Stands to reason that if you're going to make teams play extra games, you'd make the 8 lowest seeds play each other. So why aren't the 16 seeds all playing extra games instead of screwing with 12 seeds (a line on the bracket that's been about even money to advance)?
“Professional results are not possible with the use of amateur methods.”
kinda screws the 5/6 seeds as well. they have less time to prepare for an opponent than the past (4/5 days). 8/9 is a bad spot to be since you see a #1 if you win (thanks for playing), now 5/6 has a drawback, too. i guess 7 seed is the mid-range seed to fly these days.
I guess they didn't want to completely screw all the auto-bid teams, plus like you said the expansion of the tournament added 3 more at-large bids, so they must have figured that these last few at-large teams should kind of have to play their way into the "real" rounds.
64 was an absolutely perfect number of teams because it was a representative number of teams and everybody had to play 6 games. That play-in or "Opening Round" game they've had these past few years was stupid and this new "First round" isn't much better.
Kanzazz basketball -- screwing up office tournament brackets since 1939.
I know I'm in the minority, but if we have to have the play-in-games (which I hate), I prefer it be "at large" teams. One of the best parts of the tourney is watching the automatic bid little guys get to play in the big dance. Now, for the last few years, one team has had the reward for their awesome season (or run in the conference tournament) ruined with a trip to Dayton.
Of course, if CU has to play a play-in-game, I reserve all rights to change my opinion and rail about how the play-in's should only involve 16 seeds.
I think they should go the opposite way on play-in games, and have it be the last eight in for all four 12-seeds. These will be far more entertaining games than the 16-seed play-in game that we have had the last few years.
I think regular season conference play should matter. You say reward the good teams, but I say reward the teams that are the best in their respective conference. If you win your conference, you get in. If you win a big conference, you get to play a bad team. If you have to rely on a late at-large bid, then you have to do a little extra, but you still have a shot at making some noise.
Just my opinion.
i liked it better before the pod system, where every top seed would get sent to play a 25 win Mississippi Valley State team in cold gym in Ogden. neutralize the advantages, play basketball. institutional favoritism is all about the money, not sports. Except Duke and Carolina, the proto-pods, they'd play as either a flexible "East" or "South" team in Charlotte or Atlanta.
Josh Rosenblum CU' 95