Uh we have a conference season and a ncaa tourney, the conference tournaments are redundant and only there to boost revenue.
idea of a play in game for 11 seeds is rediculous
- Thread starter Chucksizzle1
- Start date
Chattanooga is 176 in the NET, Minnesota is 220. On a neutral floor, the Mocs may very well be favored over the Gophers.
Some of the one-bid conferences actually like playing in Dayton, because it gives them better odds at earning multiple NCAA tournament shares ($$$). But I really like the mix that exists now in those games. It's hard to feel sorry for any of those 11 seed Power 5 schools who all had clear opportunities to increase their standing in the field prior to Sunday.
I think Iowa played Iowa State this year already as well. If they were to both continue winning should they cancel that game? For all but one team the ncaa tourney is also only a revenue booster.
Ehh...they have a minor gripe with the fact that NC State is safely in against Creighton, while Pitt who finished two full games ahead of them in the ACC has to play in the First Four.
If anything, NC State should be out compared to Rutgers. Or Nevada or Arizona State.
Or Clemson. Rutgers and Clemson were the 2 teams i thought should have been in. Totally agree you are right about Rutgers.
Don't have the net rankings in front of me but I find it odd that Clemson was 23-10 and I believe they beat NC State all 3 times this year, finished 14-6 , 1 game out of first place, while NC State was 12-8 in the conference and also 23-10. Makes zero sense. I thought Rutgers was in after beating Michigan but guess not. Kind of head scratching.
It is charity. People love an underdog so they give them charity.
Complaining about small conference tourneys is rather odd. Every conference is allowed a representative in the NCAA Tournament, and it is the conference's decision how that team is determined. Would you feel better about this whole thing if small conferences were required to send their regular season champ to the NCAA's?
My thought process is actually the opposite of yours. The NCAA Tourney has always been about the automatic qualifiers. If anything, there should not be any auto qualifiers in the First Four. Being an at-large selection is a privilege, and as Div 1 basketball has expanded, the Tourney has so expanded to keep the same number of at-large selections - but now the lowest ones need to play an extra game.
But, having half the First Four games being auto qualifiers at least gives 2 teams a chance to win an NCAA game when they otherwise would not have a chance. But making the entire First Four a bunch of 16 seed play-in games would draw absolutely no interest beyond the teams involved. I think having it the way they do is probably the best format.
Last edited:
Simply you shouldnt have a team seeded 10-15 places higher required to play in a play in game, where as the team seeded lower by 10-15 places is given a spot in the NCAA field. it’s not merit based, it is not in the spirit of true competition. If you seed the tournament 1 through 68, the weakest 8 teams should have play in games for the last four spots. This is the way it was done until 2011.
I absolutely agree that the First Four should be the last 8 teams in the field. Thanks for being so cooperative, Chuck!
I'd much rather have:
1 (11)USC vs 8 (11)Nevada
2 Utah State vs 7 Arizona State
3 North Carolina State vs 6 Pittsburgh
4 Providence vs 5 Mississippi State
All play for the 11 seeds. And if you don't like it, then you can deal with it......
Last edited:
Agree completely. The high major bubble teams who are barely over .500 should be in the play in games, not the teams to go the auto bids.
Ha! Agree to disagree. But honestly, I'd prefer your suggestion over what we currently have. The half and half thing is just weird to me. Either have a charity system or don't.I absolutely agree that the First Four should be the last 8 teams in the field. Thanks for being so cooperative, Chuck!
I'd much rather have:
1 (11)USC vs 8 (11)Nevada
2 Utah State vs 7 Arizona State
3 North Carolina State vs 6 Pittsburgh
4 Providence vs 5 Mississippi State
All play for the 11 seeds. And if you don't like it, then you can deal with it......
Why care so much about the dredges of the NCAA tournament or those that just missed? Regardless of the system people will bitch. Good games will be the result no matter which of you gets their way.
Agree. The current system is working!
I agree. If they want extra games, just have 68 teams and all the play in games are for the 16 seed. If you want 4 extra teams, bump it up to 72 and have those teams play for the 15 seeds.
Both had net rankings in the 30's while you see Nevada and other schools that never even beat 1 tournament team all year and net in the 60's it pisses me off. Hope Rutgers wins the nit. A Michigan Rutgers final with Rutgers winning would be my choice. Although Howard can't coach that team. Michigan's good and should have made the tournament easy this year. I used to coach jr high girls and think i could coach better than Howard. My teams improved dramatically immediately when i took over as coach but am not a dx1 coach by any means. Neither is Howard. That's why i started saying Dickinson needs to transfer to Iowa.
Latest posts
-
-
Based on Recent Intel: Who would you rather land out of the portal?- Latest: BigAssTurkeyLeg
-
-