128

[NoVaJack]

Re: 128

Can we all agree that March Madness is the most awesome sporting event all year? When was the last time it HASN'T lived up to the hype? I can't think of one year where it was bad. I can think of plenty boring Super Bowls, World Series, Bowl Games, Masters, ect, ect, but not one March Madness that wasn't awesome. Why try to change it?

.

To give teams like the Jacks and their fans a more realistic and fairer chance to compete on the Big Stage

[NoVaJack]

Re: 128

But, IMO, bringing them in and giving them trash seeds doesn't do them any favors. They'll lose anyway, and the old system will be 'justified.'

Who says? Isn't that why they play the games?

[Jacks99]

Re: 128

Don't like it at all.

1) Conference tournaments already make it a virtual 300 team tournament
2) Will be similar to bowl system. Mediocre teams would water down the achievement.
3) System works just fine right now.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: 128

Don't like it at all.

1) Conference tournaments already make it a virtual 300 team tournament
2) Will be similar to bowl system. Mediocre teams would water down the achievement.
3) System works just fine right now.

Good point. Conference tournaments are like first and second round games of the tournament for some teams.

[filbert]

Re: 128

I'd like to see, when the new TV deal comes down in 2014, go to 95 teams:

33 conference champions, and
62 at-large teams.

Give the conference champions the 1-33 seeds, then seed the at-larges 34-95. The 31 highest conference champs get byes, and conf. champs 32 and 33 get to play in the first round with all of the at-large teams. Then, winner of 34-95 plays the 32-33 winner and so on down to winner of 64-65 playing the top seed.

Advantages here is not only do you expand the tournament (which I think is needed) but also you have MUCH more competitive first-round games, and somewhat more competitive second-round games (the usually bad 32-33 conference winner doesn't get served up to whoever's #1 in the first round, etc.)

You could expand the tournament by playing three games in the first weekend rather than just the two, with fairly minimal impact.

I think this would be a much more interesting tournament than the current 65-team dea.

[NoVaJack]

Re: 128

I'd like to see, when the new TV deal comes down in 2014, go to 95 teams:

33 conference champions, and
62 at-large teams.

Give the conference champions the 1-33 seeds, then seed the at-larges 34-95. The 31 highest conference champs get byes, and conf. champs 32 and 33 get to play in the first round with all of the at-large teams. Then, winner of 34-95 plays the 32-33 winner and so on down to winner of 64-65 playing the top seed.

Advantages here is not only do you expand the tournament (which I think is needed) but also you have MUCH more competitive first-round games, and somewhat more competitive second-round games (the usually bad 32-33 conference winner doesn't get served up to whoever's #1 in the first round, etc.)

You could expand the tournament by playing three games in the first weekend rather than just the two, with fairly minimal impact.

I think this would be a much more interesting tournament than the current 65-team dea.

Very interesting plan, and excellent points on competitiveness of first-round games. Not to be underestimated.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: 128

I'd like to see, when the new TV deal comes down in 2014, go to 95 teams:

33 conference champions, and
62 at-large teams.

Give the conference champions the 1-33 seeds, then seed the at-larges 34-95. The 31 highest conference champs get byes, and conf. champs 32 and 33 get to play in the first round with all of the at-large teams. Then, winner of 34-95 plays the 32-33 winner and so on down to winner of 64-65 playing the top seed.

Advantages here is not only do you expand the tournament (which I think is needed) but also you have MUCH more competitive first-round games, and somewhat more competitive second-round games (the usually bad 32-33 conference winner doesn't get served up to whoever's #1 in the first round, etc.)

You could expand the tournament by playing three games in the first weekend rather than just the two, with fairly minimal impact.

I think this would be a much more interesting tournament than the current 65-team dea.

So, the 31st best conference champ gets a bye but the second place ACC, Big East, Big XII, ect. teams don't? Um, good luck.

What's wrong with the first round of the tournament anyways? It's probably the most exciting 2 days of basketball all year. Up-set's every year.

IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!

Sure smaller schools don't get as fair of a shot, but thems the breaks. That's how it is in life, and that's how it is in sports as well. When you compare March Madness to the BCS, March Madness is a billion times better.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: 128

Can anyone give me a realistic explanation of why they have a play in game, other than to squeak one more big conference team into the tourney?

[zooropa]

Re: 128

Can anyone give me a realistic explanation of why they have a play in game, other than to squeak one more big conference team into the tourney?

The play-in game is there because the Mountain West Conference got an auto-bid shortly after it was formed and the MBB committee didn't want to eliminate an at-large at the expense of one of the weaker conference auto-bids.

It was done, basically, to preserve the cash flow for the BCS schools.

Naturally, because there's no money on the line in any other tournament, none of them have play-in games.

[zooropa]

Re: 128

Who says? Isn't that why they play the games?

By and large mid-majors that get lousy seeding would still get lousy seeding, and thus a #5 that had a decent shot at a #4 will still end up being a #6 against a #3 (in the 2nd round)....


The tendency for 'upsets' in the 5-12 game illustrates what's wrong with the system as it currently sits.

#12 seeds are typically conference tournament champs from 'less respected' tournaments. #5 seeds are typically 3rd or 4th place finishers from the BCS.

[filbert]

Re: 128

So, the 31st best conference champ gets a bye but the second place ACC, Big East, Big XII, ect. teams don't? Um, good luck.

What's wrong with the first round of the tournament anyways? It's probably the most exciting 2 days of basketball all year. Up-set's every year.

IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!

Sure smaller schools don't get as fair of a shot, but thems the breaks. That's how it is in life, and that's how it is in sports as well. When you compare March Madness to the BCS, March Madness is a billion times better.

Oh, I don't think my plan has a chance in hell . . . except that the NCAA presidents keep saying that they want to re-emphasize the conferences as the basic organizational unit of D-I, so what better way to emphasize that to the membership at large and the public is to actually give a tangible competitive advantage to those schools that win conference championships?

We'll just have to agree to disagree that watching a current 1-16 seed game is more entertaining than watching that same 16 seed low-major conference champion playing a middle-of-the-pack power conference team.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: 128

What's wrong with the first round of the tournament anyways? It's probably the most exciting 2 days of basketball all year.

It is the most exciting 2 days in SPORTS!

[valleyrabbit]

Re: 128

Can anyone tell me why we have conference tournaments? With 128 teams they would essentially be meaningless. As noted before we already have essentially and 300+ team tournament and with the exception of the Ivy League, Independents, and some conferences like the Summit who don't let everyone in the conference tournament, EVERYONE has a shot. St. Mary's, Creighton, Davidson, etc. need to shut up! Win your conference tournament! Period.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: 128

It is the most exciting 2 days in SPORTS!

True that! Chances of me showing up to my 1:00 class on Friday: between 0 and none.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: 128

Can anyone give me a realistic explanation of why they have a play in game, other than to squeak one more big conference team into the tourney?

So we get to watch outstanding teams like Morehead State and Alabama State play on national TV......I kid, I kid.