D
How the NCAA Tourney should evolve next
- Thread starter iowabillmichael
- Start date
ColoradoHAWKEYE
Well-Known Member
We (Hawks) didn't have 1 qlty signature road win. Nor really 1 at home either. The bubble is just that, 5-8 teams, no need to change something as big and as profitable as the ncaa dance for 5 teams just to "get in". From a sponsors perspective, eyeballs are probably maxed out now with 4 games on simultaniously. The conference tourneys get more viewers than an additional round or two of no names would.
As much as our country needs the geography lessons, I can't imagine people wanting to watch a 206/51 matchup game, much less a 256/1. Many times bigger is not better, as many of the tiertiary fans and bracket fillers may just at that point, say "meh", and quit watching and lose interest altogether.
Or we could just get them to add the "Iowa rule"...which includes Iowa no matter what they did or didnot accomplish! (or at least as someone mentioned above...disallow leap frogging regular season conference standings).
As much as our country needs the geography lessons, I can't imagine people wanting to watch a 206/51 matchup game, much less a 256/1. Many times bigger is not better, as many of the tiertiary fans and bracket fillers may just at that point, say "meh", and quit watching and lose interest altogether.
Or we could just get them to add the "Iowa rule"...which includes Iowa no matter what they did or didnot accomplish! (or at least as someone mentioned above...disallow leap frogging regular season conference standings).
Wow! I really like this idea. It had real potential. Well, except, well... don't you feel bad for those 100 teams left out? I mean, that isn't fair. What if we leave out someone who should there?
I mean, can you imagine the ruckus when 14-win Winthrop is left out and 7-win Fordham is in? All because of these inhuman ranking services. That just ain't right. Everybody has to be in. Everybody has to have a chance.
And, while we are at it, they need to do something about these "games". I mean, one team comes out of each game as "losers". That doesn't seem fair. And imagine how bad it feels to be the loser. Both teams need to "win" and get a trophy for each game. It is the only fair way to do it.
We can decide which team advances by measuring how many "disadvantages" each team has "overcome". I mean, obviously, some teams would be more skilled/athletic than others, and it wouldn't be fair to just let them move on. Those that put all that time and effort into becoming better players (or are simply born taller/stronger/more athletic) should be forced to "share", so we will take points from them to give to the other team. It is the only "fair" way to do it.
We must do this for the children...
I mean, can you imagine the ruckus when 14-win Winthrop is left out and 7-win Fordham is in? All because of these inhuman ranking services. That just ain't right. Everybody has to be in. Everybody has to have a chance.
And, while we are at it, they need to do something about these "games". I mean, one team comes out of each game as "losers". That doesn't seem fair. And imagine how bad it feels to be the loser. Both teams need to "win" and get a trophy for each game. It is the only fair way to do it.
We can decide which team advances by measuring how many "disadvantages" each team has "overcome". I mean, obviously, some teams would be more skilled/athletic than others, and it wouldn't be fair to just let them move on. Those that put all that time and effort into becoming better players (or are simply born taller/stronger/more athletic) should be forced to "share", so we will take points from them to give to the other team. It is the only "fair" way to do it.
We must do this for the children...
PalmettoHawkFan
Well-Known Member
they should go back to 64 and chuck the lame play-in games
major conference schools simply need to play each other more in the non-con. that's the committee bias now.
major conference schools simply need to play each other more in the non-con. that's the committee bias now.
Yes, I know, but he said "after the first round," which is technically incorrect. Did you notice the (sarcasm) disclaimer?
But, more importantly, we don't need more teams in the tournament. If anything, we need less.
Think about how everyone feels about the upcoming NIT game at UVA. When St. John's lost, the prevailing sentiment was "crap, MSG would have been cool." Why? Because this Hawk team does not have a quality road win all year. Does any team with that hole in their résumé really belong in the tournament?
The problem IS NOT that Iowa did not get in the dance, the problem is that crappy teams did.
Last edited:
bcl20
Well-Known Member
I've had dreams since I was a child that there would be an NCAA tournament involving all teams (used to simulate it on my driveway basketball hope). It would make for a fun tournament (maybe, the mismatches may be too large for any upsets to happen in the early rounds) but, damn, the regular season would be useless at that point.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many years it would take for a 64 seed to knock off a #1 seed. Man that would be one heck of a huge bracket, these bracket challenges would take on a whole new meaning. Do I really need to pick the winner of a 30-2 Duke vs 8-20 Chicago State?
I doubt we will ever see a 256 team bracket (gawd I hope not) but whether we like it or not the NCAA will eventually expand the tournament again. It would not surprise me to see a 16 seed game played in the first round in each region along with "bubble team" games in each region (12 seed game) played on the Tuesday before the tournament starts bringing the tournament up to 80. It is the only way the NCAA can capture more revenue, you will never see them scale the tournament back. They are making way to much money the way they have it to ever cut down the amount of games.
Some day we will probably all be arguing why a .500 Iowa team deserves to be in the tournament because "we did win 6 games in the toughest conference!". "Dammit, they took 11th place Nebraska over us because they have a quality win over Creighton in the non conference!"
I doubt we will ever see a 256 team bracket (gawd I hope not) but whether we like it or not the NCAA will eventually expand the tournament again. It would not surprise me to see a 16 seed game played in the first round in each region along with "bubble team" games in each region (12 seed game) played on the Tuesday before the tournament starts bringing the tournament up to 80. It is the only way the NCAA can capture more revenue, you will never see them scale the tournament back. They are making way to much money the way they have it to ever cut down the amount of games.
Some day we will probably all be arguing why a .500 Iowa team deserves to be in the tournament because "we did win 6 games in the toughest conference!". "Dammit, they took 11th place Nebraska over us because they have a quality win over Creighton in the non conference!"
bcl20
Well-Known Member
It won't happen at this point but I'd really just like to see the tourney at 64 teams and to eliminate the conference tournaments, giving the auto bid to the conference champion. With parody in college basketball the way it is today, you'd probably get more upsets just because you would have the best mid-majors in the tournament.
herkyattack
Well-Known Member
Except with unbalanced conference schedules, the comparison is apples to oranges. We played the easiest conference schedule in the big ten.
bcl20
Well-Known Member
Then non-conference schedules would be boring. I hate that idea.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
It will not happen at any point. No way will eliminate conference tournaments, to much money it it and for some low major conferences it is one of the rare times they see TV revenue when their championship game gets aired on ESPNU.
