As EJ just said on the postgame, if MSU gets the rebound on that missed free throw with 38 seconds left in the 2nd half, they win. That was the play of the game, Jaquez rebounding his own missed free throw and turning into an and-1 to tie the game.

(03-18-2021 06:16 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  They could, though I assume Dayton would fight to keep having two nights, and the other site would want two nights as well.

The Dayton Metro has 2 arenas (UD and WSU). That might be the "optimal solution" in terms of having all 4 games in 1 night.

I do agree with what others are saying --- I like the 4 games in 1 night over 4 games in 2 nights.

(03-18-2021 06:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think I agree on this-

Great for TV fans. It means two venues.

If they expand the First Four to the Early Eight, I presume they'd have four games in Dayton and four at a Western site, so you could do it easily.

If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

(03-19-2021 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think I agree on this-

Great for TV fans. It means two venues.

If they expand the First Four to the Early Eight, I presume they'd have four games in Dayton and four at a Western site, so you could do it easily.

If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

I would prefer that they go to 76 teams, with the champions from the 16 lowest ranked (over a trailing three year period) conferences playing down to four teams prior to selection of the final 60 teams. So the playin round would take place the week before the round of 64, and the four teams that advance can be placed wherever it makes sense.

Those 16 conferences would know who they are prior to setting their own schedules so that they can determine their champions prior to the playin round. And, depending on who the four playin winners are, some of those might be seeded higher than #16 if their regular season performance warrants it.

(03-19-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think I agree on this-

Great for TV fans. It means two venues.

If they expand the First Four to the Early Eight, I presume they'd have four games in Dayton and four at a Western site, so you could do it easily.

If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

I would prefer that they go to 76 teams, with the champions from the 16 lowest ranked (over a trailing three year period) conferences playing down to four teams prior to selection of the final 60 teams. So the playin round would take place the week before the round of 64, and the four teams that advance can be placed wherever it makes sense.

Those 16 conferences would know who they are prior to setting their own schedules so that they can determine their champions prior to the playin round. And, depending on who the four playin winners are, some of those might be seeded higher than #16 if their regular season performance warrants it.

That actually was the format in 1991 for one season. They had three "play in" games before the tournament. Unlike the format since 2001, the losers were not considered to have made the NCAA Tournament and the winners were not credited with a tournament win.

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/06/sport...berth.html

Interestingly, all three play-in winners were #15 seeds instead of #16 seeds. Not surprisingly all three of them lost in the first round but 1991 was special in the fact that the fourth #1 seed, Richmond, became the first #15 seed ever to win an NCAA Tournament game.

I don't like it because it cheapens the automatic qualifiers. Why are we saying Drexel doesn't deserve to make the NCAA Tournament for winning the CAA, they need to win another game just to prove they belong in the NCAA Tournament? If anything make the Wichita State's and Michigan State's prove they belong in the NCAA Tournament. If you can't beat a Pathetic 12 team, you don't deserve to call yourself an NCAA Tournament team.

(03-19-2021 08:24 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Great for TV fans. It means two venues.

If they expand the First Four to the Early Eight, I presume they'd have four games in Dayton and four at a Western site, so you could do it easily.

If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

I would prefer that they go to 76 teams, with the champions from the 16 lowest ranked (over a trailing three year period) conferences playing down to four teams prior to selection of the final 60 teams. So the playin round would take place the week before the round of 64, and the four teams that advance can be placed wherever it makes sense.

Those 16 conferences would know who they are prior to setting their own schedules so that they can determine their champions prior to the playin round. And, depending on who the four playin winners are, some of those might be seeded higher than #16 if their regular season performance warrants it.

That actually was the format in 1991 for one season. They had three "play in" games before the tournament. Unlike the format since 2001, the losers were not considered to have made the NCAA Tournament and the winners were not credited with a tournament win.

