Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
I vote yes with Katz
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
MICHAELSPAPPY Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,788
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 33
I Root For: CHI ST, CROWLEY, TEX WES
Location: Booneville, Arkansas
Post: #21
RE: I vote yes with Katz
(03-04-2010 08:44 AM)Scotto Wrote:  The ultimate purpose of the NCAAT is to crown a N/C. A by-product is reward for a good season. Let all 327 play. It's stll about the N/C.

If we are going to expand the tournament at all, that is what I would do.
03-04-2010 10:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
outsideualr Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,770
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation: 12
I Root For: UALR
Location:
Post: #22
RE: I vote yes with Katz
(03-04-2010 10:36 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  
(03-04-2010 08:44 AM)Scotto Wrote:  The ultimate purpose of the NCAAT is to crown a N/C. A by-product is reward for a good season. Let all 327 play. It's stll about the N/C.

If we are going to expand the tournament at all, that is what I would do.

I have said for years now that I don't like the idea of a tournament deciding the NCAA representative for a one bid league. If that's what we are, then until that changes, either send the regular season champ or have a one game playoff between the division champs. Then winning a division championship would actually mean something except a seeding. Big deal. It hasn't helped us in the last 20 years.

Then hold a post season tournament without the NCAA rep, for the other teams, and crown a post season champion. That way it gives your league champ a reward for the entire body of work that season, but also gives the other teams a post season tournament which can give the winner some momentum for the next year. A mini NIT. I don't see that as such a bad idea.04-cheers
03-04-2010 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #23
RE: I vote yes with Katz
(03-04-2010 09:51 AM)Scotto Wrote:  Depends on how you look at. At the end, a N/C is crowned.

I'm cynical in my old age. The championship is little more than a marketing hook now.
03-04-2010 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mjs Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,591
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 59
I Root For: UALR
Location:
Post: #24
RE: I vote yes with Katz
(03-04-2010 10:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-04-2010 09:51 AM)Scotto Wrote:  Depends on how you look at. At the end, a N/C is crowned.

I'm cynical in my old age. The championship is little more than a marketing hook now.

A 96 team tournament would make the regular season even more meaningless. I used to watch a lot of college basketball during the regular season- now I have little interest in watching any games with the major schools because I pretty much know they're going to the NCAA tournament anyway. I'm sure KState and Kansas was a good game last night, but do I really care if they are going to be a #1, #2, or #3 seed? I will probably watch 20+ hours of basketball on day 1 and 2 of the NCAA tournament. Probably more than I've watched all year outside of UALR.
03-04-2010 06:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mjs Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,591
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 59
I Root For: UALR
Location:
Post: #25
RE: I vote yes with Katz
(03-04-2010 06:44 PM)mjs Wrote:  
(03-04-2010 10:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-04-2010 09:51 AM)Scotto Wrote:  Depends on how you look at. At the end, a N/C is crowned.

I'm cynical in my old age. The championship is little more than a marketing hook now.

A 96 team tournament would make the regular season even more meaningless. I used to watch a lot of college basketball during the regular season- now I have little interest in watching any games with the major schools because I pretty much know they're going to the NCAA tournament anyway. I'm sure KState and Kansas was a good game last night, but do I really care if they are going to be a #1, #2, or #3 seed? I will probably watch 20+ hours of basketball on day 1 and 2 of the NCAA tournament. Probably more than I've watched all year outside of UALR.

I guess its comparable to my view of the NBA. Other than watching Derek play, I wouldn't even think of watching an NBA game on TV before the playoffs. That's will happen if they expand the tourney. The best thing about college football is that there is no tournament, so that every regular season game is extremely meaningful.
03-04-2010 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eh9198 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,948
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Little Rock
Location: Little Rock
Post: #26
RE: I vote yes with Katz
I think it's perfect the way it is now. I hope they don't change it. I like the (for the most part, except for the play-in game) symmetrical, even bracket. I hate tournament byes if they can be avoided. I hate conferences that exclude the lower-level teams in their tournaments.

A 96 team tournament would eliminate the cinderellea teams that make it so marketable. They'd all eliminate each other or be eliminated before the round of 64 proper. What we'd have in the end is what we had last year: a boring, predicatble tournament with no Geroge Masons. It would become FAR rarer for something like that to happen. No more Kent States in the Elite 8, especially if they award home games to higher seeds(?) in the early rounds, which would be asinine. The very thing that makes the NCAA Tournament so great would be greatly compromised.

Leave the conference tournaments as they are. Hell, expand them to include all teams in all conferences. They become an extension of the NCAA Tournament, giving every non-provisional member of D1 a chance to go.

If the tournament expands, college basketball will suffer. 9 out of 10 people will tell you their favorite aspect of the Big Dance is to watch the cinderella stories. To see the George Masons and the Kent States and the UALRs come out of nowhere and knock off a big boy. It simply won't happen NEARLY as much if there are more teams included.
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2010 11:23 PM by eh9198.)
03-04-2010 11:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mjs Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,591
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 59
I Root For: UALR
Location:
Post: #27
RE: I vote yes with Katz
(03-04-2010 11:21 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  I think it's perfect the way it is now. I hope they don't change it. I like the (for the most part, except for the play-in game) symmetrical, even bracket. I hate tournament byes if they can be avoided. I hate conferences that exclude the lower-level teams in their tournaments.

A 96 team tournament would eliminate the cinderellea teams that make it so marketable. They'd all eliminate each other or be eliminated before the round of 64 proper. What we'd have in the end is what we had last year: a boring, predicatble tournament with no Geroge Masons. It would become FAR rarer for something like that to happen. No more Kent States in the Elite 8, especially if they award home games to higher seeds(?) in the early rounds, which would be asinine. The very thing that makes the NCAA Tournament so great would be greatly compromised.

Leave the conference tournaments as they are. Hell, expand them to include all teams in all conferences. They become an extension of the NCAA Tournament, giving every non-provisional member of D1 a chance to go.

If the tournament expands, college basketball will suffer. 9 out of 10 people will tell you their favorite aspect of the Big Dance is to watch the cinderella stories. To see the George Masons and the Kent States and the UALRs come out of nowhere and knock off a big boy. It simply won't happen NEARLY as much if there are more teams included.

Seems like most people agree that the tournament at 64 (65) teams is just where it should be. It's sad that they may change it for the almighty dollar. Maybe they'll come to their senses and keep it where it is. Maybe the logistics of a "play-in" round may be more difficult to work out than they realize. When would they play those 32 games? On the Tuesday before the NCAA tournament? BCS conferences that end their tourney's on Sunday wouldn't like that very much, especially if they would have to come back and play again on Thursday.
03-05-2010 12:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.