do you all believe in a pure s-curve

#1
99gator

99gator

Congressman
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
16,555
Likes
20,156
#1
just curious.

the ncaa bracket, in theory, is supposed to be the 68 teams, put in order, 1-68, and matched up accordingly.

however, life is not like that as conference matchups screw all of that up which is why there are always some weird seedings.

example. if duke was (3) and miami was (6), they'd be the #1 and #2 seeds in the same region. the ncaa won't do that because they are both acc schools.

do you like that practice or do you think it should be a pure s-curve, conferences be damned?
 
#2
#2
You put in the best 68 teams IMO.

I don't care that Liberty University gets in.

I know no one will agree with me though
 
#3
#3
zjcvols said:
You put in the best 68 teams IMO.

I don't care that Liberty University gets in.

I know no one will agree with me though
Click to expand...

I just wish they'd call it what is . . . "The top 50 or so teams, a dozen coin tosses and about 6 we know don't belong, but we promised we'd save a spot for them to appease their conferences."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5
#5
99gator said:
just curious.

the ncaa bracket, in theory, is supposed to be the 68 teams, put in order, 1-68, and matched up accordingly.

however, life is not like that as conference matchups screw all of that up which is why there are always some weird seedings.

example. if duke was (3) and miami was (6), they'd be the #1 and #2 seeds in the same region. the ncaa won't do that because they are both acc schools.

do you like that practice or do you think it should be a pure s-curve, conferences be damned?
Click to expand...

I prefer that rematches against anyone, conference or non-conference, be avoided in the early rounds like they do.
It's easier to do that in basketball, when the tournament is very large. If football ever moves to an 8-team tournament, it would be difficult to set a rule to prevent two SEC teams from meeting in the first round, as it could really throw off the seeds, like you say, or perhaps even determine who is hosting, if football ever does that with its opening round.
 
#6
#6
zjcvols said:
You put in the best 68 teams IMO.

I don't care that Liberty University gets in.

I know no one will agree with me though
Click to expand...

I've always had problems with it.
Some kind of pre tourney play off to get the 8 best of the patsies or something. Anything is better than the present system.
 
#7
#7
zjcvols said:
You put in the best 68 teams IMO.

I don't care that Liberty University gets in.

I know no one will agree with me though
Click to expand...

I agree.

And I know people hate it, but I think a computer ranking of the best 68 matched up by the s-curve would be the most fair. JMO

Ken Pom, Basketball Prospectus, etc. They have good rankings IMO
 
#9
#9
ukvols said:
I prefer that rematches against anyone, conference or non-conference, be avoided in the early rounds like they do.
It's easier to do that in basketball, when the tournament is very large. If football ever moves to an 8-team tournament, it would be difficult to set a rule to prevent two SEC teams from meeting in the first round, as it could really throw off the seeds, like you say, or perhaps even determine who is hosting, if football ever does that with its opening round.
Click to expand...

If football were to do as you say it'd almost guarantee 3 SEC teams in the tourney every year. I'm not sure other conferences will dig that unless you limit conferences to two teams for a tourney.
 
#10
#10
golfballs said:
I don't.

If they aren't in the best 68, they can play in the NIT and on down the list.
Click to expand...

But that would just turn into the BCS and with the Power 6 conferences getting most of the bids since lower conferences will have lower SOS and RPIs. And schools from mid-majors have proven they can beat teams from Power 6 schools and make runs in the tournament. Getting rid of the automatic bid would be terrible.


It's not fair to punish an Akron or Ohio because they have to play NIU, EMU, BGSU, etc that brings down their SOS and RPI.

And if your're counter argument is for lower schools to schedule harder teams to boost SOS and RPI, that won't happen because why would the Power 6 schools do that? Why risk a loss a mid-major which would harm their chances at a bid. It's already hard enough for these good mid-majors to schedule good Power 6 schools, these will make it near impossible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
And it's not like there are a bunch of Power 6 schools that get left out due to these auto bids. Look how weak the the bubble ALWAYS is. Not like some powerhouse schools are getting left out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
zjcvols said:
You put in the best 68 teams IMO.

I don't care that Liberty University gets in.

I know no one will agree with me though
Click to expand...

I totally disagree.....there shouldn't be 68 teams allowed in if they did it that way. Look how weak the bubble teams are and it would just get worse from there. I would much rather see a smaller league champion have a chance to compete than a mediocre SEC team that has already proven it doesn't belong get in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#13
#13
I like letting the winners of smaller conferences into the tourney. It makes the tourney special. Gives virtually every school in America an avenue to reach the big dance and win the whole thing.

