The Official “Regular Posters of the Basketball Forum” Thread

#25,805
#25,805
  • Like
Reactions: WillisWG, berryvol, CornbreadVol and 5 others
#25,809
#25,809
TheMookieMonster said:
Butchering the best post-season in sports for greed. A tale as old as time. This is so incredibly pointless and stupid. You could argue the tournament is already too big. Now we’re just adding 8 more teams that were bottom feeders in their conference to the tournament.

Click to expand...

Idk that it’ll be adding “bottom feeders”, for example last year it would’ve meant adding:

West Virginia 19-13 (7th in B12)
Indiana 19-13 (9th in B10)
Boise State 26-11 (4th in MWC)
Ohio State 17-15 (10th in B10)
SMU 24-11 (4th in ACC)
UC-Irvine 32-7 (2nd in Big West)
George Mason 27-9 (1st in A10)
Santa Clara 21-13 (4th in WCC)


It should strengthen the 64 team field, it expands the competition of teams playing for the 15/16 seeds and then also 10/11 seed lines also. We often talk about how it stinks for a MM team to win their league title, lose in the conference tourney and get left out, this should get those teams in more often than not now. I don’t necessarily love expansion but if you’re set on doing it I like this model, gives us more games on those Tuesday’s & Wednesday's, keeps the main field at 64, and should result in a better field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: i2amavol, JelloPuddinPup and MoCo_Vol
#25,811
#25,811
bleedingTNorange said:
Idk that it’ll be adding “bottom feeders”, for example last year it would’ve meant adding:

West Virginia 19-13 (7th in B12)
Indiana 19-13 (9th in B10)
Boise State 26-11 (4th in MWC)
Ohio State 17-15 (10th in B10)
SMU 24-11 (4th in ACC)
UC-Irvine 32-7 (2nd in Big West)
George Mason 27-9 (1st in A10)
Santa Clara 21-13 (4th in WCC)


It should strengthen the 64 team field, it expands the competition of teams playing for the 15/16 seeds and then also 10/11 seed lines also. We often talk about how it stinks for a MM team to win their league title, lose in the conference tourney and get left out, this should get those teams in more often than not now. I don’t necessarily love expansion but if you’re set on doing it I like this model, gives us more games on those Tuesday’s & Wednesday's, keeps the main field at 64, and should result in a better field.
Click to expand...

I’m just opposed to expansion in all forms, and yes my use of the term “bottom feeder” was hyperbolic but I don’t have sympathy for a 17-15 Ohio State missing out on the post-season. If you finish 9th or 10th in your conference and you’re left out, you don’t really have anyone to blame as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t think the tournament benefits at all with including any of those teams. Is the tournament about finding a national champion? Or is it just about inclusion? They’ve done a good job in the past with balancing the made for TV aspect of March Madness with the actual intent of finding the best team in college basketball, and I am against watering down the tournament even more. I don’t really have any interest in seeing Santa Clara in the tournament.
 
#25,812
#25,812
TheMookieMonster said:
I’m just opposed to expansion in all forms, and yes my use of the term “bottom feeder” was hyperbolic but I don’t have sympathy for a 17-15 Ohio State missing out on the post-season. If you finish 9th or 10th in your conference and you’re left out, you don’t really have anyone to blame as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t think the tournament benefits at all with including any of those teams. Is the tournament about finding a national champion? Or is it just about inclusion? They’ve done a good job in the past with balancing the made for TV aspect of March Madness with the actual intent of finding the best team in college basketball, and I am against watering down the tournament even more. I don’t really have any interest in seeing Santa Clara in the tournament.
Click to expand...
I don’t have any sympathy for them either, but at the same time the SEC had 9/10th place teams last year get in that I think were more than deserving, and also made a run in Arkansas.

If we’re saying the tournament is just about finding a national champion then why not go back to when it was 16 teams? What is it 25/26 years it’s been a Top 6 team that wins it all, stretching that out to 16 teams would be more than enough…but the tournament hasn’t been just about that in a very long time.

Like I said I don’t think it waters down the field at all, if anything it very clearly improves the field imo which again would likely lead to a few more R64 upsets. Would that change the F4 or Championship game, probably not, but again it’s not just about that and is as much about that first weekend chaos as anything, which I think this probably would increase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangejuice
#25,814
#25,814
TheMookieMonster said:
I’m just opposed to expansion in all forms, and yes my use of the term “bottom feeder” was hyperbolic but I don’t have sympathy for a 17-15 Ohio State missing out on the post-season. If you finish 9th or 10th in your conference and you’re left out, you don’t really have anyone to blame as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t think the tournament benefits at all with including any of those teams. Is the tournament about finding a national champion? Or is it just about inclusion? They’ve done a good job in the past with balancing the made for TV aspect of March Madness with the actual intent of finding the best team in college basketball, and I am against watering down the tournament even more. I don’t really have any interest in seeing Santa Clara in the tournament.
Click to expand...
I don't like expansion either, but comparing schools these days based on where they are ranked in their conference has been thrown out. The problem was conference expansion. Every sport now has unbalanced schedules, and a team ranked 10th at 9-11 could be better than a team ranked 7th at 11-9 based on who they played. It's what the conferences have done to college sports.
 
#25,815
#25,815
I’d like to think there is a solution to get psuedo expansion by just making the major conference tournaments more meaningful and more intertwined with the NCAA tournament.

I’d assume it’d generate more revenue than the conference tournaments do currently as well. Which would get the conferences on board. But that’s a guess. I don’t know if that’d be the case for sure.
 
#25,816
#25,816
omghulkhands said:
I’d like to think there is a solution to get psuedo expansion by just making the major conference tournaments more meaningful and more intertwined with the NCAA tournament.

I’d assume it’d generate more revenue than the conference tournaments do currently as well. Which would get the conferences on board. But that’s a guess. I don’t know if that’d be the case for sure.
Click to expand...
Example?
 
#25,817
#25,817
bleedingTNorange said:
Example?
Click to expand...

I don’t have any good plans. Just “concepts of a plan”.

But something like, limit conference tournaments to the top 6-8 teams. Give those games more stakes with real, potentially public seeding implications. Or NIL prizes via sponsors.

And let there be 4 play in tournaments happening that same week. One for each tournament region. Filled with the good low majors that didn’t win their conference tournament and the middling high majors that didn’t make theirs.

But idk. Anything is better than conference tournaments as they are.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top