Red Mosquito • View topic

Bammer · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:56 pm

Nice.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5125307

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

So out of 347 D-1 schools there going from 65 to 68 :-/

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

This would mean that the 4 #1 seeds get a 1st Round bye?

Too Big a Man Too Say · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:14 am

Wes C. Addle wrote:

This would mean that the 4 #1 seeds get a 1st Round bye?

No, it means that instead instead of one play in game for the 16 seeds, there will be four.

I wish they would make the play in games for the 11 or 12 seeds, meaning the last at large teams would have to play their way in, instead of the teams that won the automatic bids.
But either way, this is way better than 96. :thumbsup:

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

Too Big a Man Too Say wrote:

Wes C. Addle wrote:

This would mean that the 4 #1 seeds get a 1st Round bye?

No, it means that instead instead of one play in game for the 16 seeds, there will be four.

I wish they would make the play in games for the 11 or 12 seeds, meaning the last at large teams would have to play their way in, instead of the teams that won the automatic bids.
But either way, this is way better than 96. :thumbsup:

Yeah I hate play in games that mean they get to be the 16th seed :-/

Make the play in game actually mean something to the team and give the winner 11 or 12 seed. :thumbsup:

TBAMTS

mray10 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:06 pm

Too Big a Man Too Say wrote:

Wes C. Addle wrote:

This would mean that the 4 #1 seeds get a 1st Round bye?

No, it means that instead instead of one play in game for the 16 seeds, there will be four.

I wish they would make the play in games for the 11 or 12 seeds, meaning the last at large teams would have to play their way in, instead of the teams that won the automatic bids.
But either way, this is way better than 96. :thumbsup:

Completely agree.

This kind of expansion actually does nothing for the tournament. I don't know anyone who watches the current play-in game (oh I'm sorry "opening round game") and that won't change if it's just four of the same. But take the last eight at large teams and let them fight to make it into the bracket? Now that's fun, and people will love to watch that.

The only issue is where to seed those teams, but frankly seeding is arbitrary enough already that it shouldn't be too big a deal.

pearljamfan80 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:15 pm

Just make them all fight for a 12 seed.

YessCode · **Joined:** Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:12 am **Posts:** 3783

Whatever keeps Penn State out, so we get a new coach.

Although, we wouldn't make it into a 96-team tourney most years anyway. :cry:

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

pearljamfan80 wrote:

Just make them all fight for a 12 seed.

Mickey · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:01 pm

Why make this larger? The idea of having 96 teams was stupid to begin with. No team higher than a #8 seed has ever won in the 64 team format. Extra teams means more meaningless games.

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

Mickey wrote:

Why make this larger? The idea of having 96 teams was stupid to begin with. No team higher than a #8 seed has ever won in the 64 team format. Extra teams means more meaningless games.

Parity

Joesanity · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:44 pm

Wes C. Addle wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Why make this larger? The idea of having 96 teams was stupid to begin with. No team higher than a #8 seed has ever won in the 64 team format. Extra teams means more meaningless games.

Parity

$$$

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

Joesanity wrote:

Wes C. Addle wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Why make this larger? The idea of having 96 teams was stupid to begin with. No team higher than a #8 seed has ever won in the 64 team format. Extra teams means more meaningless games.

Parity

$$$

Touché

Mickey · **Posted:** Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:14 am

Wes C. Addle wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Why make this larger? The idea of having 96 teams was stupid to begin with. No team higher than a #8 seed has ever won in the 64 team format. Extra teams means more meaningless games.

Parity

How does having a first round where the #1 seed demolishes a #32 seed make anything more fair?

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

Mickey wrote:

Wes C. Addle wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Why make this larger? The idea of having 96 teams was stupid to begin with. No team higher than a #8 seed has ever won in the 64 team format. Extra teams means more meaningless games.

Parity

How does having a first round where the #1 seed demolishes a #32 seed make anything more fair?

Well shit #1 seed first round matches are always a squash, I'm talking more about the other games.

Mickey · **Posted:** Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:27 am

Wes C. Addle wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Wes C. Addle wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Why make this larger? The idea of having 96 teams was stupid to begin with. No team higher than a #8 seed has ever won in the 64 team format. Extra teams means more meaningless games.

Parity

How does having a first round where the #1 seed demolishes a #32 seed make anything more fair?

Well shit #1 seed first round matches are always a squash, I'm talking more about the other games.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point. For every one team that was on the bubble and deserved to make it, there's 20 teams that have no business being in the tournament. If you can't be in the top 64 teams, do you really have any business claiming a right to play for the National Championship? You have to lose a significant number of games to be excluded from the tournament. An increased field would decrease the status of the winner. Anyone can get hot for a tourney; by restricting the field, you make sure only teams that were at least consistently decent have a chance to compete. It recongizes the significance of the regular season. 96 teams? Fuck, you could lose all your games and still make it in.

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

Mickey wrote:

Wes C. Addle wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Wes C. Addle wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Why make this larger? The idea of having 96 teams was stupid to begin with. No team higher than a #8 seed has ever won in the 64 team format. Extra teams means more meaningless games.

Parity

How does having a first round where the #1 seed demolishes a #32 seed make anything more fair?

Well shit #1 seed first round matches are always a squash, I'm talking more about the other games.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point. For every one team that was on the bubble and deserved to make it, there's 20 teams that have no business being in the tournament. If you can't be in the top 64 teams, do you really have any business claiming a right to play for the National Championship? You have to lose a significant number of games to be excluded from the tournament. An increased field would decrease the status of the winner. Anyone can get hot for a tourney; by restricting the field, you make sure only teams that were at least consistently decent have a chance to compete. It recongizes the significance of the regular season. 96 teams? Fuck, you could lose all your games and still make it in.

MICKEY it's not going to be 96 teams so fucking drop it. it's only adding 4 teams.

pearljamfan80 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 am

Let's just drop the whole conference auto bids thing.

sportsfreakpete6 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:32 am

pearljamfan80 wrote:

Let's just drop the whole conference auto bids thing.

that doesn't make sense...then mid majors would never get in

pearljamfan80 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:33 am

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:

pearljamfan80 wrote:

Let's just drop the whole conference auto bids thing.

that doesn't make sense...then mid majors would never get in

The BCS likes this.

Tourney expands to 68 teams (not 96)

Who is online