goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Jerome Tang Coaches Kansas State Basketball => Topic started by: ToupeeFearsTheBeard on April 15, 2010, 11:12:51 AM
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629
Please just keep this a 64 team tourney.. :lol: at no Nebraska, CU and OU
-
in what fantasy world would ISU make the tourny next year? Even if expanded to 128, there's no way. They are going to be terrible.
-
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
-
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
This. In 5 years this expansion will be looked at as a great change for the tornament. JMHO.
-
Terrible, just terrible.... :blindfold:
Changes all that is right in men's college basketball. Rewarding mediocrity... :flush:
-
Terrible, just terrible.... :blindfold:
Changes all that is right in men's college basketball. Rewarding mediocrity... :flush:
inorite! there are no mediocre or bad teams in a 64 team tournament!
-
How can he put UAB in the Cats' regional? That's like the hardest 18 seed out there.
-
Terrible, just terrible.... :blindfold:
Changes all that is right in men's college basketball. Rewarding mediocrity... :flush:
inorite! there are no mediocre or bad teams in a 64 team tournament!
You're right. We should bring it back to 32 or even 16 teams.
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629
Please just keep this a 64 team tourney.. :lol: at no Nebraska, CU and OU
Hate it. Cinderella schools from no-name conferences are what make the tourney great (if you don't count gambling), not early "quality" matchups b/w some sh*tty BCS school and Kentucky. Why does anyone care if Kentucky, or the likes, blows out Holy Cross or NC State?
Adding 32 teams to a tournament, that otherwise wouldn't make it, does not improve the quality. It's common sense. Anyone that doesn't understand this is either Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or a democrat.
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629
Please just keep this a 64 team tourney.. :lol: at no Nebraska, CU and OU
Hate it. Cinderella schools from no-name conferences are what make the tourney great (if you don't count gambling), not early "quality" matchups b/w some sh*tty BCS school and Kentucky. Why does anyone care if Kentucky, or the likes, blows out Holy Cross or NC State?
Adding 32 teams to a tournament, that otherwise wouldn't make it, does not improve the quality. It's common sense. Anyone that doesn't understand this is either Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or a democrat.
The difference is... :dunno:
-
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
So the new first round isn't part of the tournament? :dunno:
Better argument would be regarding the number of auto bids, not ignoring the crapty round of 33-96.
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629
Please just keep this a 64 team tourney.. :lol: at no Nebraska, CU and OU
Hate it. Cinderella schools from no-name conferences are what make the tourney great (if you don't count gambling), not early "quality" matchups b/w some sh*tty BCS school and Kentucky. Why does anyone care if Kentucky, or the likes, blows out Holy Cross or NC State?
Adding 32 teams to a tournament, that otherwise wouldn't make it, does not improve the quality. It's common sense. Anyone that doesn't understand this is either Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or a democrat.
It all depends on the criteria for making it.
There seems to be some confusion between "watering down the field" and "watering down the requirments to make the field". Expanding the field in no way waters down the tournament, it just creates more games. And as Rusty said, if anything, by the time you get to 64 teams, the field will actually be tougher than any 64 team field has ever been b/c you'll get rid of all those low-major teams that are terrible. And you'll create more interest for more teams in the long run b/c more teams will get an opportunity.
Now, it is fair to say it does waterdown the regular season a bit, because now you can get in with a below .500 league record from big conferences. And it changes the nature of the conference tournaments (and we really won't know the ramifications of this for awhile) and what "bubble teams" need to do to get in, mainly in that it shifts bubble teams in the Big 12 from the #6-7 teams to perhaps the #8-9 (or even lower) teams. But there will still be intrigue for teams. For example, if you are #3-5ish in the league, you're going to want to play your way into being one of the top 32 teams b/c you won't want to play that extra game in the dance and will want those extra 2 days off.
Expansion certainly won't make the tournament into some sort of terrible event. Granted, some fans may not get quite as excited for those first 2 days, when seeds 9 through 24 play in the 4 regions, but once it gets to 64 teams everyone will be watching like always. And within the first few years the change is made, its very likely a #1 seed will go down in their first round game, and more higher seeds may go down in general b/c they won't be playing those low-major league champs anymore.
I guess its all about how you look at it, and at this point it seems silly to complain b/c this is no longer an "if" question, its a "when" question. IMHO, if its going to happen, lets get it going next year so we can all get adjusted to the change.
-
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
How about just keeping it at 64 teams and doing a better job at getting a better quality of 64 teams to begin with? :dunno:
-
Adding 32 teams to a tournament, that otherwise wouldn't make it, does not improve the quality. It's common sense. Anyone that doesn't understand this is either Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or a democrat.
Of course it does...those 32 teams are better than 12-16 low-major automatic bids. They just don't get in because their conference isn't easy enough. A team like NC State as a 16 seed has a much better chance of beating a 1 seed than Arkansas Pine Bluff. (see: NC State beating Duke this year)
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
How about just keeping it at 64 teams and doing a better job at getting a better quality of 64 teams to begin with? :dunno:
I would have no problem keeping the tournament at 64, but cutting the number of Division 1 teams in half. That would also improve the field, but it isn't being discussed by anyone but Huggins.
-
I would have no problem keeping the tournament at 64, but cutting the number of Division 1 teams in half. That would also improve the field, but it isn't being discussed by anyone but Huggins.
This wouldn't make more money, so its not an option. And it would be a great solution, but it is not going to happen. Too many teams like Pine-Bluff are still able to fund their entire athletic department b/c they play a ton of D1 guarantees and then split the league's NCAA money.
