ADVERTISEMENT

Lunardi says...

For many of us, the NCAA tournament had less than 64 teams for a long time, too. You don't hear us whining about added teams!

I wish that the NCAA tournament ran a week longer and included 128 teams. That would allow a lot more teams to get in that probably deserved to and would increase revenue exponentially. I love March Madness - bring more on!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTruthTheWholeTruth
BBHawk said:
For many of us, the NCAA tournament had less than 64 teams for a long time, too. You don't hear us whining about added teams!

I wish that the NCAA tournament ran a week longer and included 128 teams. That would allow a lot more teams to get in that probably deserved to and would increase revenue exponentially. I love March Madness - bring more on!
Click to expand...

An extra week (2 games) would make the NCAA Tourney 256 teams! Of course, that would make the NIT really suck! :)
 
SDHawkDoc said:
Of course, technically, the play-in game and first four are part of the tournament.

It's the same as my technically having been to all the lower 48 states because I drove through the far north corner of Delaware once on my way from Baltimore to Philly. It wasn't for very long and it didn't mean anything, but I was there so it counts.
Click to expand...
68 teams have a chance to win .
 
  • Like
Reactions: iahawks10 and Nohawknamesleft
SDHawkDoc said:
Of course, technically, the play-in game and first four are part of the tournament.

It's the same as my technically having been to all the lower 48 states because I drove through the far north corner of Delaware once on my way from Baltimore to Philly. It wasn't for very long and it didn't mean anything, but I was there so it counts.
Click to expand...
Lol, I like the effort, but it's not the same.

Like I said, this is the NCAA's fault for allowing this perception to persist through the years.
 
MeetTheFerentz said:
Exactly what marketing strategy was supposed to convince people following this tournament for 30 years that the new 4 games played before the field was narrowed to the traditional 64 were just as much a part of the tournament as the games beginning on Thursday? They could have marketed it as the super duper special bonus 4; would it have really mattered?
Click to expand...
Yeah if done properly......that's the whole point of marketing.

There were also play-in games back before the tournament field officially expanded to 64 teams. in 1983 there were 4 games, and in 1984 there were 5.

The first actual play-in game was in 2001, when the field moved from 64 to 65, which was due to the addition of the Mountain West Conference.

2011 was the start of the First Four.

There have been numerous years throughout the tournament's history where teams have had byes, and several coaches have even lobbied for expansion to have all the top seeds, and some even up through the top 3 seeds to all get byes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nohawknamesleft
EvilMonkeyInTheCloset said:
Lol, I like the effort, but it's not the same.

Like I said, this is the NCAA's fault for allowing this perception to persist through the years.
Click to expand...

It exists because for 90% of the viewing populace, the tourney isn’t appointment viewing until Thursday. The teams that lose in the first 4 don’t get the true NCAA experience. Did you guys watch the games last night? I know I didn’t.
 
ISUBryce said:
It exists because for 90% of the viewing populace, the tourney isn’t appointment viewing until Thursday. The teams that lose in the first 4 don’t get the true NCAA experience. Did you guys watch the games last night? I know I didn’t.
Click to expand...
I did and my bracket is already busted!
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
EvilMonkeyInTheCloset said:
I think if they expanded the tournament anymore, it would probably be the end of conference tournaments.
Click to expand...

I'd actually be OK with that.

I don't like 16-16 teams getting in the field, period. Just because they got hot for 3 or 4 games in early March doesn't mean they actually belong in the field of 68. I think it's only happened maybe a couple of times, but there have been power conference teams that got left out of the tourney even though they won their conference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
ISUBryce said:
It exists because for 90% of the viewing populace, the tourney isn’t appointment viewing until Thursday. The teams that lose in the first 4 don’t get the true NCAA experience. Did you guys watch the games last night? I know I didn’t.
Click to expand...
I did, though, so does that, and the fact that Iowa > Iowa State, negate your opinion and thus make these games relevant?

I think so......:cool:
 
fezzador said:
I'd actually be OK with that.

