March Madness Format Poll
by UL is my hot hot sex on Feb 9, 2010 1:37 PM EST
in Basketball
34 comments
0 recs |
34 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Arguments
Below are popular arguments on both sides of this debate.
Why Increase # Of Teams? Increased revenue from the tournament, higher percentage of Div 1 Teams make the tournament, increased job security for coaches, we get to enjoy another added weekend of college basketball.
Why Not Increase # Of Teams? Decreases importance of regular season/making the tournament, interferes with academics, waters down the competitiveness in the tournament, by maintaining/decreasing the # of teams in the tournament the NCAA could make more $$ on regular season games.
by UL is my hot hot sex on Feb 9, 2010 1:52 PM EST reply actions
They should play the NIT first and the winner it gets a 16th seed in the big dance...
…just kidding. They should leave well enough alone for the moment.
Where's the option
to take it back down to 64? The play-in game is a (poorly) made-for-tv joke.
yes, but last year was sweet
knowing that the winner had to play us. That, and a KY team was in it
didn't think such a small change would be a big deal on this poll
So can we assume the “keep it the same” option would be 65 or 64 teams? Cool?
by UL is my hot hot sex on Feb 9, 2010 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
Definitely cool...
I was just being contrarian, for the sake of making a point. It’s one of the more charming aspects of my personality.
by quiet cardinal on Feb 9, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
play-in game
I don’t mind the play-in game, but I don’t like two auto qualifiers being in it. They deserve a chance at the big dance. I think the last 8 in should have to fight it out for their spots if we want to go that route
So those who earn their way in
are penalized, and those that wouldn’t have made it in if they weren’t in a shitty conference get rewarded?
So a team that wins its conference didn't earn its way in?
by _TheGainesShow_ on Feb 9, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
only if
earning their way in includes sucking least in a sucky conference. We’re talking about the teams considered by the selection committe to be the weakest two in the field, two teams who would not have made it into the tourney on their own merit; they’re only there because everybody else in their conference is worse.
I'd like the game a lot more this way...
It feels a little slimy to offer up one of the conference qualifiers to the slaughter when they did everything asked of them to get in the field of 64. I’d definitely be down for making two of the major conference bubble schools duke it out in the play-in game.
by quiet cardinal on Feb 9, 2010 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
Repeating...
this ain’t broke and does not need to be fixed.
Best post season in any sport on the planet. Don’t screw it up…
"There is no OFF position to the genius switch" - D. Letterman
Was it broke from 1980 - 1985?
1975 – 32 Teams
1979 – 40 Teams
1980 – 48 Teams
1983 – 52 Teams
1984 – 53 Teams
1985 – 64 Teams
2001 – 65 Teams
by UL is my hot hot sex on Feb 9, 2010 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe...
I would argue that since 1985 it’s been rock solid. I personally waffle on the 65th team. Some years that’s a good game to watch, most years, it is not.
If any change is made, I’d suggest slow change… I’d bet I’ll be just as ambivalent about 68 teams as I am about 65, but anything more is fixing something that ain’t broke.
"There is no OFF position to the genius switch" - D. Letterman
I like CRP's rationale for favoring expansion
Pitino said that by reducing the pressure to qualify for a 65-team field, it would encourage you to play a tougher out-of-conference schedule. It’s good for the fans, it’s good for the TV networks, it’s good for the teams – and it can be done as a limited-time experiment; if it doesn’t work out, go back to the 64 or – ugh – 65-team format.
Speaking of which, I can’t believe a majority think 65 is exactly the right number. Adding a 65th team was a stupid gimmick. If 64 isn’t enough, go to at least 96.
Better yet, let everybody in.
- Give byes to regular season champions, conference tournament champions, and enough at-large teams to make a 48-team field.
- Seed all remaining teams into a wild-card playoff system to qualify for the remaining 16 spots.
That way you still reward performance in the regular season and the conference tourneys, nobody can whine about being left out, and maybe best of all, you eliminate the post-season NIT which has become a badge of mediocrity.
Allow teams to participate in the pre-season NIT without penalty -consider it a series of exhibition games like we play against Bellarmine et al. The best teams would be eligible and motivated to participate in the NIT, which would thus be restored to an elite status it hasn’t had for years.
