|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 3, 2023 14:54:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 3, 2023 15:23:29 GMT -5
If they do something like that, I hope they have a stipulation no at large teams with a sub .500 record or a sub .500 conference record. Otherwise the extra 22 teams will be coming mostly from the bottom third of P6 conferences
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 3, 2023 15:34:17 GMT -5
That is the goal of the Power 6.
|
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jan 3, 2023 15:38:39 GMT -5
Just like MLB, NFL... let everybody in. Regular season barely matters. Hype up the playoffs, make it more fluky, make it last 3 months, TV pays out billions, more betting... and a worse product.
|
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 3, 2023 15:44:57 GMT -5
Logic would tell you something different than what is in place now or planned for the future . NCAA tournament would be contested by the champions of the individual conference tournaments. I know that will never happen as March Madness is such a phenomenon, and I am aware that some teams who were not conference champions have won the national championship.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiMarz on Jan 3, 2023 16:53:10 GMT -5
Why not have an open tourney? All teams with a 500 record within their league or overall can participate. A lot more teams get a piece of the pie…..If there isn’t enough time to do that, reduce the number of OOC games and start league play mid December
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 3, 2023 17:33:03 GMT -5
I presume you are serious.
The main factor which separates college hoops from pro sports and college football is the tourney of 68.
Games such as St.Peter’s win over Kentucky keep semi interested fans riveted in March.
Games such as these would be far less likely with any expansion, especially to 90.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 3, 2023 20:25:48 GMT -5
This would be a travesty!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 4, 2023 8:51:03 GMT -5
I don't like the idea of the expanded tourney.
That being said, if they had to go to 90, if they added the .500 requirement DiMarz and I mentioned, it wouldn't just be going to the cellar of the P6. I'm not sure how many teams over .500 in their P6 conference don't get in
|
|
|
|
Post by trimster on Jan 4, 2023 9:01:25 GMT -5
It’s all about the Benjamin’s. Greed will be the ruination of college sports, at least the revenue sports. As a prime example, see USC and UCLA going to the Big Ten. That is absolute nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 4, 2023 9:14:32 GMT -5
More conference restructuring coming at the Div 1 and 1AA level over the next 12-18 months
Be ready to take charge of our future
|
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jan 4, 2023 14:04:04 GMT -5
Unless the seeding rules would change, an 88 team (or something else larger than 68, divisible by 4) tournament would have one interesting effect.
Instead of 16 seeds, let's extend that to 22 seeds.
First round, you'd have 22 playing 11; 21-12; 20-13; 19-14; 18-15; 17-16.
1 would still play 16 or 17 in the round of 64; 2 would play 15 or 18; and so on.
But, those 16s, 17s and 18s would, on the average, be much better teams than the current 15s and 16s, wouldn't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by sader81 on Jan 4, 2023 15:24:05 GMT -5
Always felt the play in games were unfair to those who made the dance. Look at how HC had no legs by the time they got to play Oregon. If you expand, go to 128. It’s just one more game. Play 1v 65, . . . 64v128. Play in pods, like FCS football does. Would make things interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 4, 2023 17:21:10 GMT -5
Unless the seeding rules would change, an 88 team (or something else larger than 68, divisible by 4) tournament would have one interesting effect. Instead of 16 seeds, let's extend that to 22 seeds. First round, you'd have 22 playing 11; 21-12; 20-13; 19-14; 18-15; 17-16. 1 would still play 16 or 17 in the round of 64; 2 would play 15 or 18; and so on. But, those 16s, 17s and 18s would, on the average, be much better teams than the current 15s and 16s, wouldn't they? You wonder if that would open up the discussion of re-seeding after each round. |
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 4, 2023 17:46:48 GMT -5
Unless the seeding rules would change, an 88 team (or something else larger than 68, divisible by 4) tournament would have one interesting effect. Instead of 16 seeds, let's extend that to 22 seeds. First round, you'd have 22 playing 11; 21-12; 20-13; 19-14; 18-15; 17-16. 1 would still play 16 or 17 in the round of 64; 2 would play 15 or 18; and so on. But, those 16s, 17s and 18s would, on the average, be much better teams than the current 15s and 16s, wouldn't they? You wonder if that would open up the discussion of re-seeding after each round. Focus on things that will matter in the future structure- Conferences will matter- like real estate is based on location As we play musical chairs do you want a seat?? Remember if we don't have a seat at the table we will be on the menu--- give it some thought please as the PL has a short shelf life if you want to do more than general participation in sports IF participation works for the group great, it doesn't work for me |
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 4, 2023 18:09:56 GMT -5
What influence, if any, can the small number of Crossporters have upon any decision about possible conference changes ?
|
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 4, 2023 19:30:53 GMT -5
More than you think
They are trying to get a sense of alumni interest and perspective
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 4, 2023 20:07:17 GMT -5
More than you think They are trying to get a sense of alumni interest and perspective Wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jan 4, 2023 20:42:40 GMT -5
You wonder if that would open up the discussion of re-seeding after each round. Focus on things that will matter in the future structure- Conferences will matter- like real estate is based on location As we play musical chairs do you want a seat?? Remember if we don't have a seat at the table we will be on the menu--- give it some thought please as the PL has a short shelf life if you want to do more than general participation in sports IF participation works for the group great, it doesn't work for me I gave it some thought as requested. My first thought is the Ivy League will sit out any changes. The Patriot League will probably follow suit. That means if HC wants to make changes they have to find another group of like minded schools to join with or become an independent. But aren't the like minded schools in the PL? |
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 4, 2023 22:15:28 GMT -5
Yes, but what should it look like in the future
|
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 4, 2023 22:16:33 GMT -5
More than you think They are trying to get a sense of alumni interest and perspective Wrong. Respectfully disagree |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 5, 2023 9:06:13 GMT -5
Unless the seeding rules would change, an 88 team (or something else larger than 68, divisible by 4) tournament would have one interesting effect. Instead of 16 seeds, let's extend that to 22 seeds. First round, you'd have 22 playing 11; 21-12; 20-13; 19-14; 18-15; 17-16. 1 would still play 16 or 17 in the round of 64; 2 would play 15 or 18; and so on. But, those 16s, 17s and 18s would, on the average, be much better teams than the current 15s and 16s, wouldn't they? You wonder if that would open up the discussion of re-seeding after each round. I'm predicting "no" Part of the fun of the tournament is the millions of office pool participants. From an NCAA standpoint there are a lot of eyes following the dance who wouldn't normally because of those pools. Re-seeding would blow those pools out of the water and, in my uninformed opinion, reduce viewership. That should not be a reason to not move to re-seeding - but my guess is that it will be anyway |
|