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/06/sport...berth.html

Interestingly, all three play-in winners were #15 seeds instead of #16 seeds. Not surprisingly all three of them lost in the first round but 1991 was special in the fact that the fourth #1 seed, Richmond, became the first #15 seed ever to win an NCAA Tournament game.

I don't like it because it cheapens the automatic qualifiers. Why are we saying Drexel doesn't deserve to make the NCAA Tournament for winning the CAA, they need to win another game just to prove they belong in the NCAA Tournament? If anything make the Wichita State's and Michigan State's prove they belong in the NCAA Tournament. If you can't beat a Pathetic 12 team, you don't deserve to call yourself an NCAA Tournament team.

The NCAA already cheapened automatic qualifiers by allowing so many money chasing schools and conferences to bloat D-I. I'm saying that neither Drexel nor Duke should "deserve" an invitation for no reason other than that they win their conference.

(03-19-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think I agree on this-

Great for TV fans. It means two venues.

If they expand the First Four to the Early Eight, I presume they'd have four games in Dayton and four at a Western site, so you could do it easily.

If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

I would prefer that they go to 76 teams, with the champions from the 16 lowest ranked (over a trailing three year period) conferences playing down to four teams prior to selection of the final 60 teams. So the playin round would take place the week before the round of 64, and the four teams that advance can be placed wherever it makes sense.

Those 16 conferences would know who they are prior to setting their own schedules so that they can determine their champions prior to the playin round. And, depending on who the four playin winners are, some of those might be seeded higher than #16 if their regular season performance warrants it.

If that’s your answer you might as well just eliminate those conferences

You’re telling them that they have no shot and even if they get a really good team they’re stuck in the first 16

(03-18-2021 11:56 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 11:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 11:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wow, UCLA wins!

Did not see that coming at all.

Michigan St sure fell apart there at the end. what did they say 53-36?

The lead was 11 at halftime, 44-33, and that was the largest lead of the 2nd half.

yeah so UCLA beat then 53-36 in the 2nd half and OT.

was at one point late 75-70 so 16-5 run to end the game.

Everyone could prob save themselves time and just tune in to watch the final 4-5m. It's unfortunate that the sport has made the first 30m absolutely meaningless.

I tuned it to see Norfolk up 19 points as AppSt missed its first 19 3s. I immediately changed the channel, not because I thought the game was over, but instead I knew that AppSt would come back to make the game go down to the wire.

Norf 34-15 with 22:12 left
AppState 46-45 with 7:42 left
AppState 51-45 with 4:52 left
So 31-11 in 14:30 to take lead
So 36-11 in 17:20

And Wichita State held a big lead - lost
And Michigan State held a big lead - lost

The sport is all about lucky comebacks (luckbacks) now.

(03-19-2021 09:02 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Great for TV fans. It means two venues.

If they expand the First Four to the Early Eight, I presume they'd have four games in Dayton and four at a Western site, so you could do it easily.

If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

I would prefer that they go to 76 teams, with the champions from the 16 lowest ranked (over a trailing three year period) conferences playing down to four teams prior to selection of the final 60 teams. So the playin round would take place the week before the round of 64, and the four teams that advance can be placed wherever it makes sense.

Those 16 conferences would know who they are prior to setting their own schedules so that they can determine their champions prior to the playin round. And, depending on who the four playin winners are, some of those might be seeded higher than #16 if their regular season performance warrants it.

If that’s your answer you might as well just eliminate those conferences

You’re telling them that they have no shot and even if they get a really good team they’re stuck in the first 16

If, by "eliminate those conferences", you mean relegate them to D-II, I could certainly live with that. I don't need to tell them that they have no shot. They already know that. They didn't choose to move up to D-I in order to "have a shot". They did it for the free money the NCAA was giving away. Take away the money and watch how fast those schools would move down to D-II.

last night I just saw was the tied for closest first four in the 10 year history of it.

(03-19-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think I agree on this-

Great for TV fans. It means two venues.

If they expand the First Four to the Early Eight, I presume they'd have four games in Dayton and four at a Western site, so you could do it easily.

