NCAA tournament is almost a done deal. Great, now we'll have BCS teams with .500 records and below .500 conference records in the NCAA tournament. The argument that there are 50 (or so) more DI teams than 20 years is totally bogus. Name one that is in the top 100 nationally. It will simply mean more BCS teams in the tournament- I guarantee this is not meant to help the little guy. We can also look forward to games between the #24 seed and the #1 sees- that should be exciting.

(04-01-2010 05:53 PM)mjs Wrote:  NCAA tournament is almost a done deal. Great, now we'll have BCS teams with .500 records and below .500 conference records in the NCAA tournament. The argument that there are 50 (or so) more DI teams than 20 years is totally bogus. Name one that is in the top 100 nationally. It will simply mean more BCS teams in the tournament- I guarantee this is not meant to help the little guy. We can also look forward to games between the #24 seed and the #1 sees- that should be exciting.

I heard that on the news today. Not good in my opinion. I agree that it won't help the mid-majors much.

(04-01-2010 06:03 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(04-01-2010 05:53 PM)mjs Wrote:  NCAA tournament is almost a done deal. Great, now we'll have BCS teams with .500 records and below .500 conference records in the NCAA tournament. The argument that there are 50 (or so) more DI teams than 20 years is totally bogus. Name one that is in the top 100 nationally. It will simply mean more BCS teams in the tournament- I guarantee this is not meant to help the little guy. We can also look forward to games between the #24 seed and the #1 sees- that should be exciting.

I heard that on the new today. Not good in my opinion. I agree that it won't help the mid-majors much.

Not unless they make the league champions an automatic bid along with tournament champions. Then it will help the little guys. If they don't do that, it's a farce.

(04-01-2010 06:45 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(04-01-2010 06:03 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(04-01-2010 05:53 PM)mjs Wrote:  NCAA tournament is almost a done deal. Great, now we'll have BCS teams with .500 records and below .500 conference records in the NCAA tournament. The argument that there are 50 (or so) more DI teams than 20 years is totally bogus. Name one that is in the top 100 nationally. It will simply mean more BCS teams in the tournament- I guarantee this is not meant to help the little guy. We can also look forward to games between the #24 seed and the #1 sees- that should be exciting.

I heard that on the new today. Not good in my opinion. I agree that it won't help the mid-majors much.

Not unless they make the league champions an automatic bid along with tournament champions. Then it will help the little guys. If they don't do that, it's a farce.

No way they do that and likely give half the new spots to nonBCS schools.

(04-01-2010 05:53 PM)mjs Wrote:  NCAA tournament is almost a done deal. Great, now we'll have BCS teams with .500 records and below .500 conference records in the NCAA tournament. The argument that there are 50 (or so) more DI teams than 20 years is totally bogus. Name one that is in the top 100 nationally. It will simply mean more BCS teams in the tournament- I guarantee this is not meant to help the little guy. We can also look forward to games between the #24 seed and the #1 sees- that should be exciting.

The sickening part to me is how the NCAA talks about academics and student athlete BS. They plan to get tough with the graduation rate but teams that advance to the 2nd round of the new format will miss a whole week of class, plus all the other days they already miss. And for what, so the Final 4 doesn't clash with CBS coverage of The Masters.

(04-01-2010 06:45 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  Not unless they make the league champions an automatic bid along with tournament champions. Then it will help the little guys.

I agree with this part but I happen to think that the 96 team format could be a good thing.

#1 WKU would have gotten at least two at large bids in the past ten years.

#2 How meaningful is a game pitting a 16 seed against a #1 seed? Not meaningful (or even fun) at all. BUT. Under the new format you will see what would have been a 16 seed instead playing what would have been a 9 seed in the old tournament. This is a much more competitive and interesting game. Same could be said for the 15 v. 2 games.

By taking all of the powerhouses out of the first round, that first round potentially becomes much more competitive and interesting.

(04-02-2010 07:54 AM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  By taking all of the powerhouses out of the first round, that first round potentially becomes much more competitive and interesting.

+1

So, the ncaa owns the NIT, what happens to it? If you do away with it then all this works out. If the NCAA keeps it, then this is over kill.

(04-02-2010 08:20 AM)insideualr Wrote:  So, the ncaa owns the NIT, what happens to it? If you do away with it then all this works out. If the NCAA keeps it, then this is over kill.

In the broadcast of Dayton's win over UNC for the NIT Championship last night, they talked about if the NCAA expanded to 96 teams that last night's game would probably be the last NIT Championship game. It is logical that the NIT would basically be folded into the NCAA and cease to exist independently.

If I heard it correctly, Dayton may have earned a unique spot in NIT history last night. If it was indeed the last NIT Championship, Dayton won the last one, and apparently also won the very first one way back in 1938.

I've read that the NIT might be transformed into the non-winners of the 1st Round.