Lee Adams Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 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. Players weren't as 'mobile' then. recruiting was not as 'spohisticated.. Could they leave school after their frosh year then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 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. Instead of knee-jerk reactions to my posts, you guys should actually read them. What I'm saying is make the conference tournament games count for something. Akron would still be in the same position we are today. We would be having just as much fun knowing teams like UNC were at home while we were still playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 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? Maybe depraved in lieu of deprived. I don't know your life would be much different if there was a smaller tournament field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Z Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 The first day provided three memorable finishes. Butler got a last-second putback to beat Old Dominion, Temple hit a shot with 0.4 seconds left to defeat Penn State, and in the day's biggest upset, No. 13 Morehead State shocked everyone by beating No. 4 Louisville on a late three-pointer. Great games yesterday. Hopefully our Zips can make the headlines today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatwad Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 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.... Did you do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAZipster0305 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 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. Regardless of how many teams there are in the Tournament, there will always be bubble teams. The only way to eliminate the bubble team concept is to include conference tournament champions only thereby eliminating the selection process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Regardless of how many teams there are in the Tournament, there will always be bubble teams. The only way to eliminate the bubble team concept is to include conference tournament champions only thereby eliminating the selection process. Or, seed 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, 3 vs 13 and 4 vs 12. From what I see, there isn't much difference between the teams that get seeded anywhere between 5 and 11. Go back to 64 teams. The selection committee should at that point take the next 40 teams they feel deserve to be in the tournament and pick the names with a lottery. Seven teams won't make it, but that could be part of the suspense. The Tournament Lotter Show would be much better than what they have on now. More suspense would be better and the selection of the teams would be in a more fair manner than what takes place now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAZipster0305 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Regardless of how many teams there are in the Tournament, there will always be bubble teams. The only way to eliminate the bubble team concept is to include conference tournament champions only thereby eliminating the selection process. Or, seed 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, 3 vs 13 and 4 vs 12. From what I see, there isn't much difference between the teams that get seeded anywhere between 5 and 11. Go back to 64 teams. The selection committee should at that point take the next 40 teams they feel deserve to be in the tournament and pick the names with a lottery. Seven teams won't make it, but that could be part of the suspense. The Tournament Lotter Show would be much better than what they have on now. More suspense would be better and the selection of the teams would be in a more fair manner than what takes place now. I love this. And if doing a lottery, there would be true incentive for teams to win their conference...particularly for the BCS programs where there are a lot of at-large bids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Z Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 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? NCAA Tournament Ratings Increase 24% Television ratings for the first full day of the men’s college basketball tournament were the highest in two decades as CBS Sports and Turner Sports combined to air all 16 games in their entirety for the first time.The National Collegiate Athletic Association games on the CBS Corp. (CBS) network and Time Warner Inc. (TWX)’s TBS, TNT and truTV networks were seen in an average of 5.7 percent of households in the top 56 U.S. television markets, CBS and Turner said in a news release. That’s 24 percent higher than last year’s 4.6 major-market rating for the first Thursday of the tournament and the highest since 1991 CBS and Turner agreed in April on a 14-year, $10.8 billion contract for broadcast, Internet and wireless rights on the tournament, which this year expanded to 68 teams from 65. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in Green Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 So can we all agree that Shaka Smart taking #11 seed VCU to the Final Four puts the final nail in the coffin of anyone wanting the NCAA tournament to return to a 32-team format? Butler, as a #8 seed would have been one of the last teams into a 32-team field, and they're also in the semifinals playing against VCU. One of these two mid-majors is going to be playing in the national championship game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatwad Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 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.... Seriously, did you do it?? How ridiculous did this conversation seem two weeks ago. That's why the NCAA tournament is the best sporting event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 So can we all agree that Shaka Smart taking #11 seed VCU to the Final Four puts the final nail in the coffin of anyone wanting the NCAA tournament to return to a 32-team format? Not really. The dynamic of the tournament would just change. There could still be mid majors making the finals, just in a different way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 NCAA Tournament Ratings Increase 24% Television ratings for the first full day of the men’s college basketball tournament were the highest in two decades as CBS Sports and Turner Sports combined to air all 16 games in their entirety for the first