If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

I would prefer that they go to 76 teams, with the champions from the 16 lowest ranked (over a trailing three year period) conferences playing down to four teams prior to selection of the final 60 teams. So the playin round would take place the week before the round of 64, and the four teams that advance can be placed wherever it makes sense.

Those 16 conferences would know who they are prior to setting their own schedules so that they can determine their champions prior to the playin round. And, depending on who the four playin winners are, some of those might be seeded higher than #16 if their regular season performance warrants it.

Well, what if one of those 16 conferences has a great team, and is ranked in everyone's top 20? Do they still get stuck in those play-in games?

Why should conference champion/auto bids have to fight to get into the main field? Those spots should go to all the bubble teams. It's too close to call whether you make the Round of 64? Fight your way in, since you clearly couldn't do it during the season.

(03-19-2021 09:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 09:02 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  If they expand the First Four to the Early Eight, I presume they'd have four games in Dayton and four at a Western site, so you could do it easily.

If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

I would prefer that they go to 76 teams, with the champions from the 16 lowest ranked (over a trailing three year period) conferences playing down to four teams prior to selection of the final 60 teams. So the playin round would take place the week before the round of 64, and the four teams that advance can be placed wherever it makes sense.

Those 16 conferences would know who they are prior to setting their own schedules so that they can determine their champions prior to the playin round. And, depending on who the four playin winners are, some of those might be seeded higher than #16 if their regular season performance warrants it.

If that’s your answer you might as well just eliminate those conferences

You’re telling them that they have no shot and even if they get a really good team they’re stuck in the first 16

If, by "eliminate those conferences", you mean relegate them to D-II, I could certainly live with that. I don't need to tell them that they have no shot. They already know that. They didn't choose to move up to D-I in order to "have a shot". They did it for the free money the NCAA was giving away. Take away the money and watch how fast those schools would move down to D-II.

That is untrue - maybe for some teams, but many of the teams you want to relegate have been D-1 long before the tournament was such a cash cow.

(03-19-2021 12:05 PM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  Why should conference champion/auto bids have to fight to get into the main field? Those spots should go to all the bubble teams. It's too close to call whether you make the Round of 64? Fight your way in, since you clearly couldn't do it during the season.

Exactly.

If you finished 9th in your conference and get left out, or have to do the play-in game, that's on you.

(03-19-2021 12:06 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 12:05 PM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  Why should conference champion/auto bids have to fight to get into the main field? Those spots should go to all the bubble teams. It's too close to call whether you make the Round of 64? Fight your way in, since you clearly couldn't do it during the season.

Exactly.

If you finished 9th in your conference and get left out, or have to do the play-in game, that's on you.

That argument would be much stronger if autobids were given to regular season champions. When a team can get an autobid by doing nothing more than winning 3 tournament games in the 30th-best conference, can't say they "earned it" more than a team that wins 9 or 10 conference games in one of the best conferences.

(03-19-2021 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Great for TV fans. It means two venues.

If they expand the First Four to the Early Eight, I presume they'd have four games in Dayton and four at a Western site, so you could do it easily.

If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

I would prefer that they go to 76 teams, with the champions from the 16 lowest ranked (over a trailing three year period) conferences playing down to four teams prior to selection of the final 60 teams. So the playin round would take place the week before the round of 64, and the four teams that advance can be placed wherever it makes sense.

Those 16 conferences would know who they are prior to setting their own schedules so that they can determine their champions prior to the playin round. And, depending on who the four playin winners are, some of those might be seeded higher than #16 if their regular season performance warrants it.

Well, what if one of those 16 conferences has a great team, and is ranked in everyone's top 20? Do they still get stuck in those play-in games?

Why not? They shouldn't have any problem getting into the round of 64 if they really deserved that high ranking in the first place. And if they are a top 20 team, they will get a top five seed in the round of 64.

I wonder how many times in the history of the tournament a team from one of the weakest 16 conferences has been a ranked team going into the tournament. I have to think it's pretty rare.

