Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports' started by TomVols, Mar 12, 2007.
How would you change the tournament format?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Get rid of that play in/lamb to the slaughter game.
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.
I would cut it back to the champions of the conferences , the one who wins their tournament.
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.
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
I'm completely against Double Elimination. It takes the weight off of the individual game.
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.
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.