Kietz loves this point too, FWIW.
-
I was against this until I started to think about it. Now the bubble teams (who are usually worthy of a 11-14 seed) will get in instead of them having to watch 10-20 teams that they would blow out themselves play against the better tourney teams. Seriously, would you have rather watched K-State vs. N Texas, or a game like a K-State vs. New Mexico or ole miss or something. Will make the games more interesting.
-
I was against this until I started to think about it. Now the bubble teams (who are usually worthy of a 11-14 seed) will get in instead of them having to watch 10-20 teams that they would blow out themselves play against the better tourney teams. Seriously, would you have rather watched K-State vs. N Texas, or a game like a K-State vs. New Mexico or ole miss or something. Will make the games more interesting.
You won't hear anymore of this "watered down" talk once 1s (and even 2s through 4s) start falling b/c they are playing better teams in the 1st round. Those teams will be clamoring for the old system b/c top seeds no longer will get auto wins against bad low-major champs.
-
I was against this until I started to think about it. Now the bubble teams (who are usually worthy of a 11-14 seed) will get in instead of them having to watch 10-20 teams that they would blow out themselves play against the better tourney teams. Seriously, would you have rather watched K-State vs. N Texas, or a game like a K-State vs. New Mexico or ole miss or something. Will make the games more interesting.
You won't hear anymore of this "watered down" talk once 1s (and even 2s through 4s) start falling b/c they are playing better teams in the 1st round. Those teams will be clamoring for the old system b/c top seeds no longer will get auto wins against bad low-major champs.
This is exactly why people were against it on the phog. They don't like that it's harder to win a championship.
-
Adding 32 teams to a tournament, that otherwise wouldn't make it, does not improve the quality. It's common sense. Anyone that doesn't understand this is either Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or a democrat.
Of course it does...those 32 teams are better than 12-16 low-major automatic bids. They just don't get in because their conference isn't easy enough. A team like NC State as a 16 seed has a much better chance of beating a 1 seed than Arkansas Pine Bluff. (see: NC State beating Duke this year)
You mean "of course it doesn't". Are you really trying to say the tournament will be higher quality by adding thirty-two "12-16 seeds"?
If you want to watch 16 mediocre games on a Tuesday night, watch the f*cking NIT. The point of the tournament is to determine a National Champion, not create as many competitive 1st/2nd round games as possible. Adding 32 teams does nothing but distort the point of the tournament, it's dumb and unfortunately a foregone conclusion.
The NCAA is completely tone deaf to its fan base, and the people it purports to serve. :flush:
-
Adding 32 teams to a tournament, that otherwise wouldn't make it, does not improve the quality. It's common sense. Anyone that doesn't understand this is either Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or a democrat.
Of course it does...those 32 teams are better than 12-16 low-major automatic bids. They just don't get in because their conference isn't easy enough. A team like NC State as a 16 seed has a much better chance of beating a 1 seed than Arkansas Pine Bluff. (see: NC State beating Duke this year)
You mean "of course it doesn't". Are you really trying to say the tournament will be higher quality by adding thirty-two "12-16 seeds"?
If you want to watch 16 mediocre games on a Tuesday night, watch the f*cking NIT. The point of the tournament is to determine a National Champion, not create as many competitive 1st/2nd round games as possible. Adding 32 teams does nothing but distort the point of the tournament, it's dumb and unfortunately a foregone conclusion.
The NCAA is completely tone deaf to its fan base, and the people it purports to serve. :flush:
How will it not determine a national champion anymore?
-
I guess its all about how you look at it, and at this point it seems silly to complain b/c this is no longer an "if" question, its a "when" question. IMHO, if its going to happen, lets get it going next year so we can all get adjusted to the change.
You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just typing this. No need to rationalize a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) decision by the NCAA if you're just gonna roll with it.
BTW, we need an emoticon of a smiley bent over, with another smiley f*cking it from behind
-
Adding 32 teams to a tournament, that otherwise wouldn't make it, does not improve the quality. It's common sense. Anyone that doesn't understand this is either Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or a democrat.
Of course it does...those 32 teams are better than 12-16 low-major automatic bids. They just don't get in because their conference isn't easy enough. A team like NC State as a 16 seed has a much better chance of beating a 1 seed than Arkansas Pine Bluff. (see: NC State beating Duke this year)
You mean "of course it doesn't". Are you really trying to say the tournament will be higher quality by adding thirty-two "12-16 seeds"?
Yeah, because they're better than the current 12-16 seeds.
If you want to watch 16 mediocre games on a Tuesday night, watch the f*cking NIT. The point of the tournament is to determine a National Champion, not create as many competitive 1st/2nd round games as possible. Adding 32 teams does nothing but distort the point of the tournament, it's dumb and unfortunately a foregone conclusion.
So you're all for a 16 or 32 team tournament? Because let's not try to pretend there aren't 32 mediocre to bad teams in the current 64 team tournament.
-
Adding 32 teams to a tournament, that otherwise wouldn't make it, does not improve the quality. It's common sense. Anyone that doesn't understand this is either Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or a democrat.
Of course it does...those 32 teams are better than 12-16 low-major automatic bids. They just don't get in because their conference isn't easy enough. A team like NC State as a 16 seed has a much better chance of beating a 1 seed than Arkansas Pine Bluff. (see: NC State beating Duke this year)
You mean "of course it doesn't". Are you really trying to say the tournament will be higher quality by adding thirty-two "12-16 seeds"?