To me...
it really sounds like whining when coaches (like CRP and Tom Izzo) use the line about expansion improving job security for coaches, etc. These guys get paid handsomely to lead these programs, including all the various benefits and uncertainties that comes with it. Personally, that reasoning just doesn’t sway the issue for me. Plus, if they do expand the field, there is NO way they do it and then decide later to scale the field down. Once that money spigot gets turned on, it’s game over.
I'm for expanding to 68 teams...
Only change the four play-in games to determine the 12 seeds (which are generally the last of the at-large bids). Seeds 13 – 16 are conference champs of the traditionally weaker conferences.
This way the “last 4 outs” would play the “last 4 ins” (AKA bubble teams). This should limit the bitching about not making it despite a better resume than those in play. I realize that there will always be bitching, but of the bubble teams, if you are rated 9th or beyond, you certainly could have helped yourself by winning a game or two more.
But then again, I’d be just as happy if they left it the way it is.
If they go to 96 teams, it’s all about the bye structure, not about who makes it.
No matter how much you expand it...
there will always be a last in and a last out, and you can bet the last one out will think they should have been the last one in. There are two ways to eliminate that:
- Use computer rankings based on a published formula so that everyone knows the process, if not entirely fair, was at least objective (the selection committee then becomes simply a seeding committee); or
- Let everyone in.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ncaa_expands_march_madness_to
by Remote Cardinal on Feb 9, 2010 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
I voted for expansion to 96
(and thus risk probable bannination by Mike)
Percentage Argument
If 27.9% of the current number of Div I Teams (96 of 343) make the postseason tournament, that’s still a fairly small percentage. If one were to make several fallacious comparisons…that’s exactly half of the percentage of how many NCAA FBS (Div I) teams played in a bowl game during the 2009 season (58.6%). Also, 38% (12 of 32) of all NFL teams make the NFL Playoffs. While March Madness is unique and awesome, no postseason tournament can compare with the revenues/ratings the NFL enjoys. Finally, 53% (16 of 30) of NBA teams make the NBA playoffs.
Competitiveness Argument
How many teams seeded lower than #4 have won the tournament since expanding to 64 teams in 1985? (Answer: 2; Villanova in ’85 as an 8 seed and Kansas in ’88 as a 6 seed) Would it necessarily dilute the competitiveness of the tournament?
Two revenue-related questions:
1. Will one more 2-day stint of games (Option A: Add a weekend to the schedule for the new first round games or Option B: Play the first round on the Tue/Wed after Selection Sunday but prior to the first weekend) bring in enough revenue to justify a possible dilution of regular season revenue?
2. As rickmbari mentioned above, will the increased size of the tournament field encourage teams to play sexier OOC schedules, thereby increasing revenues of regular season matchups?
by UL is my hot hot sex on Feb 9, 2010 4:53 PM EST reply actions
I disagree on the non-conference marquee match ups in a 96 team field
There were what, 10 teams last year that won conferences and didn’t get the auto bid. So that leaves 20 spots. Why would you schedule tough? You schedule mid level opponents to not totally trash your computer profile. Getting to 20 wins is all you need. I think we would see more like this years’ schedule, minus the UNLV road game. Why go on the road non conference? Coaches want everyone to make the tournament like how they all want to make a bowl game so other coaches don’t get fired. So don’t schedule over your head, and as long as you make the dance, you keep your job
Im with the others saying
“If it aint broke, dont fix it” I like things the way they are. Why change a good thing when obviously the attention needs to be on friggin football and their crap BCS system…
64 teams is the correct number
It allows an auto bid from every conference winner plus a sizeable amount of deserving at-large bids. An previous expansion served the purpose of giving a fair (although long) shot to every D-1 team. Mission accomplished. The play-in game is a gimmick.
I didn’t even recall playing the winner of the play-in game until reading a previous comment.
My biggest problem with the additional games is that a bubble team will likely go to the dance and play only one game, whereas they could’ve gone to the NIT and played multiple rounds. Yeah, it has more “prestige” but I bet most players would favor playing more games, if given the opportunity.
I think you'd have to look long and hard
to find any player that would rather go to the NIT than the big dance.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