I don't like 16-16 teams getting in the field, period. Just because they got hot for 3 or 4 games in early March doesn't mean they actually belong in the field of 68. I think it's only happened maybe a couple of times, but there have been power conference teams that got left out of the tourney even though they won their conference.
Click to expand...
How many years ago would that have been?.........

According to the NCAA, the big 6 are ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, SEC, Pac 12.
 
EvilMonkeyInTheCloset said:
Yeah if done properly......that's the whole point of marketing.

There were also play-in games back before the tournament field officially expanded to 64 teams. in 1983 there were 4 games, and in 1984 there were 5.

The first actual play-in game was in 2001, when the field moved from 64 to 65, which was due to the addition of the Mountain West Conference.

2011 was the start of the First Four.

There have been numerous years throughout the tournament's history where teams have had byes, and several coaches have even lobbied for expansion to have all the top seeds, and some even up through the top 3 seeds to all get byes.
Click to expand...

I like the First Four myself, and anticipate that it will eventually be the First Eight. I just think it's silly to think that better marketing would have resulted in millions of people having a different attitude toward the Tue-Wed games.

Teams playing each other in the First Four have the same seed #. 99% of office pools start on Thursday, with the First Four being "free picks." That tells you something right there.

64 is sort of a "magic number" for large tournaments. Since there is no way this Tourney ever goes to 128 teams, any games prior to the field being narrowed to 64 will be considered "play-in games;" much different from the first round games played in the 70s and early 80s, where the top seeds were given byes.
 
83Hawk said:
Yep. Went 1-1.

I’m retired. I go head to head with my son (winner buys ice cream). The first four games DO count.
Click to expand...

Damn. I am unable to pick those games.

5203338_031819-cc-espn-printable-bracket-preview-img.png
 
ISUBryce said:
It exists because for 90% of the viewing populace, the tourney isn’t appointment viewing until Thursday. The teams that lose in the first 4 don’t get the true NCAA experience. Did you guys watch the games last night? I know I didn’t.
Click to expand...
yup
 
herkhatescy said:
I'd say Drake deserves it more than the play in teams.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Drake had a great season, but they’re 121 in Sagarin and 128 in Pomeroy. In comparison, ASU was 52 and 62, Temple 68 and 77, Belmont was 50 and 60, St John’s was 66 and 81. I don’t see how Drake was more deserving than any of the 11 seeds.
 
iahawks10 said:
I disagree. Drake had a great season, but they’re 121 in Sagarin and 128 in Pomeroy. In comparison, ASU was 52 and 62, Temple 68 and 77, Belmont was 50 and 60, St John’s was 66 and 81. I don’t see how Drake was more deserving than any of the 11 seeds.
Click to expand...
And Prairie View is 236th.
 
herkhatescy said:
And Prairie View is 236th.
Click to expand...

There’s 50+ teams who deserved to make the tournament ahead of Drake and didn’t. Including every B1G team.

If your argument was that Drake is better than Prarie View A&M, than they’re in an exclusive club of about 150-180 teams not to be selected.
 
papabeef said:
should always be the 16 seeds
Click to expand...
Not when you think about it, although at first glance that seems the logical position. The problem is that it doesn't take into consideration the automatic qualifiers. So the play-in teams aren't really competing for the two slots reserved for the worst teams. They are competing for the two slots reserved for the worst teams out of the slots that are available once mandatory invitations have been issued.

For instance, Belmont is better than Gardner-Webb, based on all the experts know. But Gardner-Webb gets an automatic bid. So once Belmont make the round of 64, it makes no sense to seed them beneath Gardner-Webb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A

Men's Top 25 Polls & NET (1/27)

Replies
0
Views
258
Iowa Men's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
A

Top 25 Polls & NET (2/17)

Replies
0
Views
288
Iowa Men's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
A

Men's Top 25 Polls & NET (2/10)

Replies
0
Views
280
Iowa Men's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
A

Top 25 Polls & NET (1/27)

Replies
1
Views
480
Iowa Women's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
A

Men's Top 25 Polls & NET (1/20)

Replies
0
Views
329
Iowa Men's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back