1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

NCAA Tournament: Changes?

Discussion in 'Sports Forum' started by TomVols, Mar 12, 2007.

?

How would you change the NCAA Men's BBall tournament?

  1. I wouldn't

    4 vote(s)
    40.0%

  2. Expand to 80 teams (give many high seeds a first round bye)

    1 vote(s)
    10.0%

  3. Expand to 96 teams (Give some high seeds a first round bye)

    2 vote(s)
    20.0%

  4. Expand to 128 teams (Add one more round)

    1 vote(s)
    10.0%

  5. Expand to all Div 1 schools (add two more rounds)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  6. Reduce the field (Post how many you'd have)

    2 vote(s)
    20.0%
Top Posters
  1. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    How would you change the tournament format?
     
    #1 TomVols, Mar 12, 2007
  2. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd expand the field to 96 teams and give the regular season champs AND conference champs automatic bids. You could start with the lower round games on Tuesday and then proceed as normal. I don't know if expanding to 128 is practical.

    I meant to add a question about automatic bids. Who should get them? Should there be any automatic bids?
     
    #2 TomVols, Mar 12, 2007
  3. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    1
    I wouldn't change the size of the field at all. I would keep automatic bids, otherwise, the only teams the committee would choose are those from big conferences. I would give automatic bids to regular season conference winners.
     
    #3 ccrobinson, Mar 12, 2007
  4. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would expand all 16 seeds to play-in games.

    I wouldn't object to making all of the 15 seeds play-ins as well.

    There is no point in leaving a good bubble team at home because Crenton Valley State East Lansing Community College won a tournament, only to be thrashed in the first round.
     
    #4 StefanM, Mar 12, 2007
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's the point of a play in game in a 64 team tournament? As much as I object to these small schools making it while a Syracuse or West Virginia doesn't, the truth is that Syracuse had their chance and didn't win their tournament.

    I would eliminate the play in game.

    I would be tempted to have all conference tournament finalists and regular season first and second place teams get automatic bids, and everyone else stays home.

    With 30 some games, everyone has plenty of chances to win. Make the regular season mean something.
     
    #5 Pastor Larry, Mar 12, 2007
  6. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The point of a play-in game is to provide for the automatic bids to conferences whose champions will be absolutely demolished 99.99999% of the time by major schools.

    Do I respect this little schools? No. Not at all. Some of the mid-majors are worthy, but the cupcake conferences are only good for cannon fodder. Why take a bid from a team that could actually compete in the tournament? I say let the doormats play each other for the right to get destroyed by quality teams.
     
    #6 StefanM, Mar 12, 2007
  7. bobbyd

    bobbyd New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    1
    Get rid of that play in/lamb to the slaughter game.
     
    #7 bobbyd, Mar 13, 2007
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. That is why I voted to reduce the field to 64 teams.

    That way the Committee will leave out one fewer deserving school, as it always somehow finds a way to manage to do, such as (especially) Drexel, Syracuse and Missouri State, and this one for the last two consecutive years in a row.

    Ed
     
    #8 EdSutton, Mar 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2007
  9. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would cut it back to the champions of the conferences , the one who wins their tournament.
     
    #9 Bob Alkire, Mar 13, 2007
  10. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    One, reducing the field of 65 to 64 means an at-large bid goes away. No way the NCAA is taking an automatic bid away.

    Two, I'm shocked to see so many say they basically like the controversy of deserving teams getting left home. That's what happens when you have the present number of teams. The talking heads say they like the controversy, that it gives us something to talk about on Mondays. I say that's bull. We have enough to talk about without the NCAA tournament being the poster child of mismanagment.
     
    #10 TomVols, Mar 13, 2007
  11. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,981
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If I were dictator of the NCAA here would be my ruling:

    Divide the country into 8 geo regions. There would be 16 teams in each region. (total of 128 teams) Play would be by double elimination.
    You would only play in your region. No more Syracuse going to the West region, or UCLA going to the South region, ect. Obviously, the first brackets would not have any conference teams facing each other.

    Actually, some teams would be in different regions from other tealms in their conference. ie Syracuse would be in the Mid Atlantic, West VA, would be in the Mid South for example.

    The top 16 teams would go to the finals ( top 2 teams in each region)
    The final 16 teams would be reseeded. This tournament would also be won by double elimination.

    Isn't this a great ideal:thumbs: or what

    Salty
     
    #11 Salty, Mar 13, 2007
  12. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm completely against Double Elimination. It takes the weight off of the individual game.
     
    #12 StefanM, Mar 13, 2007
  13. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    1
    If the point of a tournament is to determine who the best team is, then a double-elim format might be fine. Other than it taking a rather lengthy amount of time to determine the champion, and a double-elim being an inherently complex format, it's not the worst idea ever. But, the point of a tournament is not to determine who the best team is.

    The point of a tournament is to crown a champion. Generally, the best team, such as the '05 North Carolina Tarheels, wins the tournament. But, you'll have a very difficult time convincing anybody that the '83 NC State Wolfpack, or the '85 Villanova Wildcats, were the best teams in the country in their respective years.

    I will continue to say that there is no good reason to fix the NCAA Tournament, because it's not broken.
     
    #13 ccrobinson, Mar 13, 2007
  14. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone brought up the idea that is often bandied about, and that's reseeding the Final Four. Interesting notion, because I do think this will happen before the much needed expansion, and it should happen.
     
    #14 TomVols, Mar 13, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...