If you want to watch 16 mediocre games on a Tuesday night, watch the f*cking NIT. The point of the tournament is to determine a National Champion, not create as many competitive 1st/2nd round games as possible. Adding 32 teams does nothing but distort the point of the tournament, it's dumb and unfortunately a foregone conclusion.
The NCAA is completely tone deaf to its fan base, and the people it purports to serve. :flush:
How will it not determine a national champion anymore?
:facepalm:
Clever, but what's your argument for leaving out teams 97 through infinity? Why not let DII, DIII, and JuCo's partake? Adding 32 teams adds nothing but 16 bs games to an already long and grueling tournament.
How does adding 32 teams help determine a National Champion wise ass?
-
So you're all for a 16 or 32 team tournament? Because let's not try to pretend there aren't 32 mediocre to bad teams in the current 64 team tournament.
You could argue pretty successfully that the BCS does a much better job of actually matching up the "two best teams" for the NC on a regular basis than the 64 team field does on a year by year basis. Going into the tournament no one would've matched Duke vs Butler as the 2 best teams in the field.
Really, if you want a true national champion caliber field, 8 teams is probably about as far as you can go. Maybe 16.
-
:facepalm:
Clever, but what's your argument for leaving out teams 97 through infinity? Why not let DII, DIII, and JuCo's partake? Adding 32 teams adds nothing but 16 bs games to an already long and grueling tournament.
How does adding 32 teams help determine a National Champion wise ass?
Please don't poster intimidate me. It won't work.
-
Adding 32 teams to a tournament, that otherwise wouldn't make it, does not improve the quality. It's common sense. Anyone that doesn't understand this is either Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or a democrat.
Of course it does...those 32 teams are better than 12-16 low-major automatic bids. They just don't get in because their conference isn't easy enough. A team like NC State as a 16 seed has a much better chance of beating a 1 seed than Arkansas Pine Bluff. (see: NC State beating Duke this year)
You mean "of course it doesn't". Are you really trying to say the tournament will be higher quality by adding thirty-two "12-16 seeds"?
Yeah, because they're better than the current 12-16 seeds.
If you want to watch 16 mediocre games on a Tuesday night, watch the f*cking NIT. The point of the tournament is to determine a National Champion, not create as many competitive 1st/2nd round games as possible. Adding 32 teams does nothing but distort the point of the tournament, it's dumb and unfortunately a foregone conclusion.
So you're all for a 16 or 32 team tournament? Because let's not try to pretend there aren't 32 mediocre to bad teams in the current 64 team tournament.
Do you know what you just did?
doubling the number mediocre to bad teams = higher quality tournament
This is exactly the kind of idiotic rational I complained of to begin with. Which is it, Democrat or Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?
-
:facepalm:
Clever, but what's your argument for leaving out teams 97 through infinity? Why not let DII, DIII, and JuCo's partake? Adding 32 teams adds nothing but 16 bs games to an already long and grueling tournament.
How does adding 32 teams help determine a National Champion wise ass?
Please don't poster intimidate me. It won't work.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstevenriggs.net%2F_wizardimages%2Folive-branch-graphic.gif&hash=194a98b89f74d3c3fe843f7bd7245fa48373baf6)
-
Do you know what you just did?
doubling the number mediocre to bad teams = higher quality tournament
This is exactly the kind of idiotic rational I complained of to begin with. Which is it, Democrat or Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?
I said the final 64 teams will be much better:
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
-
they're going to have give the byes units to make it palatable, economically. even then, it's a question of how the numbers work.
perkins is probably right. at some point, the big 6 schools are going to get tired of funding the whole bloated ncaa and its Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) non rev. sport 'ships and cut them out of the pie. the 96 team thing is just a stop gap until then.
-
they're going to have give the byes units to make it palatable, economically. even then, it's a question of how the numbers work.
perkins is probably right. at some point, the big 6 schools are going to get tired of funding the whole bloated ncaa and its Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) non rev. sport 'ships and cut them out of the pie. the 96 team thing is just a stop gap until then.
Both good points.
It will be interesting to see when the big conferences get tired of all the low majors.
-
Do you know what you just did?
doubling the number mediocre to bad teams = higher quality tournament
This is exactly the kind of idiotic rational I complained of to begin with. Which is it, Democrat or Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?
I said the final 64 teams will be much better:
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
It's a 96 team tournament. Each round the teams get better, that's the point.
Can't wait for all the conspiracies and complaining when K-State gets a 33 draw :flush:
-
Do you know what you just did?
doubling the number mediocre to bad teams = higher quality tournament
This is exactly the kind of idiotic rational I complained of to begin with. Which is it, Democrat or Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?
I said the final 64 teams will be much better:
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
It's a 96 team tournament. Each round the teams get better, that's the point.
Can't wait for all the conspiracies and complaining when K-State gets a 33 draw :flush:
So you've been flailing around like a dumbass when you agree with me? :lol:
-
Do you know what you just did?
doubling the number mediocre to bad teams = higher quality tournament
This is exactly the kind of idiotic rational I complained of to begin with. Which is it, Democrat or Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?
I said the final 64 teams will be much better:
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
It's a 96 team tournament. Each round the teams get better, that's the point.
Can't wait for all the conspiracies and complaining when K-State gets a 33 draw :flush:
So you've been flailing around like a dumbass when you agree with me? :lol:
That doesn't make sense (ron burgandy voice).
Do you just ignore the first round now, or is that a hat you're preparing to put on if/when it expands to 96 teams? Which brings me back to this: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or democrat?