time.The National Collegiate Athletic Association games on the CBS Corp. (CBS) network and Time Warner Inc. (TWX)’s TBS, TNT and truTV networks were seen in an average of 5.7 percent of households in the top 56 U.S. television markets, CBS and Turner said in a news release. That’s 24 percent higher than last year’s 4.6 major-market rating for the first Thursday of the tournament and the highest since 1991 CBS and Turner agreed in April on a 14-year, $10.8 billion contract for broadcast, Internet and wireless rights on the tournament, which this year expanded to 68 teams from 65. Ratings were up because people had choices. Before, the choice was to watch a lot of terrible games while hoping the network switched to the good games. Given that option, a lot of people turned off their TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJGood Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 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. I don't understand when it comes to playoff tournaments why everyone always wants to say the tournament should be 4,8.16,32,64. or 128 teams depending on the sport. I say in basketball 128 is too big, they'd let something like 15 teams in out of a league like the Big East some years. If it gets bigger I see no reason to go to more than 80 to 88 teams at most. With first round byes it is possible. In football for years I have proposed a 14 (yes, 14!) team playoff that featured all 11 conference champions and three at-large teams. That keeps almost every regular season game relevant and allows teams to try all season to get to the top 2 like they do in the BCS now. Just in this case they'd get a bye instead of a golden ticket to the title game. I'd also seed all conference winners better than the "wild cards" like the NFL does. But I digress... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in Green Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Generally, I'm in favor of 64 being just about the right number. But it sure would have messed up VCU this year and spoiled a great underdog story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxpayer Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I believe it was Captain Kangeroo who said he'd like to see the conference championships mean more to the BCS leagues and I agree. Right now, they are money grabs for the conferences with some teams hoping for redemption via winning them after less than hoped for regular season performances; I agree. Make all conference winners automatic participants in March madness, make regular season conference winners in as well. I'm not a statistician but with these two changes for all conferences you could still top out at 128 teams. There would still be seeding and I believe there should be some worth/benefit to winning the regular season and for winning the conference championship at the end of the regular season and as a previous poster stated, it would only add one more day to March Madness. It would also throw more $ into the NCAA and the conferences. Anyone know what financial impact making the NCAA's had on the Zips? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinZip Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I believe it was Captain Kangeroo who said he'd like to see the conference championships mean more to the BCS leagues and I agree. Right now, they are money grabs for the conferences with some teams hoping for redemption via winning them after less than hoped for regular season performances; I agree. Make all conference winners automatic participants in March madness, make regular season conference winners in as well. I'm not a statistician but with these two changes for all conferences you could still top out at 128 teams. There would still be seeding and I believe there should be some worth/benefit to winning the regular season and for winning the conference championship at the end of the regular season and as a previous poster stated, it would only add one more day to March Madness. It would also throw more $ into the NCAA and the conferences. Anyone know what financial impact making the NCAA's had on the Zips? I do know that AU got some credit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I believe it was Captain Kangeroo who said he'd like to see the conference championships mean more to the BCS leagues and I agree. Right now, they are money grabs for the conferences with some teams hoping for redemption via winning them after less than hoped for regular season performances; I agree. Make all conference winners automatic participants in March madness, make regular season conference winners in as well. I'm not a statistician but with these two changes for all conferences you could still top out at 128 teams. There would still be seeding and I believe there should be some worth/benefit to winning the regular season and for winning the conference championship at the end of the regular season and as a previous poster stated, it would only add one more day to March Madness. It would also throw more $ into the NCAA and the conferences. Anyone know what financial impact making the NCAA's had on the Zips? Require an at large team to have at least a +.500 record in conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatwad Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I believe it was Captain Kangeroo who said he'd like to see the conference championships mean more to the BCS leagues and I agree. Right now, they are money grabs for the conferences with some teams hoping for redemption via winning them after less than hoped for regular season performances; I agree. Make all conference winners automatic participants in March madness, make regular season conference winners in as well. I'm not a statistician but with these two changes for all conferences you could still top out at 128 teams. There would still be seeding and I believe there should be some worth/benefit to winning the regular season and for winning the conference championship at the end of the regular season and as a previous poster stated, it would only add one more day to March Madness. It would also throw more $ into the NCAA and the conferences. Anyone know what financial impact making the NCAA's had on the Zips? Require an at large team to have at least a +.500 record in conference. That's one I think we can all get behind. If you're 8-8 in the Big East... sorry, you aren't going to win 6 games in a row to win the National Championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I believe it was Captain Kangeroo who said he'd like to see the conference championships mean more to the BCS leagues and I agree. Right now, they are money grabs for the conferences with some teams hoping for redemption via winning them after less than hoped for regular season performances; I agree. Make all conference winners automatic participants in March madness, make regular season conference winners in as well. I'm not a statistician but with these two changes for all conferences you could still top out at 128 teams. There would still be seeding and I believe there should be some worth/benefit to winning the regular season and for winning the conference championship at the end of the regular season and as a previous poster stated, it would only add one more day to March Madness. It would also throw more $ into the NCAA and the conferences. Anyone know what financial impact making the NCAA's had on the Zips? Require an at large team to have at least a +.500 record in conference. That's one I think we can all get behind. If you're 8-8 in the Big East... sorry, you aren't going to win 6 games in a row to win the National Championship. Most 15 win MAC teams are going to either. That isn't the point. Only one team is going to win. Why not create a field that has displayed a high level of performance throughout the season against their peer group? It seems much more fair to me to reward a team for a well played season than for just being part of a big conference. One 8-8 Big East team could win it this year. UCONN went 8-8 in conference. However, they are on a huge run right now and are in the Tournament because they won their conference. The deserve to be there because of winning their conference, not because they had a great regular season. A .500 conference team could make it, they would just have to win their tournament to do so, making tournaments more exciting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Watcher Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 What about mandating that every conference has a tournament. That may only change the IVY league. All conference teams must be eligible to participate in their conference tournament. Then fix the field at 64 teams. Every regular season champion AND every conference tournament champion goes to the dance. That would be somewhere between 32 and 64 teams. As teams that win the regular season win their post season tournament .. it opens up spots for at large teams. This season there would have been about 10 at large teams. It rewards teams for having championship regular seasons as well as peaking at the right time in March. By having every conference have a post season tournament .. ever team is technically in a tournament draw to win the NCAA title. You keep winning, you keep playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAZipster0305 Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 What about mandating that every conference has a tournament. That may only change the IVY league. All conference teams must be eligible to participate in their conference tournament. Then fix the field at 64 teams. Every regular season champion AND every conference tournament champion goes to the dance. That would be somewhere between 32 and 64 teams. As teams that win the regular season win their post season tournament .. it opens up spots for at large teams. This season there would have been about 10 at large teams. It rewards teams for having championship regular seasons as well as peaking at the right time in March. By having every conference have a post season tournament .. ever team is technically in a tournament draw to win the NCAA title. You keep winning, you keep playing. A good idea in theory but it actually hurts individual conferences if the same team would win both the regular season and tournament championships. If you think referees are biased now... I like 64 teams with the regular season champion given the automatic bid because it rewards the consistently good team as opposed to the one that is hot at the end of the season (even though we have benefited from the current format). I don't think there is any way to get rid of the BCS bias in the at-large selection unless it would be solely based on RPI ranking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zipgrad1990 Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 I like the number of 96 for the NCAA tournament, with the top 32 seeds getting a bye. 96 is just under 28% of Div 1 teams (currently 346). Regular season and tournament champions would make the tournament. Sure most of those additional 28 teams would not compete to win a championship, but at least they make the post season which in football it is a big deal to play in a bowl game and most of those teams won't be a national champion either. I believe conferences should only be allowed a max of 50% of number of teams making the tournament (Big East would then only be allowed 8, not 11 teams). That way conference tournaments would mean something even to the bigger conferences. I'd hate to see the tournament go to 96 teams and then most of the extra slots going to the power conferences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAZipster0305 Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 If the Tournament is expanded to 96 teams, you had best believe that nearly all the at-large bids would still go to the BCS conferences. Why dilute it for the sake of the BCS? I like the idea of the NIT, CBI, and .com tournaments as they match teams with similar talent while still making the NCAA prestigious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachTheZip Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 If the Tournament is expanded to 96 teams, you had best believe that nearly all the at-large bids would still go to the BCS conferences. Why dilute it for the sake of the BCS? I like the idea of the NIT, CBI, and .com tournaments as they match teams with similar talent while still making the NCAA prestigious. Not if you require a .500+ conference record to get in. That would limit most BCS conferences to 50% of their membership, and let in more overlooked midmajors. The best part of a 96-team format is that you eliminate all the crappy teams on the first weekend and you get a true top-64 bracket instead of one loaded with teams whose only value is name recognition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.