If you are in a major conference and can't get an at large bid while some lowsy mid major pulls an upset in their tourney to get in, that's on you.

For football, I feel pretty much the opposite. Take the top teams and have a playoff. If you want to have automatic bids for big time football conferences, I could get behind that idea.
 
#15
#15
omghulkhands said:
With 68 teams I think it is fine to allow the auto qualifiers. I mean...68 teams lol
Click to expand...

I'm with you. It's basically the top 50-55 teams in the country, and then 10-18 schools who are just happy they got in. If you aren't a top 50 team you don't deserve or have a right to complain you didn't make it anyway. I enjoy having some small school in there.

Let me say, I do get those wanting the best 68 in the country, this is jmo I enjoy a few of the small schools.
 
#16
#16
zjcvols said:
You put in the best 68 teams IMO.

I don't care that Liberty University gets in.

I know no one will agree with me though
Click to expand...


i do not agree Liberty may go 30 and 1 but not play a team with an rpi of better than 300.so they do not deserve to go.two SEC team unless uk wins out and does damage in sec tourney .And the same goes for the Vols they have to win last 2 plus make it to the simi finals to get in ncaa tourney.
 
#17
#17
Solve the problem. Let every team play in the NCAA tourney. Just start it earlier by elimnating conference tournaments. The only reason anybody cares about conference tourneys is for the automatic AA bid and for the TV revenues for each conference. the attendance is usually poor. That would go away. With a true big dance the revenues will likely increase big time due to the increased in interest from more people supporting more schools, most of which that have a snow balls chance of getting in with the current format. The new format could be adjusted to fit due to having an extra week. The regular season would be for seeding and determining conference champions.

Doubtful it would ever happen.
 
#18
#18
Not a lot I can add here, but yeah, I agree with others that it should simply be a 1-68 type thing. Not taking anything away from the small schools that win their leagues, but on a national level, let's face it...they don't benefit the tourney in the long run. However, every once in a while they provide some excitement and cinderellas are born (Lehigh ftw)
 
#19
#19
LittleCat said:
Not a lot I can add here, but yeah, I agree with others that it should simply be a 1-68 type thing. Not taking anything away from the small schools that win their leagues, but on a national level, let's face it...they don't benefit the tourney in the long run. However, every once in a while they provide some excitement and cinderellas are born (Lehigh ftw)
Click to expand...

when they beat duke it made the tourney for me.
 
#20
#20
Josh Pastner was on radio yesterday and said they should just go to 128 teams. Said it just adds a 7th game. Said that most coaches want this.

Of course, for coaches, it protects their jobs by saying they have been to the tourney. The new standard would be making it through to round of 32.
 
#21
#21
VolGee4 said:
Josh Pastner was on radio yesterday and said they should just go to 128 teams. Said it just adds a 7th game. Said that most coaches want this.

Of course, for coaches, it protects their jobs by saying they have been to the tourney. The new standard would be making it through to round of 32.
Click to expand...

i think it would have the opposite effect.

making the tournament would not be an accomplishment worth saving your job.

not making the tournament should result in instant termination
 
#22
#22
99gator said:
i think it would have the opposite effect.

making the tournament would not be an accomplishment worth saving your job.

not making the tournament should result in instant termination
Click to expand...

Certainly, it can cut both ways. But if you are at a perennial tournament team, then you will be in every year. The tourney will be watered down and would be easier to win a game or two. Then it's tough to fire a coach who has been to the tourney for five straight years but has failed to get to the round of 32 or Sweet Sixteen.

It would also discourage tough scheduling. As long as you win 18 games, you are probably in.
 
#24
#24
keckjm said:
If football were to do as you say it'd almost guarantee 3 SEC teams in the tourney every year. I'm not sure other conferences will dig that unless you limit conferences to two teams for a tourney.
Click to expand...

If it were up to me, the 5 remaining power leagues would get an auto bid, and another bid would be reserved for 1 champion out of the other leagues. 2 at larges. And, ND has to fit in there somewhere when they have a big year. That could possibly mean 3 from the SEC, sure. The other conferences might not like it, but they're about to be forced to dig 2 SEC teams in a 4-team playoff, if the Committee isn't biased.
 
#25
#25
I like the mid majors. It's more of a championship tournament if all of the champions are in it. If you strike half the conferences, you're going to be letting in a lot more average and below-average schools from the power leagues.
If Basketball ever divides Division I similar to football, they should reduce the size of the tournament.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top