-
Do you know what you just did?
doubling the number mediocre to bad teams = higher quality tournament
This is exactly the kind of idiotic rational I complained of to begin with. Which is it, Democrat or Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?
I said the final 64 teams will be much better:
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
It's a 96 team tournament. Each round the teams get better, that's the point.
Can't wait for all the conspiracies and complaining when K-State gets a 33 draw :flush:
So you've been flailing around like a dumbass when you agree with me? :lol:
That doesn't make sense (ron burgandy voice).
Do you just ignore the first round now, or is that a hat you're preparing to put on if/when it expands to 96 teams? Which brings me back to this: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or democrat?
His point isn't hard to get. Expanding to 96 teams allows the first round to be a filter to get the shitty teams from Mid-Mountain Valley Coastal Conference (MMVCC) beaten by teams from the Big 6 conferences who may have a worse record but are better teams. For instance, a 19-14 NC State would have a better chance at knocking off a #1 seed than a 24-6 Holy Cross. The expansion now allows for that to happen.
-
Do you just ignore the first round now, or is that a hat you're preparing to put on if/when it expands to 96 teams?
No, I think the first round of a 96 team tournament will be pretty entertaining.
-
Do you just ignore the first round now, or is that a hat you're preparing to put on if/when it expands to 96 teams?
No, I think the first round of a 32 team tournament will be pretty entertaining.
Going to be some great match-ups. And lots of great "could such and such who went 13-3 in this mid-major league go .500 in this BCS league" talk for 2 entire days essentually.
-
Do you know what you just did?
doubling the number mediocre to bad teams = higher quality tournament
This is exactly the kind of idiotic rational I complained of to begin with. Which is it, Democrat or Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?
I said the final 64 teams will be much better:
when you see the actual brackets, all the people whining about the change look ridiculous. The final 64 teams will be so much better.
It's a 96 team tournament. Each round the teams get better, that's the point.
Can't wait for all the conspiracies and complaining when K-State gets a 33 draw :flush:
So you've been flailing around like a dumbass when you agree with me? :lol:
That doesn't make sense (ron burgandy voice).
Do you just ignore the first round now, or is that a hat you're preparing to put on if/when it expands to 96 teams? Which brings me back to this: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or democrat?
His point isn't hard to get. Expanding to 96 teams allows the first round to be a filter to get the shitty teams from Mid-Mountain Valley Coastal Conference (MMVCC) beaten by teams from the Big 6 conferences who may have a worse record but are better teams. For instance, a 19-14 NC State would have a better chance at knocking off a #1 seed than a 24-6 Holy Cross. The expansion now allows for that to happen.
No, I get it. Pretend it's a 64 team field and ignore the first 16 games (like we do with the play-in game now). Then it's technically a higher quality tournament, b/c we pretend like 16 games didn't happen, and all of the sudden 16 has a better chance of upsetting #1 (which in no way makes the tournament any better).
Whatever. It just shifts all the focus from the 64th team to the 32nd team on selection Sunday. All at the cost of what makes the tournament great (see original post).
Just keep in mind, this same argument can be used to justify a 128 team field, a 224 team field, a 256 team field. If you don't like the low seeds complain about automatic bids, or advocate a FCS/FBS system like we have in college football. Don't just pretend 16 games didn't happen.
The NCAA Tournament is arguably the best event in all of sports. Why in the hell would you ever want to tinker with it?
-
Do you just ignore the first round now, or is that a hat you're preparing to put on if/when it expands to 96 teams?
No, I think the first round of a 96 team tournament will be pretty entertaining.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F2%2F24%2FNational_Invitation_Tournament.svg%2F250px-National_Invitation_Tournament.svg.png&hash=89f2dc8f6613ee1b896b17b18f219d9779fac1e4)
-
The NCAA Tournament is arguably the best event in all of sports. Why in the hell would you ever want to tinker with it?
Well, that's a completely different discussion that's been hashed out before.
Unfortunately the most viable way for the NCAA (and all its teams) to keep (at least) the $$$$ they get now is to (at least) maintain the ridiculous amount of $$$$ CBS agreed to pay when they won the bid. The only way for that to happen now is to have more games to generate the $$$$.
Pretty simply really.
-
they're going to have give the byes units to make it palatable, economically. even then, it's a question of how the numbers work.
perkins is probably right. at some point, the big 6 schools are going to get tired of funding the whole bloated ncaa and its Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) non rev. sport 'ships and cut them out of the pie. the 96 team thing is just a stop gap until then.
Both good points.
It will be interesting to see when the big conferences get tired of all the low majors.
What if we dont make the cut :ohno:
-
Do you just ignore the first round now, or is that a hat you're preparing to put on if/when it expands to 96 teams?
No, I think the first round of a 96 team tournament will be pretty entertaining.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F2%2F24%2FNational_Invitation_Tournament.svg%2F250px-National_Invitation_Tournament.svg.png&hash=89f2dc8f6613ee1b896b17b18f219d9779fac1e4)
Is this an argument, sugar dick?
-
The NCAA Tournament is arguably the best event in all of sports. Why in the hell would you ever want to tinker with it?
Well, that's a completely different discussion that's been hashed out before.
Unfortunately the most viable way for the NCAA (and all its teams) to keep (at least) the $$$$ they get now is to (at least) maintain the ridiculous amount of $$$$ CBS agreed to pay when they won the bid. The only way for that to happen now is to have more games to generate the $$$$.
Pretty simply really.
