The 68 team format officialy announced

[ZachTheZip]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5374116

The NCAA has revealed that the four play-in games will each be a match-up between the last four at-large teams and four auto-bids of similar strength.

The games will be placed on the seed line that the at-large teams are determined to be on, so they could be playing to become a 12-seed or an 11-seed or whatever the committee decides.

The play-in games will likely be played in Dayton.

This affects the MAC greatly because we seemingly always end up seeded around the 12 seed. So we likely get a NCAA tournament game within the MAC footprint against a beatable team. The opportunity for a win to get us an NCAA credit is much easier than if we had to play a 3-,4-,5-,or 6-seed out of the gate.

It does hurt the very worst conferences who were in the play-in games in the past because now they are shut out of that opportunity to get an easy credit.

[zippyman23]

This affects the MAC greatly because we seemingly always end up seeded around the 12 seed. So we likely get a NCAA tournament game within the MAC footprint against a beatable team. The opportunity for a win to get us an NCAA credit is much easier than if we had to play a 3-,4-,5-,or 6-seed out of the gate.

It does hurt the very worst conferences who were in the play-in games in the past because now they are shut out of that opportunity to get an easy credit.

This isn't going to effect the MAC. I think you misread the article. The last four at-large teams will play each other for 11-12 seeds, while the last four automatic qualifiers will play each for 16 seeds. Neither of those will affect the MAC since we aren't getting at-large bids or 16-seeds.

[Z.I.P.]

This affects the MAC greatly because we seemingly always end up seeded around the 12 seed. So we likely get a NCAA tournament game within the MAC footprint against a beatable team. The opportunity for a win to get us an NCAA credit is much easier than if we had to play a 3-,4-,5-,or 6-seed out of the gate.

It does hurt the very worst conferences who were in the play-in games in the past because now they are shut out of that opportunity to get an easy credit.

This isn't going to effect the MAC. I think you misread the article. The last four at-large teams will play each other for 11-12 seeds, while the last four automatic qualifiers will play each for 16 seeds. Neither of those will affect the MAC since we aren't getting at-large bids or 16-seeds.

Well... if the MAC ever DOES get an at-large team, they can be certain they'll be playing in the play-in game. This not only sucks, but is completely irrational. The last four at-large selections are usually better teams than half the automatic-bid conference winners. Wait, Captain Stats taking off from Green, in 3,2,1...

[ZachTheZip]

This affects the MAC greatly because we seemingly always end up seeded around the 12 seed. So we likely get a NCAA tournament game within the MAC footprint against a beatable team. The opportunity for a win to get us an NCAA credit is much easier than if we had to play a 3-,4-,5-,or 6-seed out of the gate.

It does hurt the very worst conferences who were in the play-in games in the past because now they are shut out of that opportunity to get an easy credit.

This isn't going to effect the MAC. I think you misread the article. The last four at-large teams will play each other for 11-12 seeds, while the last four automatic qualifiers will play each for 16 seeds. Neither of those will affect the MAC since we aren't getting at-large bids or 16-seeds.

You're right. I misread it.

This does add three more at-large spots, though. That measn that the MAC's chances of getting an at-large team have improved. And like ZIP said, if we do get one we're playing in the play-in game. And that means an easy win for an NCAA credit, which gives the MAC a bigger payout.

[skip-zip]

I'm in favor of anything that gives Akron a better chance of getting into the tournament.

Now, that's how it looks in theory. We'll have to see how it actually plays out. If it's just an opportunity for them get a few more bad teams from power conferences into the tournament, then I can get angry.

[Dave in Green]

..... Wait, Captain Stats taking off from Green, in 3,2,1...

Not interested.

[GoZips]

I have for many years advocated an open tournament.

Let ALL the division one teams in the NCAA tournament.

And did it in a unique manner. For the first couple of rounds the higher seed team plays at

the lower seed home court. Example: number one seed Kentucky plays at number three

hundred-thirty-three Prairie View A&M.

For the second round all the winners play at the remaining lower seed home courts.

This is repeated until sixty-four teams remain. Then the seeding by region occurs.

At this time the secondary tournaments can invite the losers of the first couple of rounds.

This levels the playing field just a bit. More importantly, it improves college basketball by

forcing the snobbish elites to play in venues they would never set foot in.

[Zip Watcher]

I have for many years advocated an open tournament.

Let ALL the division one teams in the NCAA tournament.

And did it in a unique manner. For the first couple of rounds the higher seed team plays at

the lower seed home court. Example: number one seed Kentucky plays at number three

hundred-thirty-three Prairie View A&M.

For the second round all the winners play at the remaining lower seed home courts.

This is repeated until sixty-four teams remain. Then the seeding by region occurs.

At this time the secondary tournaments can invite the losers of the first couple of rounds.

This levels the playing field just a bit. More importantly, it improves college basketball by

forcing the snobbish elites to play in venues they would never set foot in.

I like the idea. It would probably only add about a week to the tournament. It will, of course never happen.

My perspective on this is that every team right now has an opportunity to win the title. No team is really frozen out from that goal by anything other than what they do on the court. Nearly all conferences have a post season tournament (is the Ivy the only holdout now?). So sometime around the first of March, every team is 0-0 with a chance to win their next game and advance.

The inequity exists in the 32 or so big conference teams that get to play the thing as a double elimination tournament. Those teams have an advantage.

I say make the tournament equal to the number of unique regular season and conference tournament champions. You want to play in the big Dance? Win your league.

It would give all the tournaments the same urgency as the MAC Tourney currently has. Win or go home. They become as compelling and energized as the NCAA itself.

These play in games aren't going to matter to us Zips fans, as we're embarking on an unprecedented string of consecutive tourney titles beginning this spring.

Go Zips!

