitive market for high-quality coaches is to have meaningful metrics to distinguish between poor, mediocre, average and above average coaches. The 65 team tourney + (32team NIT) efficiently provides pressure on coaches to perform and provides enough churn at the lower middle to bottom to give new coaches opportunities at Major conference schools. This provides more opportunities for younger coaches/minority hires spurs innovation (pastner/te 420k) as well as promoting a social good (affirmative action w/out quotas).
Would definitely mention that the idea that a much higher percentage of mid-majors would be included is fool's gold (look at NIT field).
-
can't think of any good reason why they shouldn't.
Perhaps because old people like things the way they are, with any sort of change rattling them to the core? I'd roll with that.
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it expanded to 96 and everyone absolutely loved it.
-
I would be a terrible idea. It would dilute the entire season of work. IF we had 96 this year teams like UNC would get in. It would make the regular season a joke and would allow teams of FPs and TCs to get into a dnace they don't deserve.
-
I would be a terrible idea. It would dilute the entire season of work. IF we had 96 this year teams like UNC would get in. It would make the regular season a joke and would allow teams of FPs and TCs to get into a dnace they don't deserve.
:lol: Your mom agrees. can't take it back now.
-
IMHO One game does not always show who the better team is overall. Thus an inferior team can win one any given night, does expanding to 96 really help us find the best team in the nation, or just put more money in the greedy NCAA's pocket.
-
Thanks for being jerks and not actually helping cas bros.
Talking points that teachers would love
Cheapening regular season, potential impact to ticket sales for schools
Chances of a team in the 65-96 range actually making the elite eight/final four/championship
Time away from classes for the athletes (If the NCAA can use it as a talking point to prevent a D1 football playoff, you can use it as a talking point against expanding the dance)
Dilutes viewer interest in the early rounds of the tournament because it's less exclusive and the quality of play goes down.
I'm sure there's more, but that's a good start.
-
I don't think they should expand it to 96, but I do think they should expand it to 80 because the bottom 16 teams are typically garbage automatic bids from terrible conferences. Get rid of them in 16 play-in games so we don't have to watch as many boring, pointless games in the first round between the top and bottom-of-the-barrel seeds.
-
Simple...too much of a good thing is a rough ridin' awesome thing.
Doesn't really support your argument though...maybe you should change your thesis.