Didn't realize this was the "accept it for what it is" thread. Here goes:
1. The tournament will be better because the better teams will advance, creating better matchups in later rounds
2. Those first round games will be really neat b/c the teams that win theoretically have a better chance of beating the teams with a bye.
3. Those first round games will also have some really neat matchups b/w would be bubble teams, new bubble teams, and teams I've never heard of that never really had a chance either way. The NIT was already irresistible, now its part of my favorite sporting event.
-
Didn't realize this was the "accept it for what it is" thread. Here goes:
1. The tournament will be better because the better teams will advance, creating better matchups in later rounds
2. Those first round games will be really neat b/c the teams that win theoretically have a better chance of beating the teams with a bye.
3. Those first round games will also have some really neat matchups b/w would be bubble teams, new bubble teams, and teams I've never heard of that never really had a chance either way. The NIT was already irresistible, now its part of my favorite sporting event.
:confused:
I accepted a long time ago that tinkering with the tournament has nothing to do with basketball.
-
Do you just ignore the first round now, or is that a hat you're preparing to put on if/when it expands to 96 teams?
No, I think the first round of a 96 team tournament will be pretty entertaining.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F2%2F24%2FNational_Invitation_Tournament.svg%2F250px-National_Invitation_Tournament.svg.png&hash=89f2dc8f6613ee1b896b17b18f219d9779fac1e4)
Is this an argument, sugar dick?
apparently complaining about the expansion was "already hashed out", so there's nothing to argue here
If you think adding 16 play-in games to the tournament makes it better, that's your opinion (even though it's wrong). I summarized all of your "no crap" talking points above. Enjoy
-
Didn't realize this was the "accept it for what it is" thread. Here goes:
1. The tournament will be better because the better teams will advance, creating better matchups in later rounds
2. Those first round games will be really neat b/c the teams that win theoretically have a better chance of beating the teams with a bye.
3. Those first round games will also have some really neat matchups b/w would be bubble teams, new bubble teams, and teams I've never heard of that never really had a chance either way. The NIT was already irresistible, now its part of my favorite sporting event.
:confused:
I accepted a long time ago that tinkering with the tournament has nothing to do with basketball.
I understand. Now let me go through that process. You're support would be appreciated
-
Didn't realize this was the "accept it for what it is" thread. Here goes:
1. The tournament will be better because the better teams will advance, creating better matchups in later rounds
2. Those first round games will be really neat b/c the teams that win theoretically have a better chance of beating the teams with a bye.
3. Those first round games will also have some really neat matchups b/w would be bubble teams, new bubble teams, and teams I've never heard of that never really had a chance either way. The NIT was already irresistible, now its part of my favorite sporting event.
:confused:
I accepted a long time ago that tinkering with the tournament has nothing to do with basketball.
I understand. Now let me go through that process. You're support would be appreciated
That's cool. Initially I thought it was a bad idea, but the more I look at it the more I like it now. Really.
-
Do you just ignore the first round now, or is that a hat you're preparing to put on if/when it expands to 96 teams?
No, I think the first round of a 96 team tournament will be pretty entertaining.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F2%2F24%2FNational_Invitation_Tournament.svg%2F250px-National_Invitation_Tournament.svg.png&hash=89f2dc8f6613ee1b896b17b18f219d9779fac1e4)
Is this an argument, sugar dick?
apparently complaining about the expansion was "already hashed out", so there's nothing to argue here
If you think adding 16 play-in games to the tournament makes it better, that's your opinion (even though it's wrong). I summarized all of your "no crap" talking points above. Enjoy
Sugar Dick, you haven't made an argument against expansion it that made any sense (unless you are also for tournament contraction). "it's the best thing evar" isn't an argument, and I wasn't sure where you were going with the NIT logo. Thought maybe you were trying to form a coherent point, but I clearly overestimated you.
-
Do you just ignore the first round now, or is that a hat you're preparing to put on if/when it expands to 96 teams?
No, I think the first round of a 96 team tournament will be pretty entertaining.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F2%2F24%2FNational_Invitation_Tournament.svg%2F250px-National_Invitation_Tournament.svg.png&hash=89f2dc8f6613ee1b896b17b18f219d9779fac1e4)
Is this an argument, sugar dick?
apparently complaining about the expansion was "already hashed out", so there's nothing to argue here
If you think adding 16 play-in games to the tournament makes it better, that's your opinion (even though it's wrong). I summarized all of your "no crap" talking points above. Enjoy
Sugar Dick, you haven't made an argument against expansion it that made any sense (unless you are also for tournament contraction). "it's the best thing evar" isn't an argument, and I wasn't sure where you were going with the NIT logo. Thought maybe you were trying to form a coherent point, but I clearly overestimated you.
Okay, so in your world I either want expansion or contraction or I don't have an argument. That makes sense now.
What you need to realize: every argument you made is universally applicable no matter what size the field is. No matter what size the field, as it goes on the better teams advance and one team doesn't lose any games. There is no argument against that, because it's a fact. Your argument is you want to watch 16 more games. Mine is I like it how it is.
You've got it made up in your mind that by adding 32 teams we'll all of the sudden have better games across the board. I disagree b/c I think you're adding 32 more teams that don't really belong either way, and don't mind that the 1 and 2 seeds get a pass in the 1st round. The chance of having a handful of slightly better teams in the round of 64 isn't worth the price of losing the "magic" of the first round from my point of view.
There's no reason to get smug and act like you have some great argument, when really you just want to watch 16 more games.
