NCAA Tournament

I did no such thing, friend. My analysis and argument had nothing to do with your perceived fidelity to tradition. That was merely a stated perception on my part based on your comments.

Instead, I based my argument on my reasoning. Read the posts again, my friend I don't think there's any question that there are people that don't want to change anything, and since this is a Baptist board, there are probably many of them here :laugh: My argument is not anti-antichange. It's pro-advancement, if you will. You made comments like:

That's a red-herring because no one made that argument. If you can point out where I said that we should, please do. Otherwise, it stands as a non-sequitur.

Have a good one! :wavey:

 

As I stated earlier, the main reason I'm for expansion is having more teams would increase the competitiveness of the opening round games, generally. Having some games between a 4th or 5th placed high major with a 1st or 2nd mid-major would be more competitive than the 1-16 , 2-15 or 3-14 matchups we have now. This year there were some uncompetitive "even" matched games - Basketball is that unpredictable - but this is not typical. Last year saw 16 seeds leading the 1s in the second half. There is better competition and more parity, and since the game has evolved, the time for expansion is here. I just love college basketball too much - I love March Madness so much and hate to see NCAA drag its feet (as usual) on something that would be good for the game, IMHO.

Reducing the field isn't going to happen because of money. Also, you'll have the third or fourth best teams from the SEC, ACC, and Pac 10 not go to the tournament, and that just isn't fair. This would be akin to 9 or 10 win teams not going to a bowl game at all in CFB. Retraction would mean that ranked teams would not make it to the tournament, as happened before expansion.

Attendance is rarely announced at NCAA games, so it's hard to quantify how the games were attended. I don't like the new pod system. It doesn't reward the high seeds in each pod as it was supposed to do. It just keeps the Carolina schools in North Carolina, which we know the NCAA loves to do.

I hate that this left the forum it was started in. I should've put on my moderator hat and left it there. I'm surprised at the responses there because public polls generally lean to an overhwelming desire to see expansion. I know Billy Packer is the most vocal against it, but then again, what isn't he against? He's against conference tournaments, sunshine, and baby kittens. :laugh:

 

CCRobinson wrote:

I am at another computer or I'd post the link. I read it again just a few days ago. Vitale has been the champion of putting everyone in, saying it would take just two more games. I disagree with him.

Bob Alkire wrote:

I'm not either. The regular season (IMHO) isn't negated by conference tournaments or the NCAA, but we don't need 14-16 teams getting at-large bids.

Regarding ranked teams not being in the tourney, you wrote:

I disagree. I can think of at least three unranked teams in the Sweet 16. Two teams in the bottom five of the polls are in. ILast year, George Mason wasn't ranked and made it to the Final Four. Nova, NC St, and some others were low ranked (or unranked) and won a title. If you're one of the best two dozen teams in America, your in the best 8% of teams in the land, and you deserve a shot at the real post-season.

Look back and notice how Duke or UNC always plays in Charlotte, Winston-Salem, or Greensboro without fail. And I disagree about bball's importance historically. Take UT. Even in the lean years, it has been top ten nationally in attendance for many consecutive years. It's the only school to ever have top five attendance marks for CFB and CBB, and it's done it more than once. I don't have my media guides here to give you the years. It's easier to travel for for CFB since it's on a weekend and there are events around it. CBB has three times the games and it's hard to travel through the week. But you'll hear no dispute from me that the south is football country.

In San Antonio, I know that UT is second only to Texas A&M for tickets bought. OSU is fourth according to today's paper. One thing that may have discouraged some UT fans from going to Columbus was the inclement weather, or the calls for it. We were hearing Ice Storm watches from some folks that made the trip, so it curtailed plans for some friends, and I know others who said the same thing. No ice, though, and I've regretted not going! Kidney stones are keeping me from San Antonio, although the tickets sold out pretty quickly and I'm not high enough on the donor list to get first crack :laugh:

I don't know if Packer is old school or just likes to be contrary. Maybe both