2011 96 team field Bracketology

[Sugar Dick]

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!)?

[Sugar Dick]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[sys]

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.

[kso_FAN]

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. 

[Sugar Dick]

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 

[michigancat]

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 

So you've been flailing around like a dumbass when you agree with me? 

[Sugar Dick]

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 

So you've been flailing around like a dumbass when you agree with me? 

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?

[TheMadCatter]

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 

So you've been flailing around like a dumbass when you agree with me? 

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[kso_FAN]

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.

[Sugar Dick]

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 

So you've been flailing around like a dumbass when you agree with me? 

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?

[Sugar Dick]

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.

[kso_FAN]

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.

[ben ji]

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 

[michigancat]

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.

Is this an argument, sugar dick?

[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.

[kso_FAN]

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.

 

I accepted a long time ago that tinkering with the tournament has nothing to do with basketball.

[Sugar Dick]

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.

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]

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.

 

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

[kso_FAN]

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.

 

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.

[michigancat]

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.

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.

[Sugar Dick]

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.

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[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.