-
What you need to realize: every argument you made is universally applicable no matter what size the field is. No matter what size the field, as it goes on the better teams advance and one team doesn't lose any games. There is no argument against that, because it's a fact. Your argument is you want to watch 16 more games. Mine is I like it how it is.
No, the argument I'm making for expansion would not work if the tournament actually included the top 64 teams, or top 32 teams, or top 16 teams. The current tournament does not include the top 64 teams. It includes the top 40-45 teams and 20 or so teams that don't even sniff the top 100.
You've got it made up in your mind that by adding 32 teams we'll all of the sudden have better games across the board. I disagree b/c I think you're adding 32 more teams that don't really belong either way, and don't mind that the 1 and 2 seeds get a pass in the 1st round. The chance of having a handful of slightly better teams in the round of 64 isn't worth the price of losing the "magic" of the first round from my point of view.
You already have 32 teams that have no business being in the tournament. But they're okay because of "magic"? Fantastic argument, sugar dick.
-
What you need to realize: every argument you made is universally applicable no matter what size the field is. No matter what size the field, as it goes on the better teams advance and one team doesn't lose any games. There is no argument against that, because it's a fact. Your argument is you want to watch 16 more games. Mine is I like it how it is.
No, the argument I'm making for expansion would not work if the tournament actually included the top 64 teams, or top 32 teams, or top 16 teams. The current tournament does not include the top 64 teams. It includes the top 40-45 teams and 20 or so teams that don't even sniff the top 100.
You've got it made up in your mind that by adding 32 teams we'll all of the sudden have better games across the board. I disagree b/c I think you're adding 32 more teams that don't really belong either way, and don't mind that the 1 and 2 seeds get a pass in the 1st round. The chance of having a handful of slightly better teams in the round of 64 isn't worth the price of losing the "magic" of the first round from my point of view.
You already have 32 teams that have no business being in the tournament. But they're okay because of "magic"? Fantastic argument, sugar dick.
Everything you're saying is completely subjective.
By moving this invisible bar from 64 from 96 you've done nothing but move the same discussion to a different pool of teams. It's just a pool of teams nobody cares about, basically the NIT field of 32.
I do love your idea of a "coherent" argument though:
Sugar Dick: adding 32 teams that didn't belong before doesn't make the tournament higher quality
Michigan Cat: yes it does, after 32 teams lose the field of 64 will be better
SD: you realize the tournament still has 96 teams to start with
MC: I would like watching those games
SD: watch the NIT
MC: you agree with me
SD: WTF?
MC: by winning games better teams move along
SD: I know how a tournament works
MC: you're argument is incoherent. I'm right! There are 45 teams that belong, we need to favor 32 of them, and make the other 13 play in a pool of 64, that way we we get our 45 best teams, and only have 19 that don't belong. This is materially different than what we already have, because there's a chance some of the schools I didn't like watching won't be there.
-
Everything you're saying is completely subjective.
No it isn't. I can find a ton of rankings that would show that the 32 teams that would be added are better than about 20 automatic bids every year. I'm not discussing magic or sorcery here, sugar dick.
-
i like how michigancat makes sugar dick seem stupid by ending all of his posts with ", sugar dick".
-
Everything you're saying is completely subjective.
No it isn't. I can find a ton of rankings that would show that the 32 teams that would be added are better than about 20 automatic bids every year. I'm not discussing magic or sorcery here, sugar dick.
So your prob is with the auto bids, got it. Makes total sense, and doesn't water down the tourney at all, to add 32 teams to smother those unworthy automatic bids.
For instance, when your house gets termites its best to just add more wood.
-
i like how michigancat makes sugar dick seem stupid by ending all of his posts with ", sugar dick".
nice observation, sys
-
Everything you're saying is completely subjective.
No it isn't. I can find a ton of rankings that would show that the 32 teams that would be added are better than about 20 automatic bids every year. I'm not discussing magic or sorcery here, sugar dick.
So your prob is with the auto bids, got it. Makes total sense, and doesn't water down the tourney at all, to add 32 teams to smother those unworthy automatic bids.
For instance, when your house gets termites its best to just add more wood.
Are you saying the current tournament has the magic number of termites? Oh, Sugar Dick. :nono:
-
Everything you're saying is completely subjective.
No it isn't. I can find a ton of rankings that would show that the 32 teams that would be added are better than about 20 automatic bids every year. I'm not discussing magic or sorcery here, sugar dick.
So your prob is with the auto bids, got it. Makes total sense, and doesn't water down the tourney at all, to add 32 teams to smother those unworthy automatic bids.
For instance, when your house gets termites its best to just add more wood.
Are you saying the current tournament has the magic number of termites? Oh, Sugar Dick. :nono:
Maybe we should just use your "tons of rankings" to pick the teams. Scrap conferences bids/tournaments, and then computer simulate a tournament to find a winner. How's that sound?
michigan cat :peek:
-
Everything you're saying is completely subjective.
No it isn't. I can find a ton of rankings that would show that the 32 teams that would be added are better than about 20 automatic bids every year. I'm not discussing magic or sorcery here, sugar dick.
So your prob is with the auto bids, got it. Makes total sense, and doesn't water down the tourney at all, to add 32 teams to smother those unworthy automatic bids.
For instance, when your house gets termites its best to just add more wood.
Are you saying the current tournament has the magic number of termites? Oh, Sugar Dick. :nono:
Maybe we should just use your "tons of rankings" to pick the teams. Scrap conferences bids/tournaments, and then computer simulate a tournament to find a winner. How's that sound?
