Wishful thinking for the format of the hoops tourney expansion.
The tourney expansion is old news but the format of the expansion has not been confirmed to my knowledge. It would seem like the most likely scenario is that there will be four play in games now instead of 1 and that these games will consist of the 8 "worst" teams in the tourney with the winners advancing to play the number one seeds.
I, for one, would not be impressed. The 15 and 16 seeds don't have realistic illusions of advancing very far in the tourney. However, they undoubtedly look forward to the opportunity to play against the top teams in the country. Alas, under the current format, one of those teams is basically told, "Yeah, you earned the right to play in the NCAA tourney.... but not really." So now, instead of one team getting the shaft, four teams will be in that position.
I would much rather see the "bubble teams" forced into those play in games, with the winners earning the 12 seeds. This way, those 15 and 16 seeds (whose only hope of ever making the tourney is winning their conference post season) will still get the chance to run with the big boys, while the major conference bubble teams will be forced to play eachother for the right to play in those always intriguing 5-12 matchups.
Sorry (but not really) if this seems random. I heard some dicussion on the expansion earlier today and so I was motivated to get out my soapbox.
Don't they make washing machines?
associated with power tools, thank you.
instant demand water heaters!
Small world.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:08 AM ^
You were probably thinking Whirlpool. Michigan alum Fredrick Upton started producing the Upton Machine. Their company became Whirlpool and caught on with Sears.
I have absolutely no desire for the play-in teams to be the final at-large teams. I do not want this. The last four at-large teams always range from 10 seeds all the way down to 13 sometimes. The squealing about seeding unfairness would be deafening. The committee already does things that people don't like and there's always bitching.
You want to make it so 5 seeds are run out of the tournament even more often than they are these days? Make them play a team that should be a 10 seed. 6 seeds would rejoice, as they're handed crappy autobid teams that should have been a 12 seed, but got bumped up to 11.
There's no way to make this fair. You shouldn't have to play your way into a 68-team field if you're the 45th best team in it. Everyone already agrees that autobids like Arkansas-Pine Bluff are taking spots from better teams; make them play their way in. You'll get a more competitive tournament that way. And people say it's unfair to always relegate the little guy to the play-in games, but if you're playing four of those games in one day, properly promoting those games will give them more exposure than if you feed them to the 1 seeds every year in the games nobody bothers with anyway.
Actually, what I want is it to go back to 64 teams. The play in is a joke.
You are right. The Arkansas Pine Bluffs of the world will never win the tournament. However, I argue that a small school conference champion deserves a shot infinitely more than a 19-12 BCS team who was 7th best in their conference. They earned the right, even if they aren't the better team on paper.
The tourney is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For me, I like to see the little guys get a chance to play on the big stage occasionally. It's just my opinion. I'm not asking you to share it and I'm certainly not "squealing."
PS: The 15 seed has won 4 times and the 14 seed has won 15 times. A 16 seed hasn't broken thorugh, but I still "bother" paying attention. Every year.
April 29th, 2010 at 10:26 PM ^
When did I say you were the one doing the squealing? You sound a little miffed that I disagree.
And my other question is, why does a low-major conference champ "deserve" a shot more than the 19-12 team? Those low-majors often have worse records than the last at-larges, and playing against far, far worse competition too. UAPB: 17-15. Winthrop: 19-13. ETSU: 20-14. Compare that to the two lowest at-larges: 27-7 and 26-6. If we accept as truth that you shouldn't play a crap schedule to be a tournament team, why give a pass to the teams that play in a crap conference? Virginia Tech didn't get a lot of sympathy for missing the tournament because their schedule consisted of all the UMBC's of the world. Why should Vermont get more credit for playing UMBC than VT? Which brings me to point #2: people always portray the last at-larges the way you did, as a team in the bottom end of a major conference. Those two were Utah State and UTEP.
April 29th, 2010 at 11:22 PM ^
I live in Dayton and the 64/65 game has become a little bit of local pride. No matter the teams, the arena is relatively well attended by the locals who have no affiliation with either of the two teams. What I'd like to see is Dayton get a second game (6 & 9p?) and then a small city in Western CONUS known for good turnout get the other two games-- somplace like an Albuquerque w/ The Pit, or Colorado Springs or Boise or something. Basically put the four teams closest to the sites at each location to maximize attendance and interest.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:04 AM ^
I was thinking the exact same thing. NCAA should put an extra game in Dayton and two games in the west somewhere (Colorado Springs? Sacramento?) and then play them at, say, 1:30, 4:00, 6:30, and 9:00. Or if they like prime time, play them simultaneously at 6:00 and 9:00, and both can be on TV at the same time with the new CBS/Turner split.