NCAA Tournament

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

  1. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let the madness continue:

    Which team was the biggest "snub"?
    - Syracuse (22-10)
    - Kansas St. (22-11)
    - Missouri St (22-10)
    - Drexel (23-8)
    - Air Force (23-8)
    - West VA (22-9)

    Which team got in but shouldn'tve?
    - Arkansas
    - Xavier
    - Stanford


    Which team was seeded too highly? Which team do you expect to be a sleeper?

    Other general thoughts?
     
  2. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my mind, I can't justfiy Stanford getting in. I think they won 18 games. And they got an 11 seed? I'm glad Stan Heath saves his job at Arkansas, but did they really belong? Still, I think they'll beat USC.

    I think Syracuse and K-State got jobbed. They belong in the dance.

    Stop the presses: UNC plays at Winston-Salem, in the annual "Golden Spoon" treatment for the Tobacco Road schools. Louisville plays 80 miles east at Lexington. Not bad.

    Check out the other poll about the NCAA field.
     
  3. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Drexel and Syracuse were the biggest snubs. How 2 teams that finished behind Syracuse in the Big East got in, but they didn't, is ridiculous. Drexel won 14 road games and beat some of the teams that got in the tournament, i.e. Villanova at Villanova.

    The 2 most undeserving teams were Arkansas and Illinois. Both of these teams beat some of the better teams in their conference, but conferences that were down this year, Florida notwithstanding in the SEC.
     
  4. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think the SEC is down. You had four teams in the RPI top 15.

    Drexel got beat by some pretty low teams. And they finished fourth in their conference. I can sleep just fine with them in the NIT.
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,080
    Likes Received:
    218
    I look at it this way. The "Salt City" Orangemen have an excellent chance to win the NIT.

    I read in the paper today that the NCAA "owns" the NIT, therefore, they wanted a couple of good teams in the NIT, so TV ratings and interest would be higher.

    Salty
     
  6. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's been bandied about ever since the NCAA took control of the NIT.

    True or not, I wish the NCAA would expand the Big Dance and let the NIT go the way of the 8-track.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Syracuse and WV got jobbed. Stanford and Arkansas should be home. But having said that, the Cuse and WV had the chance to get in and lost in their tournament so they can't exactly complain. The moral of the story is Never depend on a committee to get you in.
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only the top 16 teams have a realistic chance of winning the tourament. It's not like the teams the talking heads are complaining about being allegedly snubbed would win the tournament.

    The way to get rid of these discussions about who shouldn't have been left out or who shouldn't have been let in is to add one more week and two more rounds to the tournament so that the field can be expanded to 256 teams.

    If team number 257 wants to still complain, well, that's just tough for them.
     
  9. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm changing my opinion on this. When I wrote that about Drexel yesterday, I noted that Syracuse finished ahead of 2 teams that made the tournmanet. Well, Drexel finished 4th in their conference. 2 of the teams ahead of them made it, but Hofstra didn't. If my argument holds about Syracuse, then it should hold for Hofstra, but I don't hear anybody saying that Hofstra should get in. Thus, I have to assume that my original premise about Syracuse is wrong and that the committee got it right. Pastor Larry said it best. Don't count on the committee to get you into the tournament.

    Expanding the tournament was discussed briefly on Mike&Mike this morning. Seth Davis was on and said that, during the selection process last year, the committee did discuss expanding it and quickly realized that it's not a good idea to expand.

    Everytime I hear this discussion come up, I have to wonder, is the tournament broken? Does it need to be fixed? Do we really need to see #1 vs. #256? Most of the #1 vs. #16 games are terrible as it is. You add another week or 2 to the tournament and suddenly, it's not as interesting. I'm looking at the Sagarin ratings used by USAToday and the 256th ranked team is Northern Illinois, weighing in with a record of 6-23. Do we really need to see Kansas vs. Northern Illinois, Florida vs. Coastal Carolina (11-15), and a whole raft of other pointless games?

    Let's learn something from the MLB, NBA and others. Adding more teams to a league, or a tournament, doesn't make it better. 3 weeks is long enough for the NCAA Tournament. You add more weeks, and more bad games, and people will tune out. Guarantee it. Adding more teams to the NCAA Tournament would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
     
  10. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Putting everyone in the dance isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen. However, the NIT is chock full of 20 win teams from good conferences. I think 80 or 96 teams is enough in the Big Dance. And yes, the NCAA tournament is broken. I know I'm in the minority on here that feels that way (see the thread discussing this), but expansion would make games more competitive, keep the prestige of the present format, and more importantly, line the pockets of the universities and networks.

    People claimed expansion would kill the NCAA tournament when they went from 32 to 48. They said the same thing when it went from 48 to 64. March Madness will always be strong.

    Why did they say this was discussed but not implemented? It would have to be implemented in advance, anyway.
     
  11. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't follow your logic on this, Tom.

    I don't see how it makes games more competitive. Bad teams getting blown out by good teams doesn't make for more competitive games. The prestige of making a tournament of 64 teams doesn't count as much if it were 96 teams. Line the pockets of universities and networks is a worthy goal for expanding the tournament? I just don't see that at all.

