(03-19-2014 09:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Throw all of these bubble teams in a pre-NCAA tournament. Then the Final 4 or whatever from that play-in tourney should get the "last 4 in" spots in the big dance.

Have NC State and SMU decide it on the court, not by a committee...

They're already doing this -- the last 4 bubble teams chosen have to play Tuesday/Wednesday for 2 spots in the main field. NC State/Xavier and Tennessee/Iowa "decided it on the court" and the winners moved on.

You want to do more of that? Instead of making the "last 4 in" play in for 2 spots in the main field, you want to make it "last 16" at-large teams playing on Tuesday/Wednesday for 8 spots in the main field?

Even if you do that, you'll still have teams griping about being left out. You're just moving the debate from the teams ranked 47th or 48th (committee had NCSU 47th on its list) by the committee to the teams ranked 59th or 60th.

(03-20-2014 07:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Throw all of these bubble teams in a pre-NCAA tournament. Then the Final 4 or whatever from that play-in tourney should get the "last 4 in" spots in the big dance.

Have NC State and SMU decide it on the court, not by a committee...

They're already doing this -- the last 4 bubble teams chosen have to play Tuesday/Wednesday for 2 spots in the main field. NC State/Xavier and Tennessee/Iowa "decided it on the court" and the winners moved on.

You want to do more of that? Instead of making the "last 4 in" play in for 2 spots in the main field, you want to make it "last 16" at-large teams playing on Tuesday/Wednesday for 8 spots in the main field?

Even if you do that, you'll still have teams griping about being left out. You're just moving the debate from the teams ranked 47th or 48th (committee had NCSU 47th on its list) by the committee to the teams ranked 59th or 60th.

Nope...I think you put in teams 60-76. 32 auto bids, 28 at-large. Of those 16, the last 4 get to the field of 64.

(03-20-2014 06:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 06:23 PM)Proud Bammer Wrote:  I would like two small changes:

1. Hold play-in games at the same site where the winner will play on Thirsday or Friday. The play-in teams have it hard enough without an added day of travel.

2. Only a 1 seed should be able to play in their home state: year after year Duke is placed on a path to the Final Four without leaving North Carolina soil. Let them fly to Boise or wherever like everyone else. Hell there are plenty of jewelry dealers in those places who could use the "not a violation" business.

Totally disagree. If you're a 4-seed or better, you deserve an advantage to extent that it's possible. It's one of the few incentives out there to play for during the regular season. What you're doing is going out of your way to *punish* Duke even though it has a 4-seed or better. Why should some random 8-seed or 12-seed get better consideration than a higher one? I hate Duke more ANY team ANYWHERE, but if they get better placement because they have a better seed, then that's MUCH fairer than making them schlep out to some random place and giving lower seeds greater advantages. I have little sympathy for the complaints of teams that have low seeds - if they have to face Duke in North Carolina, then so be it.

I'm not talking about an 8-seed getting better consideration than a 3, but rather a 3-seed getting better placement than a 1 or 2. Duke has the shortest distance to travel of ANY of the 68 teams in the tournament, campus to venue. I have seen that same placement too often to believe it coincidence.

If Iowa State has to start in San Antonio, then Duke can "schelp out" to some random place, too.

(03-19-2014 07:32 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 07:25 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  I like suggestion #1, and there is a big difference between going .500 and then winning the whole thing vs SUB .500

.500 is a good minimum standard and if Uconn was .500 regular season before they ran the table in conf tourney, then they were several games above this proposed minimum.

last year there were 3 teams in the tourny with under .500 conference records

one was a 16 seed and lost

the other 2 were from the b10 and both teams advanced to the round of 32

sorry dude but this would be one of the dumbest rule changes ever

except that the one teams in the tourney with sub-.500's you're referring to won their conference tourney. There was no argument about teams that win their conference tournament with a sub-500 record. They won by the rules as they are written.

It's the "at large" berths. I say if you can't finish better than .500, you should NOT be in the tourney as an at-large. (yes, I would not let a .500 team be under consideration for an at-large bid. You have to be at least 1 game over .500 in your conference for an at-large consideration) I dont care how tough your conference is. If you cant' be more than middle-of-the-pack of your conference, and you can't win the tourney, you should be out of the running for an at-large for a national title.