Per ESPN. Story listed soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Per ESPN. Story listed soon.
I don't like it.Originally Posted by Juice752
The bottom seeds will get the shaft on extra "play-in" games, but what they should do is make the last 8 at-larges battle for their spots.
Why should a team from the SWAC be treated favorably? In your scenario they SWAC team is still the #15 seed and likely only plays one game against the #2 seed. The best teams are going to advance anyway, so this way the SWAC team at least gets one winnable game before getting their brains beat out by #1. Also, in your scenario, one of the two at large teams has an excellent chance to beat #1. You don't expect the NCAA to risk losing the money makers in the first round do you?
I view these games as "play-in" games before the real tournament. Just like the extra game they have now. I know the NCAA hates that expression and will fight hard to protect the idea that it is just one more regular pre-first-round game and whatever other semantic tricks they have to do to justify it, but it isn't really a part of the tournament to me or anyone else.
If the NCAA really just wants to make money, then I say they just drop the idea of holding a true championship playoff event for every conference and get rid of the auto-bids outright.
If all they want is to get 13 Big East teams playing 9 ACC teams to pull in eyeballs, then why not just hold an invitational tournament and invite the 32, 64, or 128 teams that sell the most hats at Champs?
The way the thing was set-up, every conference got a seat at the table. Every conference gets to send at least one team to the tournament. If they want extra games for more money, then fine - let the last picked at-larges play their way in.
Besides, wouldn't they get more viewers watching Mississippi State play Seton Hall than UAPB vs. Winthrop? If it's all about the money, it makes more sense to let the 16s play 1s because the 1s are going to get viewers no matter what.
Because they "earned" their spot in the tournament. If you don't win your conference (tournament), and don't manage to get invited by a committee looking for the next best 34 teams - I'd say it's reasonable to expect them to work a little harder to get that 12 or 13 seed.
Question about the play in game...... For the team that wins is that two units money wise?
I love it. At least they KILLED the idea of going to 96 teams. That would have been really dumb.
HD
I can't remember for sure, but I think currently both play in teams are guaranteed one unit.
If so, then it is just an opportunity for some smaller schools to get an extra unit. Not so bad IMO.
this gives a better chance for a #1 seed to be upset.
That is exactly what I was thinking. Because now the 16 seed will be a team that was normally a 15 seed. If a team is underrated and should be a 12-14 seed, they could easily fall into that 16 seed play in game.
The NCAA is hinting that it is tinkering with the play-in game concept. While I think they will ultimately choose to go with the final 8 in for the games, there is some talk about it becoming the final 8 at-large teams. I think that would generate much more interest for TV ratings. Who are you going to watch -- Memphis vs. Virginia, or the SWAC champ vs. the MEAC champ? I think that's a no-brainer.
I like the concept of the final 8 at-large teams competing for the four 12 seeds in the bracket.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
Yeah -think of all the Ugly Betty reruns you might miss if you had to watch all that dang basketball.
I think we need as LITTLE college basketball as possible. We should cap division 1 at 100 teams, play 15 game seasons, scrap the conference tourneys, and then skip straight to the Final Four.
It will be done by Christmas, and HogDawg wont have to miss a single Lifetime movie-of-the week and then he can listen to his Kenny G records and sip box wine with a good book and a bubble bath all winter long .
Instead of 96, they should have gone to 69 teams:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
