Michael Wilbon Article

[GP1]

Article

I don't disagree with a word of this article. Since 1985, #16 seeds are 0-104 against #1s and #15s are 4-100 aginst #2s. That's 4-204 total. Less than 2% of the time either #16s or #15s win. This means there are too many teams in the NCAA Tournament. We should either go back to 32 teams and make the conference tournaments mean something, or change the way teams are allowed to enter.

I have tickets to the first round in Charlotte tomorrow and will pass on the first session to watch the Zips play. Even if the Zips weren't playing, I have no interest in watching Duke destroy Hampton by 60.

ADDITION Later:

A great point Wilbon makes is about the lack of talent in the Tournament. I was watching a special on ESPN the other night, at least I think it was ESPN. It was about the UNLV teams from the 80s. They played Duke in the Final Four two years in a row winning one and losing one. I hate to sound like one of those old guys who says players were better then, but I think both UNLV and Duke of that era could beat any team in the Tournament this weekend. The Duke team back then would kick the crap out of the Duke team today.

[GoZips]

Mike Wilbon is a hack writer. His opinions and view points are as useful as used TP.

I think it was an eleven seeded George Mason that scared the crap out of the "bigs" a few

years back. A thirty-two team field only makes the tournament more biased.

Fourteenth seeded Cleveland State has twice knocked off a "big" in the first round.

So have others.

There can never be a Cinderella if only the elites play. How exciting is that?

A better solution is to expand the tournament. To say, ninety-six teams, or 128 teams,

or even an all inclusive tournament. Actually, a sixty-four team field without the

hokey play-in games is just fine. Stop pandering to the "elites".

Speaking of pandering. How about the extra advantage given the elites in the form of

venue? tOSU plays their first round games in Cleveland in a sea of scarlet and grey.

Gonzaga played Akron in Portland a nest of Gonzaga fans. Notre Dame will be handicapped

by playing a "home" game against Akron in Chicago a horrible ninety miles from campus.

Isn't having the better seed advantage enough?

[skip-zip]

This tournament would be a lot less exciting for many people if they decreased the size of the field.

Low seeds may not win very often, but the excitement of watching games where a low seed may become Cinderella is a big part of the fascination with this tournament during the early rounds.

Anything less would dampen a lot of that excitement.

[GP1]

This tournament would be a lot less exciting for many people if they decreased the size of the field.

Low seeds may not win very often, but the excitement of watching games where a low seed may become Cinderella is a big part of the fascination with this tournament during the early rounds.

Anything less would dampen a lot of that excitement.

Please see the statistics on the two bottom seeds. Those games are a waste of time and money for those who buy tickets.

I don't know if it would make the tournament less exciting. If a team was required to win their conference to get in like Akron is, we would still be in and just as excited. It would not detract from the non "BCS" conference tournaments, but it would make the big conference tournaments much more exciting.

Want to expand the tournament? Make the conference tournaments mean something by requiring teams to win them to get in the NCAA. Why have another week of games in the NCAA Tournament when the conference tournaments could serve as that week? It actually becomes the "everyone in" scenario people want.

There are a lot of ways to skin the cat, expanding and "growing" the Tournament isn't the way to do it.

[GP1]

Mike Wilbon is a hack writer. His opinions and view points are as useful as used TP.

I think it was an eleven seeded George Mason that scared the crap out of the "bigs" a few

years back. A thirty-two team field only makes the tournament more biased.

Fourteenth seeded Cleveland State has twice knocked off a "big" in the first round.

So have others.

There can never be a Cinderella if only the elites play. How exciting is that?

Mike Wilbon is an excellent writer and brings up topics nobody else will.

Weren't George Mason and Cleveland State conference champions when they got in the NCAAs? If we made the conference tournaments mean something and reduced the sized of the field, those schools would still be in the same position.

Most basketball Cinderella stories in the NCAA Tournament end up with Cinderella being put out of her misery living the rest of her days as an old single spinster.

[Captain Kangaroo]

It's a tired argument.

The big schools get "home" games against the weakest away teams. What does anyone expect the results to be?

BCS school fans and suck-up BCS writers only know big schools. They know school names, not their games.

