|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jul 20, 2017 12:56:16 GMT -8
Suggests expanding by 4 teams, focusing on the better mid-majors who don't win their conference tourney, and adding a 2nd "play in" location in the midwest/west to go with Dayton. A lot of logic involved, which obviously means it won't happen (although this committee appears to be making some very good decisions). Time to expand the field |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Jul 20, 2017 13:25:10 GMT -8
Or they could just stop letting sh*tty P5 teams in over good mid-majors. I hate how it keeps expanding and hate the play-in games
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 20, 2017 13:26:49 GMT -8
Suggests expanding by 4 teams, focusing on the better mid-majors who don't win their conference tourney, and adding a 2nd "play in" location in the midwest/west to go with Dayton. A lot of logic involved, which obviously means it won't happen (although this committee appears to be making some very good decisions). Time to expand the fieldHell--just make it 96. 4 regions--top 8 seeds in each region gets a bye. Remaining teams in each bracket play 1 game, with the winners matched against the seeded teams, which then becomes a 64 team tourney. Of course, that would kill the NIT... |
|
|
|
Post by mactec on Jul 20, 2017 14:21:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbb on Jul 20, 2017 14:31:58 GMT -8
Or we could just give everyone a participation trophy and skip all the travel and hoopla
|
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jul 20, 2017 15:19:23 GMT -8
They would say that the 4 new slots were for better G5 teams but everyone knows that they will eventually go to P5 teams.
Like how California's gas tax money seems to end up in the general fund instead of fixing roads.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 20, 2017 16:09:42 GMT -8
LOL. Love to see the brackets for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 20, 2017 18:03:38 GMT -8
Suggests expanding by 4 teams, focusing on the better mid-majors who don't win their conference tourney, and adding a 2nd "play in" location in the midwest/west to go with Dayton. A lot of logic involved, which obviously means it won't happen (although this committee appears to be making some very good decisions). Time to expand the fieldHell--just make it 96. 4 regions--top 8 seeds in each region gets a bye. Remaining teams in each bracket play 1 game, with the winners matched against the seeded teams, which then becomes a 64 team tourney. Of course, that would kill the NIT... I could see a 96 team tourney with the first 64 teams playing at the home of the higher seeded team. |
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jul 21, 2017 7:56:26 GMT -8
Heck, why stop at 96? how about 175? that way, half of the D1 programs get to play. If that seems a bit ridiculous, just remember that's pretty much what the NBA and NHL do already.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 21, 2017 9:03:35 GMT -8
Heck, why stop at 96? how about 175? that way, half of the D1 programs get to play. If that seems a bit ridiculous, just remember that's pretty much what the NBA and NHL do already. 175? Then you have to have a play-in game to get to an even number.  |
|
|
|
Post by mySTRAS on Jul 21, 2017 9:20:43 GMT -8
I vote for a field of 256. No need for a pre-season or conference schedule.
Expanding the field is nothing more than a money grab.
IMO, they are ruining March Madness with the silly play-in games. The field should be 64.
|
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jul 21, 2017 10:07:28 GMT -8
I vote for a field of 256. No need for a pre-season or conference schedule. Expanding the field is nothing more than a money grab. IMO, they are ruining March Madness with the silly play-in games. The field should be 64. Funny, it used to be 32 teams and some people thought that was too many, haha. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 21, 2017 11:06:24 GMT -8
I vote for a field of 256. No need for a pre-season or conference schedule. Expanding the field is nothing more than a money grab. IMO, they are ruining March Madness with the silly play-in games. The field should be 64. Of course it's a money grab. Just like the conference "tournaments" are. What the hell did we just play a conference schedule for, if we have to play in a post-season conference tournament? |
|
|
|
Post by junior on Jul 21, 2017 11:29:17 GMT -8
Same thing goes for many other sports. Eking out the last penny - and then squeezing Abe's head to get the last .001 - has certainly helped everyone's bottom line. But it has also practically killed any enjoyment of watching post-season play.
|
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jul 21, 2017 12:14:11 GMT -8
does not matter for SDSU or most non P6 schools .For now. Getting an at large bid for MM is dependent on the quality of our wins during OOC and avoiding the bad losses .
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jul 21, 2017 12:34:38 GMT -8
does not matter for SDSU or most non P6 schools .For now. Getting an at large bid for MM is dependent on the quality of our wins during OOC and avoiding the bad losses . Any and all changes to the NCAA tournament and selection process definitely DOES matter to SDSU & non-P6 schools. That's the whole intent of the article - adding 4 non-P6 schools to the mix. Changing the definition of a "quality win", devaluing home wins also helps SDSU & non-P6 schools. Obviously winning is the key, but working on ways which help balance the tables to some degree is extremely important to SDSU & non-P6 schools overall. Several P6 teams got at-large bids based on having more "quality wins", which now wouldn't have counted by today's definition. In addition, the possibility that UNR would not have received an at-large bid had they not won the MW conference tourney (which is ridiculous) needs to be addressed. If Lunardi's recommendation is taken into practice they would have, as would Illinois St. |
|