(03-19-2021 12:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 12:06 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 12:05 PM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  Why should conference champion/auto bids have to fight to get into the main field? Those spots should go to all the bubble teams. It's too close to call whether you make the Round of 64? Fight your way in, since you clearly couldn't do it during the season.

Exactly.

If you finished 9th in your conference and get left out, or have to do the play-in game, that's on you.

That argument would be much stronger if autobids were given to regular season champions. When a team can get an autobid by doing nothing more than winning 3 tournament games in the 30th-best conference, can't say they "earned it" more than a team that wins 9 or 10 conference games in one of the best conferences.

And yet neither Maryland or Michigan State had a winning record.

And I like the tourney the way it is. If you have a good team, even in a "bottom 16 conference, you can get higher than a 16 seed or a play-in game.

(03-19-2021 12:47 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 12:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 12:06 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 12:05 PM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  Why should conference champion/auto bids have to fight to get into the main field? Those spots should go to all the bubble teams. It's too close to call whether you make the Round of 64? Fight your way in, since you clearly couldn't do it during the season.

Exactly.

If you finished 9th in your conference and get left out, or have to do the play-in game, that's on you.

That argument would be much stronger if autobids were given to regular season champions. When a team can get an autobid by doing nothing more than winning 3 tournament games in the 30th-best conference, can't say they "earned it" more than a team that wins 9 or 10 conference games in one of the best conferences.

And yet neither Maryland or Michigan State had a winning record.

And I like the tourney the way it is. If you have a good team, even in a "bottom 16 conference, you can get higher than a 16 seed or a play-in game.

Okay. So we agree that neither a team that is below .500 in its conference nor a team that has only won the lottery of a conference tournament has earned the right to not have to play into the main field. (And yes, for any proofreaders out there, I know that Michigan State was already not in the main field.)

I would do this: If an autobid recipient is the regular season champ of its conference, they are guaranteed a place in the main field. Then the committee ranks all teams from 1 to 68 or 72 or 76 or however many are in the tournament, and the lowest-ranked teams that were not regular season champs, regardless of conference, have to play in to reach the main field.

(03-19-2021 08:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 08:24 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 06:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  If they expand the First Four to the Early Eight, I presume they'd have four games in Dayton and four at a Western site, so you could do it easily.

If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

I would prefer that they go to 76 teams, with the champions from the 16 lowest ranked (over a trailing three year period) conferences playing down to four teams prior to selection of the final 60 teams. So the playin round would take place the week before the round of 64, and the four teams that advance can be placed wherever it makes sense.

Those 16 conferences would know who they are prior to setting their own schedules so that they can determine their champions prior to the playin round. And, depending on who the four playin winners are, some of those might be seeded higher than #16 if their regular season performance warrants it.

That actually was the format in 1991 for one season. They had three "play in" games before the tournament. Unlike the format since 2001, the losers were not considered to have made the NCAA Tournament and the winners were not credited with a tournament win.

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/06/sport...berth.html

Interestingly, all three play-in winners were #15 seeds instead of #16 seeds. Not surprisingly all three of them lost in the first round but 1991 was special in the fact that the fourth #1 seed, Richmond, became the first #15 seed ever to win an NCAA Tournament game.

I don't like it because it cheapens the automatic qualifiers. Why are we saying Drexel doesn't deserve to make the NCAA Tournament for winning the CAA, they need to win another game just to prove they belong in the NCAA Tournament? If anything make the Wichita State's and Michigan State's prove they belong in the NCAA Tournament. If you can't beat a Pathetic 12 team, you don't deserve to call yourself an NCAA Tournament team.

The NCAA already cheapened automatic qualifiers by allowing so many money chasing schools and conferences to bloat D-I. I'm saying that neither Drexel nor Duke should "deserve" an invitation for no reason other than that they win their conference.