College sports becomes increasingly about only the biggest schools, marketing and ESPN.

Thanks to TCU's, Butler's, George Mason's and Boise State's of the world for making the BCS shills like Wilbon and Gordon Gee, etc. look like the ignorant ass-clowns that they are.

The correct answer is to let MORE teams in. Give 128 teams a shot. It would add one additional day. It would take away any program's argument that they got jobbed by the selection committee. It would make money.

Making the tourney smaller, to only include big schools would be a death knell to the tourney, taking away what makes it special. And to be honest...it would kill mid-major D1 basketball.

[meatwad]

Mike Wilbon is a hack writer. His opinions and view points are as useful as used TP.

I think it was an eleven seeded George Mason that scared the crap out of the "bigs" a few

years back. A thirty-two team field only makes the tournament more biased.

Fourteenth seeded Cleveland State has twice knocked off a "big" in the first round.

So have others.

There can never be a Cinderella if only the elites play. How exciting is that?

Mike Wilbon is an excellent writer and brings up topics nobody else will.

Weren't George Mason and Cleveland State conference champions when they got in the NCAAs? If we made the conference tournaments mean something and reduced the sized of the field, those schools would still be in the same position.

Most basketball Cinderella stories in the NCAA Tournament end up with Cinderella being put out of her misery living the rest of her days as an old single spinster.

George Mason was one of the last at larges that year. They lost in the CAA championship at some point. Some said they were the "last in" and that they didn't deserve to be there.

Wiki Link

Scroll down to where it shows all the teams and how they got there. Shortening the field is not the answer. So what if 15s and 16s lose all the time? You think they would stand a better shot if they were 8s matched up against a 1? These are the teams that got there by winning their conference tournaments, not the at-larges that occasionally make a run. The 15s and 16s are ALWAYS conference champions from terrible leagues like the SWAC, MEAC, MAAC, etc. They would lose just as handily if they still got in but had a better "seed" due to a smaller field.

[mes102]

George Mason was one of the last at larges that year. They lost in the CAA championship at some point. Some said they were the "last in" and that they didn't deserve to be there.

VCU is in that position right now. Maybe I should change my whole bracket....hmmmm....

[GP1]

The correct answer is to let MORE teams in. Give 128 teams a shot. It would add one additional day. It would take away any program's argument that they got jobbed by the selection committee. It would make money.

Use the conference tournaments to do this or eliminate the conference tournaments. Do one or the other, but don't do both. I like the idea of making the conference tournaments mean something for more than just the mid-major conference schools. What if the Duke vs. UNC game last Sunday actually was meaningful?

[meatwad]

George Mason was one of the last at larges that year. They lost in the CAA championship at some point. Some said they were the "last in" and that they didn't deserve to be there.

VCU is in that position right now. Maybe I should change my whole bracket....hmmmm....

They are also an 11 seed. The plot thickens.

[GoZips]

Mike Wilbon is a hack writer. His opinions and view points are as useful as used TP.

I think it was an eleven seeded George Mason that scared the crap out of the "bigs" a few

years back. A thirty-two team field only makes the tournament more biased.

Fourteenth seeded Cleveland State has twice knocked off a "big" in the first round.

So have others.

There can never be a Cinderella if only the elites play. How exciting is that?

Mike Wilbon is an excellent writer and brings up topics nobody else will.

Weren't George Mason and Cleveland State conference champions when they got in the NCAAs? If we made the conference tournaments mean something and reduced the sized of the field, those schools would still be in the same position.

Most basketball Cinderella stories in the NCAA Tournament end up with Cinderella being put out of her misery living the rest of her days as an old single spinster.

Oh yeah. Wilbon is so fantastic. He lied and made up lies about Rush Limbaugh. When caught

in his lies Wilbon refused to retract his remarks. Oh yeah. Wilbon is a truthful much respected

writer. The hell he is. Wilbon is a lying hack. Grow up.

[Dr Z]

If you like the tournament at 32, don't watch on Thursday and Friday. Problem solved.

Most college basketball fans LOVE these two days.

