|
|
Post by hchoops on May 17, 2018 19:22:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on May 18, 2018 10:15:33 GMT -5
They really need to do this. It's a crime that an ACC team can finish in the Top 10 in their conference and get shut out because the committee only thought nine teams were deserving. A team in the top 10 of the ACC should have a chance to compete for the national title (OK technically second chance because they could have played their way in through the conference tournament)
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on May 18, 2018 10:17:02 GMT -5
They really need to do this. It's a crime that an ACC team can finish in the Top 10 in their conference and get shut out because the committee only thought nine teams were deserving. A team in the top 10 of the ACC should have a chance to compete for the national title (OK technically second chance because they could have played their way in through the conference tournament) sarcasm ? |
|
|
|
Post by Ray on May 18, 2018 10:49:14 GMT -5
They really need to do this. It's a crime that an ACC team can finish in the Top 10 in their conference and get shut out because the committee only thought nine teams were deserving. A team in the top 10 of the ACC should have a chance to compete for the national title (OK technically second chance because they could have played their way in through the conference tournament) sarcasm ? Um, yeah.
From the article:
But somehow, the system would obviously be rigged so that mid-majors wouldn't get these extra bids. This would create essentially a full slate of 17 seeds, thus increasing the likelihood that a non-dominant PL champ gets (effectively) only half an NCAA bid (as this effectively becomes a playin round), and also making it harder for a dominant PL champ to climb the S-curve far enough to get a decent seed.
Basically, this is crap unless accompanied by something that actually legislates how these 8 extra bids are allocated among the P5+BE conferences vs. the mid/low majors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on May 18, 2018 11:06:28 GMT -5
They really need to do this. It's a crime that an ACC team can finish in the Top 10 in their conference and get shut out because the committee only thought nine teams were deserving. A team in the top 10 of the ACC should have a chance to compete for the national title (OK technically second chance because they could have played their way in through the conference tournament) sarcasm ? As much as my typing allows. Coach WIllard was in favor of an expanded tournament because it would give a chance to reward teams that had a special year. It doesn't work like that. I don't consider a losing record in your conference a "special" year. As long as the extra teams are going to be lower level P5 schools, I say go back to 64 and eliminate the play in games If the extra team was going to be Vermont this year, or some other school that actually had a special year, I could deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on May 18, 2018 11:56:58 GMT -5
If they banned any team (other than league tournament champions) with a losing league record from NCAA tournament at-large bids that could be a start in the right direction. Of course, that will never happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on May 18, 2018 12:07:18 GMT -5
Better yet. No team can dance without a winning league record. .500s need not apply
I guess the exceptions would have to be conference tournament champs
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on May 18, 2018 13:00:42 GMT -5
Anyone who thinks another tournament expansion would benefit mid majors has their head in the sand.
There are zero teams currently left out of the NCAA tournament today that deserve to compete for a national title.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on May 18, 2018 13:03:25 GMT -5
Also comparing NCAA tournament participation to the bowls is a joke. The NIT, CBI and CIT are the college basketball parallel to Decmember bowl games.
|
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on May 18, 2018 15:42:31 GMT -5
So you'd have 8 16s (so 4 games 16 vs 17) and 8 11s (4 games to determine the 11s). Doesn't bother me, but it's pretty clear that you'd probably end up with an extra mid major or lower approximately every other year. The bigs would swallow up nearly all the new bids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on May 18, 2018 17:15:44 GMT -5
I'm surprised they haven't decided to throw all the non power 5-6 schools into a hat on Selection Sunday, and then draw one "lucky" winner to participate in the tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on May 18, 2018 18:11:56 GMT -5
lol  |
|
