+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: OVCbbs (/forum-17.html)
+---- Forum: Ohio Valley Team Talk (/forum-784.html)
+----- Forum: Little Rock (/forum-291.html)
+----- Thread: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams (/thread-432291.html)
NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - PTJR - 04-22-2010 02:07 PM
Instead of going to a field of 96, the NCAA apparently is just going to expand the tournament by three teams to 68. I think the NCAA really didn't care too much about how many teams were in the tournament if they got what they wanted from the TV contract. It appears that they did. Every game in the tournament will now be carried live nationally, so fans will no longer be at the mercy of the network as to which game you can watch.
There is no info in the release on how the extra three teams will be fit in, but its a pretty safe bet that there will now be four play in games rather than one. So I guess the bottom eight conferences better get used to being put in one of those games, where in the past some of those teams got a 15 seed. As if the SBC needed extra incentives to get things reved up in the conference, this really provides a strong reason not to be one of the bottom eight conferences.
With an expansion as limited as this, I would imagine that the NIT will survive in its present form. Here's a link to the story:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5125307
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - Scotto - 04-22-2010 03:02 PM
But 4 of those teams actually have a chance to win a game. I suspect UAPB thought it was a good deal.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - PTJR - 04-22-2010 03:18 PM
(04-22-2010 03:02 PM)Scotto Wrote: But 4 of those teams actually have a chance to win a game. I suspect UAPB thought it was a good deal.
Actually, some of those teams might have been a #15 seed in previous years as with the 65 team set up there were only 5 potential #16 seeds. Since there have been a few #15 seeds beating #2 seeds, some of those teams might have won a game anyway. The Richmond Spiders were the first #15 seed to beat a #2, Syracuse, in 1991, and it has happened several times since then. The most recent that should have been was #15 Robert Morris against #2 Villanova this year. I was there, and but for a total hosing by the officials, Robert Morris wins that game.
But this set up might actually lead to a #1 getting beat by a #16 quicker for a couple of other reasons. Some #1s will have to play teams that would have been #15s, and those teams will already have a tournament game under the belt. Not all #1 seeds are the same, and now, they might have more exposure to an upset in the first round.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - Scotto - 04-22-2010 03:54 PM
Sounds like a win-win.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - LRTrojan - 04-22-2010 05:34 PM
I'll bet some of the coaches who haven't been able to get to the tournament, aren't happy. With 96 teams, some were probably looking forward to finally making the tournament, and for some, it might have meant saving their jobs. Fortunately, ours doesn't have to worry about anything like that. Lifetime contracts are wonderful.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - mjs - 04-22-2010 06:18 PM
(04-22-2010 05:34 PM)LRTrojan Wrote: I'll bet some of the coaches who haven't been able to get to the tournament, aren't happy. With 96 teams, some were probably looking forward to finally making the tournament, and for some, it might have meant saving their jobs. Fortunately, ours doesn't have to worry about anything like that. Lifetime contracts are wonderful.
While I'm glad they didn't expand to 96, this really hurts a league like the Sun Belt. Now most years we will be a 15th seed instead of a 14th seed. I believe UNT was a 15 seed this year, so they would have been a 16 seed in the new system. I guess the good thing is that this would have given them a reasonably good chance to win a game. I guess if UALR ever gets in, I'd rather they go in as a 16 seed, with a chance to win a game, than a 15 seed where more than likely they would be blown out. Maybe the best news is that it keeps the NIT and slightly increases our chances of getting in- we would have certainly gotten in 2 years ago, since we were one of the last two teams out.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - Scotto - 04-22-2010 06:27 PM
Don't know how this hurts the SBC. We get an opening game we can actually win.
What's wrong with that..?
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - mjs - 04-22-2010 06:39 PM
(04-22-2010 06:27 PM)Scotto Wrote: Don't know how this hurts the SBC. We get an opening game we can actually win.
What's wrong with that..?
I guess that would be a positive. I think, more often than not, we'll end up a 15 seed instead of a 14. Regardless, we'll almost end up one seed lower than we would have been before.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - insideualr - 04-22-2010 09:04 PM
So, Dayton has a 4 day tournament now. Anway, there are a little over 120 teams that play post season now. That means the top 3rd of the teams in d1 get to play. That has to mean us.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - PTJR - 04-22-2010 10:34 PM
(04-22-2010 09:04 PM)insideualr Wrote: So, Dayton has a 4 day tournament now. Anway, there are a little over 120 teams that play post season now. That means the top 3rd of the teams in d1 get to play. That has to mean us.
I'm not at all certain that the Dayton deal will survive this. My guess is that these games will go to the sub-regional sites with games two days before the first round with the #1 seed.
I assume with your 120 post season team count that you are including 68 from the NCAA, 32 from the NIT, and 8 from each of the CBI and CIT.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - mjs - 04-22-2010 10:56 PM
(04-22-2010 10:34 PM)PTJR Wrote:(04-22-2010 09:04 PM)insideualr Wrote: So, Dayton has a 4 day tournament now. Anway, there are a little over 120 teams that play post season now. That means the top 3rd of the teams in d1 get to play. That has to mean us.
I'm not at all certain that the Dayton deal will survive this. My guess is that these games will go to the sub-regional sites with games two days before the first round with the #1 seed.
I assume with your 120 post season team count that you are including 68 from the NCAA, 32 from the NIT, and 8 from each of the CBI and CIT.
I don't see why it wouldn't continue in Dayton. You might have a night time doubleheader in Dayton and another doubleheader in a different site. However, off-hand, I don't know what other city would support it like Dayton does.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - PTJR - 04-22-2010 11:15 PM
(04-22-2010 10:56 PM)mjs Wrote:(04-22-2010 10:34 PM)PTJR Wrote:(04-22-2010 09:04 PM)insideualr Wrote: So, Dayton has a 4 day tournament now. Anway, there are a little over 120 teams that play post season now. That means the top 3rd of the teams in d1 get to play. That has to mean us.
I'm not at all certain that the Dayton deal will survive this. My guess is that these games will go to the sub-regional sites with games two days before the first round with the #1 seed.
I assume with your 120 post season team count that you are including 68 from the NCAA, 32 from the NIT, and 8 from each of the CBI and CIT.
I don't see why it wouldn't continue in Dayton. You might have a night time doubleheader in Dayton and another doubleheader in a different site. However, off-hand, I don't know what other city would support it like Dayton does.
Boy, you got that right. But, now the NCAA would have the expense of traveling four teams rather than one from another site. That may not be a big deal however.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - arkstfan - 04-25-2010 05:23 PM
Two days in Dayton. Play two doubleheaders.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - Scotto - 04-25-2010 05:36 PM
(04-25-2010 05:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote: Two days in Dayton. Play two doubleheaders.
Seems better than playing a mid-day 2-game session and then an evening 2-game session on Tuesday. This way the first-day winners get the Thursday #1 seeds, and the second-day winners get the Friday #1 seeds.
RE: NCAA Tourney To 68 Teams - PTJR - 04-25-2010 05:48 PM
(04-25-2010 05:36 PM)Scotto Wrote:(04-25-2010 05:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote: Two days in Dayton. Play two doubleheaders.
Seems better than playing a mid-day 2-game session and then an evening 2-game session on Tuesday. This way the first-day winners get the Thursday #1 seeds, and the second-day winners get the Friday #1 seeds.
I think if Dayton keeps the deal that you guys are right. They would not have two teams with only a two day turn around for travel, etc. but a three day gap for the other two.