I'd rather a computer pick the teams for a tournament. How many teams would generate the maximum amount of mysticism, Sugar Dick?
-
computer simulate a tournament to find a winner. How's that sound?
would be the fairest way, and would add tons of drama/importance to the regular season and conf. tourneys. but it fails on the revenue generating side of things.
-
This will never work
-
I guess its all about how you look at it, and at this point it seems silly to complain b/c this is no longer an "if" question, its a "when" question. IMHO, if its going to happen, lets get it going next year so we can all get adjusted to the change.
You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just typing this. No need to rationalize a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) decision by the NCAA if you're just gonna roll with it.
BTW, we need an emoticon of a smiley bent over, with another smiley f*cking it from behind
I guess its all about how you look at it, and at this point it seems silly to complain b/c this is no longer an "if" question, its a "when" question. IMHO, if its going to happen, lets get it going next year so we can all get adjusted to the change.
You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just typing this. No need to rationalize a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) decision by the NCAA if you're just gonna roll with it.
BTW, we need an emoticon of a smiley bent over, with another smiley f*cking it from behind
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg709.imageshack.us%2Fimg709%2F9485%2Fbanana56.gif&hash=49a0b339939d27a0a39e6dcfccf481cee5c3c319)
-
I guess its all about how you look at it, and at this point it seems silly to complain b/c this is no longer an "if" question, its a "when" question. IMHO, if its going to happen, lets get it going next year so we can all get adjusted to the change.
You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just typing this. No need to rationalize a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) decision by the NCAA if you're just gonna roll with it.
BTW, we need an emoticon of a smiley bent over, with another smiley f*cking it from behind
I guess its all about how you look at it, and at this point it seems silly to complain b/c this is no longer an "if" question, its a "when" question. IMHO, if its going to happen, lets get it going next year so we can all get adjusted to the change.
You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just typing this. No need to rationalize a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) decision by the NCAA if you're just gonna roll with it.
BTW, we need an emoticon of a smiley bent over, with another smiley f*cking it from behind
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg709.imageshack.us%2Fimg709%2F9485%2Fbanana56.gif&hash=49a0b339939d27a0a39e6dcfccf481cee5c3c319)
:love:
I'd rather a computer pick the teams for a tournament. How many teams would generate the maximum amount of mysticism, Sugar Dick?
MichiCat, that sounds sweet, why don't you give the BCS a call and set that up, they'll be able to calculate the requisite mysticism no problem. You can rent a skid loader or maybe a barge to haul your "tons of rankings" over to them. :driving:
-
i'm completely on board with expansion if teams weren't allowed to hang a banner for making the tourney until they reached the round of 64.
-
I support the expansion because I oppose weak automatic bid teams making the tournament. I'd prefer a 64-team field based solely on RPI or another more sophisticated algorithm like Sagarin or Pomeroy or Greenfield. But a good compromise is seeing most of the weak sub-64 RPI teams get beat in the first round.
In the past the first round has been boring (except for occasional upsets) because the matchups have been so extremely lopsided. Now the first round will be more competitive and interesting to watch, and so will the round of 64. Any sub-64 RPI teams that make it to the second round will actually deserve it because they had to beat good teams.
I'm also glad to see the NIT folded into the NCAA. It just clogged up the airwaves for a meaningless NIT trophy. Now those games will count toward something important.
-
eff it. lets just bcs this crap.
-
that looks awesome. can't wait a year for this to happen. :driving:
-
CBS TV deal to be announced in a bit. Well CBS and now TBS. 810 guys saying TBS will eventually get the Final 4/Champ game every other year.
-
TBS will eventually get the Final 4/Champ game every other year
:rolleyes:
-
Tweets from John Ourand (??):
ESPN: 'Our combo of TV, digital, season-long coverage & year-round marketing would have served interests of NCAA and fans very well."
5 minutes ago via web
Deal terms: TBS will carry Final 4 and Championship game on even number years starting in 2016.
16 minutes ago via web
Source: NCAA committed to expansion, but won't commit to a specific number today. Could be 68 or 96. Ultimately, it will prob be 96 though.
32 minutes ago via web
Not sure if tournament expansion will be part of today's NCAA/CBS/Turner announcement or not.
43 minutes ago via web
NCAA press conference scheduled for 12:30 to announce new 14-year deal with CBS and Turner for the NCAA Tourney.
44 minutes ago via web
-
Tourney expanding to 68 teams, safe from 96-team field for time being (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/announcements/20100422+cbs+turner+ncaa+rights+agreement+rls)
:whew:
:bball:
-
Tourney expanding to 68 teams, safe from 96-team field for time being (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/announcements/20100422+cbs+turner+ncaa+rights+agreement+rls)
:whew:
:bball:
Man. I've been amping myself up for 96 and am kind of disappointed with this.
-
Tourney expanding to 68 teams, safe from 96-team field for time being (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/announcements/20100422+cbs+turner+ncaa+rights+agreement+rls)
:whew:
:bball:
LOVE it. There are usually three extra teams that are on the bubble that deserve in.
-
Tourney expanding to 68 teams, safe from 96-team field for time being (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/announcements/20100422+cbs+turner+ncaa+rights+agreement+rls)
:whew:
:bball:
Man. I've been amping myself up for 96 and am kind of disappointed with this.
me too. Hopefully by the time we are back to full on sucking it will get to 96 so we can have a bubble watch at the end of the season
-
They should just raise the # of teams every few years to not piss off tards.
