******Proposing a NEW NCAA Tournament****** - Page 2

DrewDevil · #11 03-01-2007, 01:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't always get the best team, but it usually does, and it's always very entertaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I would get rid of the play-in game and go back to 64 straight. Otherwise, I wouldn't change a thing about the best thing in sports, the NCAA men's basketball tournament.

MyTurn2Raise · #12 03-01-2007, 01:29 AM

it does a very poor job at getting the best team...I don't like it

it's a spectacle, it's not good competition

I'm into competition more than spectacles

DrewDevil · #13 03-01-2007, 01:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
it does a very poor job at getting the best team...I don't like it

[/ QUOTE ]

The #1 team in the nation going into the dance has won the tournament almost half the time since the field expanded to 64... that's pretty good for six games one-and-done.

The cinderellas usually upset 3-5 seeds who weren't going to win it all anyway. The top seeds generally take care of business, even though it's a much bigger deal when they lose.

capone0 · #14 03-01-2007, 01:33 AM

Do you mean #1 seeds, b/c I have a hard time believing that stat to be right.

Green Kool Aid · #15 03-01-2007, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
it does a very poor job at getting the best team...I don't like it

it's a spectacle, it's not good competition

I'm into competition more than spectacles

[/ QUOTE ]

MT2R,

I thought you hated the NBA??? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

BTW Every year the Celtics aren't in the playoffs I adopt a team, and I'm leaning very strongly towards the Jazz because of your boy Deron.

MyTurn2Raise · #16 03-01-2007, 03:39 AM

I like the NBA playoffs more than the NCAA. I actually do watch quite a bit of the NBA playoffs.

Austiger · #17 03-01-2007, 11:08 AM

The NCAA Tournament is the closest thing to perfection that there is in the mad crazy world. Yeah, except for the play-in game.

MicroBob · #18 03-01-2007, 02:56 PM

WTF is wrong with the play-in game? Big deal.

They have one more auto-bid to give out and they decide that the lower level teams can play each other to get in.
Would you rather cut it back to 64 so that some deserving at-large team didn't make the cut?
If you had 64 teams last year you might not have had a George Mason making the run they did (I guess they probably weren't the last team in, but they were close).

For those 11-17 small-conference winners it will be their only chance to win a tourney game anyway.

I would be in favor of expanding to 72 or so with a few more play-in games. Some coaches think it would be a good idea too.

DrewDevil · #19 03-01-2007, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
WTF is wrong with the play-in game? Big deal.

They have one more auto-bid to give out and they decide that the lower level teams can play each other to get in.
Would you rather cut it back to 64 so that some deserving at-large team didn't make the cut?

If you had 64 teams last year you might not have had a George Mason making the run they did (I guess they probably weren't the last team in, but they were close).

For those 11-17 small-conference winners it will be their only chance to win a tourney game anyway.

I would be in favor of expanding to 72 or so with a few more play-in games. Some coaches think it would be a good idea too.

[/ QUOTE ]

The play-in game doesn't even feel like part of the tournament. I think there should be 32 auto bids and 32 at-large bids. I won't really lose any sleep if the 7th place team in the Pac-10 doesn't get an at-large.