Should the NCAA Tournament drop the automatic conference bids?

Should the NCAA Tournament drop the automatic conference bids?

  • Total voters
    0
#2
#2
I don't think you can outright just drop them. It just wouldn't be fair to exclude over half of the teams from the process of finding the champion. You don't KNOW whether a team can compete or not. If you did, there would not be so many upsets every year.

The Cinderella phenomenon is what makes the tournament interesting. George Mason in the final four? It still sounds unbelievable. And by taking away the automatic bids, that would never of happened because they wouldn't have been "good" (popular, well known, large fan base) enough to even have cracked the field.

I mean, why have a tournament at all, if we already "know" who the best teams are? It is better to have something guaranteed by merit, i.e. automatically qualifying by winning your conference.
 
#4
#4
It doesn't make sense to do away with the autos. The whole point is to get teams in the tournament who can compete in the tournament and those teams who won their conference tournament obviously had to beat teams already in the tournament (for the most part) showing they can compete.
 
#5
#5
NO, it's just as great to see the Coppin State's of the world celebrate as it is to see Duke, UNC, UCLA, Kansas, etc. cut down the nets
 
#11
#11
No and no to 128 teams as well.

Iporange said it pretty well.


If you are a bubble team that did not make it then you need to improve enough to where you are no longer a bubble team the next year.

The tourney is pretty darn good the way it is. I say don't mess up a good thing.
 
#12
#12
In history, not many high seeded teams have won the tournament:

Lowest seeded winners:
· 1985: Villanova #8: beat Georgetown
· 1983: N.C. State #6: beat Houston
· 1988: Kansas #6: beat Oklahoma
Click to expand...
College Basketball NCAA Tournament and Final Four History

It may be nice to seem them upset someone, but the chances of them advancing and winning the tournament IMO is pretty low.
 
#13
#13
So wouldn't the chances of teams that couldn't even win their conference tournament, OR do well enough in the season to be considered one of the best 34 at large teams be even smaller?
 
#14
#14
Lowest seeded Final Four appearances:
· Since 1985, when the tournament expanded to 64-teams, the lowests seeds to ever make it to the Final Four are George Mason (2006) and LSU (1986). LSU lost to #2 seed, Louisville who was the eventual NCAA champ that year (led by center "Never Nervous" Pervis Ellison).
Click to expand...

George Mason and LSU are the lowest seeds to make the final 4, both #11.

NCAA College Basketball Tournament Winners and Final Four Teams
 
#15
#15
i am so tired of the whinning about the seeds and all the teams that did not make it and the paralysis of analysis of who will and who will not. Its all about money anyway.

Break it down into 8 regions. Then the travel costs are cut. We would have been a one seed. A the cream rises to the top. More upsets would occur and you would get the full spectrum of College Basketball by style of play.
 
#16
#16
Wasn't LSU an at large bid? So doesn't that demonstrate that the 34 at large bids is enough to get in the quality competition without excluding the smaller conference champs?
 
#18
#18
Move it back to 64 teams. I hate the idea of a play-in game. It's disrespectful to both teams.
 
#21
#21
oklavol said:
In history, not many high seeded teams have won the tournament:


College Basketball NCAA Tournament and Final Four History

It may be nice to seem them upset someone, but the chances of them advancing and winning the tournament IMO is pretty low.
Click to expand...

By this argument, you might as well just go with 32 teams instead of 64. It's not like the other 32 have a chance of winning, right?

Keep the automatic bids. Get rid of the play-in game -- or, if you must have it, make two of the major conference at-large teams play it. Why should Kentucky skip right into the field of 64, while a team that won its conference tourney has to play the extra game?
 
#22
#22
get rid of the conf. tournaments. Auto bids to the reg season winners. then your at large pool increases a bit, and you dont' have to worry about a sub .500 team like GA making it, when clearly, they aren't worthy. a weekend long, 4 game stretch determines that, but i've got teams that have a 30+ game resume that is definitely better.....that's really not fair.
 
#23
#23
Conferences make the decision to have their own tournaments individually. The Ivy League doesn't have a tournament, for instance. They just assign their automatic bid to the conference champion. I have no problem with that if the SEC and other conferences switched to that format.
 
#24
#24
IPorange said:
Conferences make the decision to have their own tournaments individually. The Ivy League doesn't have a tournament, for instance. They just assign their automatic bid to the conference champion. I have no problem with that if the SEC and other conferences switched to that format.
Click to expand...
i know all that. the only reason the conf. tourney exists is to make a little extra cash. nothing is accomplished in the conf. tourneys unless we consider sending what amounts to a bottom 2 seed in our conf. to the tourney an accomplishment.

in fact, the conf. tourney was what spawned the conf. title game in football. extra games=extra revenue. it's not about fair competition.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top