-
sucks. was looking forward to another round of meaningful games and a more competitive round of 64 :flush:
-
They should just raise the # of teams every few years to not piss off tards.
This is what will keep happening. We now have four "play-in" games. Within another 6 years it will go up to 8. Then 16. Then 32. And so on.
This current news is a win-win-win for WRFF. CBS basically keeps the thing (they won't muck it up like ESPN would), the tournament keeps its "eliteness" factor, and I get more games to boot. Good times. :cheers:
-
They should just raise the # of teams every few years to not piss off tards.
This is what will keep happening. We now have four "play-in" games. Within another 6 years it will go up to 8. Then 16. Then 32. And so on.
This current news is a win-win-win for WRFF. CBS basically keeps the thing (they won't muck it up like ESPN would), the tournament keeps its "eliteness" factor, and I get more games to boot. Good times. :cheers:
TBS factor?
-
They should just raise the # of teams every few years to not piss off tards.
This is what will keep happening. We now have four "play-in" games. Within another 6 years it will go up to 8. Then 16. Then 32. And so on.
This current news is a win-win-win for WRFF. CBS basically keeps the thing (they won't muck it up like ESPN would), the tournament keeps its "eliteness" factor, and I get more games to boot. Good times. :cheers:
TBS factor?
Am guessing it's TBS in name only and they end up farming over CBS broadcast types/equip/mastery to keep the production value high.
At least I hope so. :runaway:
-
tbs CFB broadcasts were crazy good. I loved them.
-
Not so fast on 68/96?
curtiskitchen RT @SPORTSbyBROOKS: Network TV source tells 96-team March Madness still a distinct possibility during CBS/Turner deal. Stay tuned.
-
lukewinn CBS prez says deal is based on 68 teams, not plans for further expansion. 68, they said, meets financial/programming needs. No 96 (for now)
-
Tourney expanding to 68 teams, safe from 96-team field for time being (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/announcements/20100422+cbs+turner+ncaa+rights+agreement+rls)
:whew:
:bball:
LOVE it. There are usually three extra teams that are on the bubble that deserve in.
There will always be three extra teams that deserve in, no matter how many teams are let in.
-
Tourney expanding to 68 teams, safe from 96-team field for time being (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/announcements/20100422+cbs+turner+ncaa+rights+agreement+rls)
:whew:
:bball:
LOVE it. There are usually three extra teams that are on the bubble that deserve in.
There will always be three extra teams that deserve in, no matter how many teams are let in.
This.
-
Not so fast on 68/96?
curtiskitchen RT @SPORTSbyBROOKS: Network TV source tells 96-team March Madness still a distinct possibility during CBS/Turner deal. Stay tuned.
:flush:
Pretty much guaranteed it won't be 96 now!
:pbj:
-
Not so fast on 68/96?
curtiskitchen RT @SPORTSbyBROOKS: Network TV source tells 96-team March Madness still a distinct possibility during CBS/Turner deal. Stay tuned.
:flush:
Pretty much guaranteed it won't be 96 now!
:pbj:
It is interesting.
Here is the official release: http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/042210aaa.html
It says this:
Late Wednesday, the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee unanimously passed a recommendation to the Division I Board of Directors to increase tournament field size to 68 teams beginning with the 2011 Championship. The recommendation will be reviewed by the Division I Board of Directors at its April 29 meeting.
But it sounds like this simply means expansion will happen, to at least 68 teams, but the numbers is not set yet.
Ourand_SBJ McManus: We have flexibility in our deal to handle expansion to 96 if it happens.
4 minutes ago via web
-
Can't wait to hear a new NCAA on TBS jingle.
-
Good point, IMHO.
j_rake Yep. RT @SPORTSbyBROOKS If the field is only going to 68 teams, why does CBS need Turner in the deal? Wake up ppl. #hello96
4 minutes ago via web
The NCAA is going to do this slowly. This is just the first step.
-
tbs CFB broadcasts were crazy good. I loved them.
Craig Sager roaming the sidelines in one of his ridiculous suits :love: :love:
As far as expanding to 68, I'm a little disappointed too. I guess it depends on who the extra teams are getting in. Because if they are just having 4 garbage teams play-in games that nobody cares about instead of the current 1 garbage teams play-in game that nobody cares about, than that's just Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If they make smart picks for those extra games then it might actually work. Really they're just greasing the skids for further expansion.
-
God I hope they have the Boz sitting on a couch eating chips providing ridiculous commentary :love:
-
God I hope they have the Boz sitting on a couch eating chips providing ridiculous commentary :love:
:love:
LOL @ the collective tardism this 96 team idea has created. Jesus, I can't remember anything that made such a large group of the media act like complete crybaby idiots.
-
God I hope they have the Boz sitting on a couch eating chips providing ridiculous commentary :love:
:love:
LOL @ the collective tardism this 96 team idea has created. Jesus, I can't remember anything that made such a large group of the media act like complete crybaby idiots.
If you cross out "crybaby": Tyler Hansbrough, Tim Tebow, and the last Presidential election come to mind.
-
God I hope they have the Boz sitting on a couch eating chips providing ridiculous commentary :love:
:love:
LOL @ the collective tardism this 96 team idea has created. Jesus, I can't remember anything that made such a large group of the media act like complete crybaby idiots.
More of a subculture/niche thing, but it reminds me of people bitching about the new Anakin as a blue ghost in the new Return of the Jedi.
-
The Shocks are back, baby!
:pbj: