Field of 65

I think exanding the field would be a huge mistake, if not only for the reason that the current bracket fits so nicely on a 8x11 sheet of paper. It would be a pain to have to go buy a set of legal-sized paper just to fill out my bracket once a year! :laugh:

 

Biggest Snub to me is Arizona State. They beat Arizona 2 times and had a better record in their conference.

Teams that should not have got in: Kentucky and Arizona. I think they should be replaced by Arizona State and Virginia Tech.

I do not have a problem with Tenn getting a #2 seed, but I do not think the should have been a #2 seed in the same region as UNC. Personally I think Texas and Tenn should swap places. It is not fair that if Memphis and Texas make it to the elite 8 that Texas will be basically playing a home game while being the lower seed.

I like the idea of expanding it to 128 and adding one more round of games. I think that way you eliminate a lot of the teams in the better conferences that get left out that are in reality better teams than some of the mid majors that get in. But its not a big deal to me, I like the 65 team deal too.

 

I would say ASU was the biggest snub that I am aware of.
Most people are saying that U of A got in rather than the Sun Devils and if that is true, here is how I see it:

U of A has now been to, I believe 24 consecutive NCAA tournaments.
I think as long as they are a bubble team or better they will be in.


I became a U of A fan at age 8 when they went to their first final four (1988)
After being in Indiana now since 1992 I have slowly become a Purdue fan but I do still main some loyalty to Purdue.

That caused a little family fued last year though when Purdue and AZ met for the opening round

 

one change I would make is no auto bid for multi bid leagues.
I would still gurantee one bid at the least from every conference but a team like GA who has 3 good days and gets back up to 500 to win their conference would not get an auto bid from the SEC.
the SEC is already represented so there would be no room for complaint.

 

OK, I hate UGA. But they won the SEC conference tourney so they deserve to be there. BTW, I hate UGA. Plus, their win was against incredible odds -- having to play twice in one day. Have I mentioned how much I hate the dawgs?

 

Kentucky is the Notre Dame of basketball. A lot of history, but they get into the tournament whether they deserve it or not.

 

Yes, I'm in as 'Wayne Fontes Fan Club'.

 

Biggest "snub" outside, was probably Illinois St..

Dayton has almost as good case, as do some others, but none of the 'snubs' are anywhere near equal to those of New Mexico over about a five year period, a while back, and Missouri, for two years running, a couple of years ago, who was once ignored with an RPI of 24, I believe.

Bissest 'disses' in the tournament are Butler as a #7 (should be a #5) and Kent St. as a #9 (should be a # 7, at worst). The Hoosiers have managed to play themselves down to a # 8, in the aftermath of Kelvin Sampson, even given that the talent level is much better than that, hence that is not a 'dis', IMO.

Who doesn't deserve to be there? Do you really expect any KY fan, "of which I are one", to admit that KY does not deserve to be included? :laugh:

Seriously, KY IMO, does fully deserve it based on their conference record, and the improvement in the overall play, as the year progressed, especially after Christmas, where every one of the 7 losses were either on the road to SEC teams, or to teams in the Dance. In retrospect, I would also suggest that there are three losses that did not hurt UK as much as they might have, otherwise. San Diego, by winning the WCC tourney, by knocking off the 'Zags and Gaels on successive nights, finished with both a Conference and a season record that was a higher percentage than UK; Tennessee away, by only three, minus Patterson; and Georgia after the tornado, in the "red-eye" game in Windlanta, and then the Dogs winning the conference Tourney over a better rested Arkansas. Add also that that UK is still UK, just as AZ is AZ, NC is NC, UCLA is ..., and so on; and the Tourney took five at-large SEC teams plus tourney winner Georgia. Arkansas did not even have as good a conference record as UK, nor had it (or Miss. State or Vandy) been as hot, recently, until Arkansas started playing well in March. However, as you posted, there is an entire season to cover, so this should be considered, as well.

Bobby Knight's suggestion deserves some serious consideration. Hmmm!

OK, I've considered it - for a total of about four seconds, and NOPE!

As to TN not getting a #1 seed. I agree! A # 2 is right! They had at least two fewer wins (and more losses) than any of the four #1s; Their record against the top 100 was a lower precentage, than the other #1s, as well.

I noticed there do seem to be an awful lot of Mildcats -'er I mean Wildcats, in this tourney. And four with very questionable resumes, too. And only the clowder of 'Cats, from North Carolina out of the five, earned their way there, I noticed, as well.

In summary, the Ill. St. Salukis and/or the Dayton Fly-boys may (and probably do) deserve inclusion over some of the 65. Which team or teams should be out?? Obviously, the Wildcats. :laugh:

I suggest UK avail themselves of the opportunity to visit Disneyland, as an attraction, while they are in California. They'll have no worries about taking in the Alamo.

Ed