[GP1]

Oh yeah. Wilbon is so fantastic. He lied and made up lies about Rush Limbaugh. When caught

in his lies Wilbon refused to retract his remarks. Oh yeah. Wilbon is a truthful much respected

writer. The hell he is. Wilbon is a lying hack. Grow up.

Grow up? I'm not the one having a hissy fit about an internet post.

Anyhow, he is a good writer and the article above is a good article. Especially the parts about the lack of talent in the NCAA compared to past years.

I have no idea what he said about Limbaugh and it probably can't add up to all the lies Limbaugh has been telling to a group of willing dupes over the years.

[GP1]

If you like the tournament at 32, don't watch on Thursday and Friday. Problem solved.

Most college basketball fans LOVE these two days.

I'd bet most people who call themselves college basketball fans can't keep their attention on one of these game for more than 10 minutes. They really don't like them and the network has to switch to games to try to keep fans watching. They are a waste of time.

[Dr Z]

If you like the tournament at 32, don't watch on Thursday and Friday. Problem solved.

Most college basketball fans LOVE these two days.

I'd bet most people who call themselves college basketball fans can't keep their attention on one of these game for more than 10 minutes. They really don't like them and the network has to switch to games to try to keep fans watching. They are a waste of time.

I wonder what the advertising dollar is for today's games? What viewing share will today draw? Think dollars and you will realize why there is more, rather than less. How many networks are involved now? Who is sponsoring?

[Zip Watcher]

If you like the tournament at 32, don't watch on Thursday and Friday. Problem solved.

Most college basketball fans LOVE these two days.

I'd bet most people who call themselves college basketball fans can't keep their attention on one of these game for more than 10 minutes. They really don't like them and the network has to switch to games to try to keep fans watching. They are a waste of time.

So because a writer and a football-fan-first guy opines that the first 2 rounds are a waste of time, the rest of us should be deprived?

+1 on Dr. Z's post .. if the games can't keep your attention, get out your VHS of the 1991 title game and watch that instead. The advertising $$$ says otherwise whether or not people will watch and enjoy it.

Go Zips!

[meatwad]

If you like the tournament at 32, don't watch on Thursday and Friday. Problem solved.

Most college basketball fans LOVE these two days.

I'd bet most people who call themselves college basketball fans can't keep their attention on one of these game for more than 10 minutes. They really don't like them and the network has to switch to games to try to keep fans watching. They are a waste of time.

This is the first year that ALL of the games will be broadcast without CBS randomly switching between games. Granted, some of the games are on TRUtv (whatever the heck that is), but bottom line is, this tourney will be the most watched ever, and I for one am thrilled that if I want to watch Butler-ODU I don't have to follow it online.

[ZachTheZip]

The correct answer is to let MORE teams in. Give 128 teams a shot. It would add one additional day. It would take away any program's argument that they got jobbed by the selection committee. It would make money.

Use the conference tournaments to do this or eliminate the conference tournaments. Do one or the other, but don't do both. I like the idea of making the conference tournaments mean something for more than just the mid-major conference schools. What if the Duke vs. UNC game last Sunday actually was meaningful?

So make the tournament 96 teams. The 31 conference champions get a bye along with the top at-large team. This makes the big conference tournaments very meaningful. It also introduces a play-in round made up of the at-large teams that would eliminate the "bubble" teams before the real tournament began. So teams that didn't belong this year like UAB would get knocked out and teams that were supposedly snubbed have a chance to prove they belong. You end up with a field of 64 that's stronger than what you have today.

[Dave in Green]

It may be true that the #15 and #16 seeded teams only win about 2% of the time against #1 and #2 seeds.

What about all of the #9, #10, #11, #12, #13 and #14 seeds that would be eliminated by going back to a 32-team format?

American sports fans absolutely love the concept of upsets by giant killers. The biggest upsets are pulled off by the biggest underdogs. By definition, the less frequently it happens the bigger the upset.

If there are 8 games each year between the 2 top-seeded teams and the 2 lowest-seeded teams (2 games x 4 regions), and 1 in 50 (2%) ends in a big upset, that averages out to once about every 6 years (50/8 = 6.25).

That's just about right.