Generally only teams up the #3 seed are legitimately trying to win the tournament. With all COVID cancellations, I’m hopeful that #4 seeds will be competitive this year.

With some lucky breaks, one #4-8 seeded team will win once a decade. Everything has to fall in place and it is rare. Single elimination tournaments are designed to allow fluky results.

That means that for more than half the teams, the main reason for participating is the money. The tournament generates a lot of money for schools and conferences. This year, Michigan State and Mount St Mary’s are just there to protect the financial interests of their conferences. If you can win a few games, all the better for your conference.

(03-19-2021 01:37 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 08:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 08:24 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  If they go to 72 teams, I'd agree.

One problem with the games on the same night is depending on when you schedule them it limits when and who they can play in the next round. The way the NCAA set the schedule up Gonzaga and Michigan got lucky and got First Four winners in the first round while Baylor and Illinois are playing real #16 seeds or teams that pre-2010 would be #15 seeds. Think that doesn't matter? Ask 2018 Virginia. Do you think they lose in the first round to one of the four worst teams in the tournament? If the NCAA Tournament was fair, the two best teams in the country should always get the two play in game winners. The Selection Committee talks about the S-Curve, shouldn't they use it, especially in a situation where it is a definite advantage? There is no reason Michigan should get an easier first round game or opponent than Illinois or Baylor if those teams are better than Michigan? This is another reason why Dayton shouldn't always host the First Four. Either the NCAA would have had to send a First Four winner way out west to play Gonzaga in the first round or Gonzaga would've been screwed out of a First Four winner.

I would prefer that they go to 76 teams, with the champions from the 16 lowest ranked (over a trailing three year period) conferences playing down to four teams prior to selection of the final 60 teams. So the playin round would take place the week before the round of 64, and the four teams that advance can be placed wherever it makes sense.

Those 16 conferences would know who they are prior to setting their own schedules so that they can determine their champions prior to the playin round. And, depending on who the four playin winners are, some of those might be seeded higher than #16 if their regular season performance warrants it.

That actually was the format in 1991 for one season. They had three "play in" games before the tournament. Unlike the format since 2001, the losers were not considered to have made the NCAA Tournament and the winners were not credited with a tournament win.

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/06/sport...berth.html

Interestingly, all three play-in winners were #15 seeds instead of #16 seeds. Not surprisingly all three of them lost in the first round but 1991 was special in the fact that the fourth #1 seed, Richmond, became the first #15 seed ever to win an NCAA Tournament game.

I don't like it because it cheapens the automatic qualifiers. Why are we saying Drexel doesn't deserve to make the NCAA Tournament for winning the CAA, they need to win another game just to prove they belong in the NCAA Tournament? If anything make the Wichita State's and Michigan State's prove they belong in the NCAA Tournament. If you can't beat a Pathetic 12 team, you don't deserve to call yourself an NCAA Tournament team.

The NCAA already cheapened automatic qualifiers by allowing so many money chasing schools and conferences to bloat D-I. I'm saying that neither Drexel nor Duke should "deserve" an invitation for no reason other than that they win their conference.

Generally only teams up the #3 seed are legitimately trying to win the tournament. With all COVID cancellations, I’m hopeful that #4 seeds will be competitive this year.

With some lucky breaks, one #4-8 seeded team will win once a decade. Everything has to fall in place and it is rare. Single elimination tournaments are designed to allow fluky results.

That means that for more than half the teams, the main reason for participating is the money. The tournament generates a lot of money for schools and conferences. This year, Michigan State and Mount St Mary’s are just there to protect the financial interests of their conferences. If you can win a few games, all the better for your conference.

I'm sure there are always teams seeded worse than #3 that are trying to win the tournament. But to your point, in the past 20 tournaments, only one (a #7) has actually done so. In fact, on average only 1.15 such teams make it as far as the Final Four.

#1 seeds got to the FF 31 times, #2's made it 16 times and #3's 10 times.

Interestingly, no #6 seed got that far (and no team seeded #12 or worse made it).