    What qualifies the NCAA Tournament as broken anyway? Just because 3 or 4 teams on the bubble weren't selected? I just don't see a good reason to expand the tournament beyond 64 teams.
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some of those bad teams that get hammered will have been eliminated in the opening round by teams of closer competition than the high seeds they will be facing, much like tonight's play-in opening round game. Ergo, more competition. The era of huge blow-outs didn't occur when you had a round to eliminate the bottom-feeders pre 1985.
    This was said of the 32 team field, 48 team field, and the now 65 team field you consider so prestigious.

    Bottom line: the NCAA tournament is supposed to be the 65 best teams in America. Are the 65 top teams in America playing in the NCAA? No, they aren't. Some are in the NIT, and that's why the NCAA tourney needs to be changed.
     
  13. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this were true, then a team like Jackson State wouldn't be playing in the tournament. Their first 4 games this season were against tournament teams 'Bama, Ga. Tech, Illinois and Memphis. The closest game was a 21 point loss to the Illini. On a neutral court, they wouldn't beat a team like Drexel that many consider to have been snubbed. If this were about the best 65 teams, what is Jackson State doing in the tournament?

    The point of a tournament is not to determine who the best team is, but to crown a champion. Often, the best team wins the championship. But, there have been several years where the best team going in didn't win the tournament. The point of the tournament is to a) pick the best teams and have them play to crown a champion, and b) reward schools with some bucks for winning a conference championship and letting them play in a national tournament.

    Which is more prestigious? Making a 65 team field? Or, winning a couple of games and making it to 16? If you open up to 96, it becomes even less prestigious just to make the field.
     
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Niagra over Fla. A & M.

    March Madness is officially underway. So far my picks are 1 for 1.

    Kinda' figure that percentage won't last, hunh?

    Ed
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. They won their conference tournament. Like it or not, the NCAA has determined that that makes you automatically one of the 65 best teams in the tournament. The presence of a Nigara is not an argument against including them, just like people scoffed at George Mason last year and scoff at teams that win one or two games in the dance every year. Mark my words: one day, a 16 seed will beat a 1 seed. It almost happened last year with the UConn-Albany game. Remember that Oral Roberts beat Kansas at Kansas. While not a 16 seed, they aren't too far ahead (14, I think).

    2.I grant you that the point of the tournament is to crown a champion from among the best teams in the nation. But we're talking semantics. The bottom line is this: You feel that the tournament should be left alone, if I understand you right. However, you also seem to agree with my point, that some of the 65 best teams in America aren't playing in the tournament. How can you hold both positions, if you do?

    3. As for the number of teams and prestige, again, that's an old bromide that was argued every time there was expansion. People said going to 48 teams would weaken the prestige. It didn't. People said going to 64 and then 65 would weaken prestige. It didn't. People said adding a wild card to baseball playoffs would weaken the playoffs. It hasn't.

    This year, over 100 teams won 20 games or more. Many of them aren't playing in the NCAA tournament. I'm just not one of those staid traditionalists that doesn't believe in changing anything. Times change and you have to adapt. With scholarship limitations, etc., there are more good teams. Some of them are getting left out of the dance because people don't want to change tradition.
     
  16. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think so as well. It almost happened in 1989 when Princeton nearly beat Georgetown. But, just because it almost happened doesn't mean that the 1 v 16 games are good games.

    Has the committee stated that they are putting the best 65 teams in the tournament? I'm not sure that I've ever heard that. I believe that their goal is to pick the best teams from the "at-large" pool, which is a different thing.

    Picking on Jackson State, just because I looked them up and remember their record, they got blown out against their 4 games against tournament teams. Drexel beat 2 tournament teams. Is Jackson State a better team than Drexel, or Syracuse? I don't think so, and I'd be extremely surprised if anybody on the committee thinks such.

    Easily. I don't have any problem with the best 65 teams not being in the tournament because I don't think that's the goal. If the stated goal of the NCAA is to have the best 65 teams in the country in the tournament, then the tournament needs to change to meet this goal. Again, there's no way that Jackson State, or any of the other #16 seeds, are a better team than Syracuse.

    As far as the prestige argument goes, when the requirements to enter the tournament are reduced, I think prestige is lost.
     
  17. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you are disputing a caricature. No one is talking about lessening the requirements for entry into the tournament. Even this year, if you had a 96 team field, a dozen 20 win teams would be at home. Games evolve. This is not the bowls inviting 6-6 teams (although that's a little bit of apples and oranges).

    Last night, UMass and Bama played a good game that should've been played as an opening round game for the NCAA. Some very good teams are relegated to the meaningless land of the NIT because the NCAA continues to bow to staid, hackneyed tradition. They must be Baptists :laugh:
     
  18. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see how adding more teams wouldn't effectively lessen the requirements for entry.
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see how adding teams lessens the requirements. The two aren't related. Conference tourney champs will still be invited, and automatic bid recipients are still subjectively selected by the committee. The subjective "requirements" are having a strong record, strong RPI, solid conference record, good OOC record, etc. Non-issue.
     
  20. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are completely related.

    Let's say that an RPI of 100 gets you into the field of 64, but an RPI of 125 doesn't. The current at-large pool is 33. If the field expands to 96, the at-large pool becomes 65. Now, a team with an RPI of 125 makes it where they wouldn't have made it with a field of 64.
     
    #20 ccrobinson, Mar 15, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...