[Captain Kangaroo]

A great point Wilbon makes is about the lack of talent in the Tournament. I was watching a special on ESPN the other night, at least I think it was ESPN. It was about the UNLV teams from the 80s. They played Duke in the Final Four two years in a row winning one and losing one. I hate to sound like one of those old guys who says players were better then, but I think both UNLV and Duke of that era could beat any team in the Tournament this weekend. The Duke team back then would kick the crap out of the Duke team today.

Back in the 80's and early 90's, you could find NBA-quality players still playing college ball as college Juniors and Seniors.

Had they played in the present era, Stacey Augmon, Greg Anthony and Larry Johnson would have been gone after their Freshman seasons.

[MDZip]

It may be true that the #15 and #16 seeded teams only win about 2% of the time against #1 and #2 seeds.

What about all of the #9, #10, #11, #12, #13 and #14 seeds that would be eliminated by going back to a 32-team format?

American sports fans absolutely love the concept of upsets by giant killers. The biggest upsets are pulled off by the biggest underdogs. By definition, the less frequently it happens the bigger the upset.

If there are 8 games each year between the 2 top-seeded teams and the 2 lowest-seeded teams (2 games x 4 regions), and 1 in 50 (2%) ends in a big upset, that averages out to once about every 6 years (8/50 = 6.25).

That's just about right.

And the last one was in 2001. It's time!

[GoZips]

If you like the tournament at 32, don't watch on Thursday and Friday. Problem solved.

Most college basketball fans LOVE these two days.

I'd bet most people who call themselves college basketball fans can't keep their attention on one of these game for more than 10 minutes. They really don't like them and the network has to switch to games to try to keep fans watching. They are a waste of time.

By your (sic) logic it seems plausible to eliminate the NCAA tournament and just award the National

Championship based on sports writers votes.

To me, the NCAA and the rest of the tournaments are a fun time and a reward for the work the

kids did. No one will remember or care about the outcome of any of these tournaments in a few

weeks.

I follow all the tournaments and root on the MAC schools; yes, even the Flushers.

[Blue & Gold]

This tournament would be a lot less exciting for many people if they decreased the size of the field.

Low seeds may not win very often, but the excitement of watching games where a low seed may become Cinderella is a big part of the fascination with this tournament during the early rounds.

Anything less would dampen a lot of that excitement.

Please see the statistics on the two bottom seeds. Those games are a waste of time and money for those who buy tickets.

I don't know if it would make the tournament less exciting. If a team was required to win their conference to get in like Akron is, we would still be in and just as excited. It would not detract from the non "BCS" conference tournaments, but it would make the big conference tournaments much more exciting.

Want to expand the tournament? Make the conference tournaments mean something by requiring teams to win them to get in the NCAA. Why have another week of games in the NCAA Tournament when the conference tournaments could serve as that week? It actually becomes the "everyone in" scenario people want.

There are a lot of ways to skin the cat, expanding and "growing" the Tournament isn't the way to do it.

This would be an incredibly exciting scenario! Only the respective conference tournament winners are invited to the tourney. Fantastic! Unfortunately, that will likely never happen.

[Dr Z]

This is the first year that ALL of the games will be broadcast without CBS randomly switching between games. Granted, some of the games are on TRUtv (whatever the heck that is), but bottom line is, this tourney will be the most watched ever, and I for one am thrilled that if I want to watch Butler-ODU I don't have to follow it online.

If you did want to watch all the games online for free, here is the place. No VHS or short shorts required.

[Captain Kangaroo]

I think it is best that the NBA has only 8 "super teams." Who really cares about Milwaukee, San Antonio, Orlando, Sacramento, Portland, Dallas, Indiana, Cleveland, etc anyhow?

8 super teams play each other 4 nights/week for 30 weeks, then the top 4 get a bid to the NBA tournament. ESPN can broadcast every game.

Ditto - What chance does the NCAA #32 seed have to really win the NCAA Tournament anyhow? It should be a tournament of the Elite 8 every year, not 32 as GP1 suggests. Whomever the media and fans like to see the most should make the tourney. I think that would be fair and make for an exciting event that would blow the socks off the existing, yawner 68 team format.