[zippyman23]

I have for many years advocated an open tournament.

Let ALL the division one teams in the NCAA tournament.

And did it in a unique manner. For the first couple of rounds the higher seed team plays at

the lower seed home court. Example: number one seed Kentucky plays at number three

hundred-thirty-three Prairie View A&M.

For the second round all the winners play at the remaining lower seed home courts.

This is repeated until sixty-four teams remain. Then the seeding by region occurs.

At this time the secondary tournaments can invite the losers of the first couple of rounds.

This levels the playing field just a bit. More importantly, it improves college basketball by

forcing the snobbish elites to play in venues they would never set foot in.

I'm sorry, but that might be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. By letting every team in, you destroy the 4-month regular season in favor a couple week tournament. If the regular season wasn't meaningless enough, you want to reward bad teams with home court advantage? That certainly doesn't make any sense.

[GoZips]

I have for many years advocated an open tournament.

Let ALL the division one teams in the NCAA tournament.

And did it in a unique manner. For the first couple of rounds the higher seed team plays at

the lower seed home court. Example: number one seed Kentucky plays at number three

hundred-thirty-three Prairie View A&M.

For the second round all the winners play at the remaining lower seed home courts.

This is repeated until sixty-four teams remain. Then the seeding by region occurs.

At this time the secondary tournaments can invite the losers of the first couple of rounds.

This levels the playing field just a bit. More importantly, it improves college basketball by

forcing the snobbish elites to play in venues they would never set foot in.

I'm sorry, but that might be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. By letting every team in, you destroy the 4-month regular season in favor a couple week tournament. If the regular season wasn't meaningless enough, you want to reward bad teams with home court advantage? That certainly doesn't make any sense.

I'm sorry. What are you not seeing here? That the elites continually rule college sports just because

they can exclude everyone else? Say, aren't you one of the people that continually laments that

Akron never schedules home games with the likes of Kentucky and UCONN?

Or, are you among those who does not care that Akron is never able to climb on to the top tier?

[Z.I.P.]

I have for many years advocated an open tournament.

Let ALL the division one teams in the NCAA tournament.

And did it in a unique manner. For the first couple of rounds the higher seed team plays at

the lower seed home court. Example: number one seed Kentucky plays at number three

hundred-thirty-three Prairie View A&M.

For the second round all the winners play at the remaining lower seed home courts.

This is repeated until sixty-four teams remain. Then the seeding by region occurs.

At this time the secondary tournaments can invite the losers of the first couple of rounds.

This levels the playing field just a bit. More importantly, it improves college basketball by

forcing the snobbish elites to play in venues they would never set foot in.

I'm sorry, but that might be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. By letting every team in, you destroy the 4-month regular season in favor a couple week tournament. If the regular season wasn't meaningless enough, you want to reward bad teams with home court advantage? That certainly doesn't make any sense.

Actually, you could conduct the tournament the way overseas football (i.e., "soccer") leagues (e.g., England's Footy Association - F.A.) conduct their league cup competition. The F.A. Cup (or the US Open Cup in the US/Canada) is played throughout the season, with teams taking maybe one week a month off from regular season games to participate in cup competition. Their is a random draw to determine home-away, until later in the tournament. You could even do it with Div's 1 & II combined -- how about rather than George Mason being the dark horse, it's Findlay or Indiana PA (it's Sweich time!). And this way, the season can actually be shortened. Of course, the league championships would be determined by regular season records rather than playoffs, so Dan Gilbert won't get his check. Aaahhhhhhh!

[zippyman23]

I have for many years advocated an open tournament.

Let ALL the division one teams in the NCAA tournament.

And did it in a unique manner. For the first couple of rounds the higher seed team plays at

the lower seed home court. Example: number one seed Kentucky plays at number three

hundred-thirty-three Prairie View A&M.

For the second round all the winners play at the remaining lower seed home courts.

This is repeated until sixty-four teams remain. Then the seeding by region occurs.

At this time the secondary tournaments can invite the losers of the first couple of rounds.

This levels the playing field just a bit. More importantly, it improves college basketball by

forcing the snobbish elites to play in venues they would never set foot in.

I'm sorry, but that might be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. By letting every team in, you destroy the 4-month regular season in favor a couple week tournament. If the regular season wasn't meaningless enough, you want to reward bad teams with home court advantage? That certainly doesn't make any sense.

I'm sorry. What are you not seeing here? That the elites continually rule college sports just because

they can exclude everyone else? Say, aren't you one of the people that continually laments that

Akron never schedules home games with the likes of Kentucky and UCONN?

Or, are you among those who does not care that Akron is never able to climb on to the top tier?

I'm seeing a system that would make it even harder for Akron to make the top tier and would destroy college basketball at the same time. Not to mention that it makes no logical sense.

[skip-zip]

I have for many years advocated an open tournament.

Let ALL the division one teams in the NCAA tournament.

And did it in a unique manner. For the first couple of rounds the higher seed team plays at

the lower seed home court. Example: number one seed Kentucky plays at number three

hundred-thirty-three Prairie View A&M.

For the second round all the winners play at the remaining lower seed home courts.

This is repeated until sixty-four teams remain. Then the seeding by region occurs.

At this time the secondary tournaments can invite the losers of the first couple of rounds.

This levels the playing field just a bit. More importantly, it improves college basketball by

forcing the snobbish elites to play in venues they would never set foot in.

I'm sorry, but that might be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. By letting every team in, you destroy the 4-month regular season in favor a couple week tournament. If the regular season wasn't meaningless enough, you want to reward bad teams with home court advantage? That certainly doesn't make any sense.

Although, as an Akron fan, I love GoZips idea, the highlighted area above is the reason why it would never, ever, never happen.

Not only does it reward bad teams, it also removes any incentive to be a higher seed.