1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Buffs better make march madness

Discussion in 'Colorado Basketball Message Board' started by sweaty teets, Feb 1, 2010.

  1. sweaty teets

    sweaty teets Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,092
    Likes Received:
    1,423
  2. CarolinaBuff

    CarolinaBuff Weekend Poster Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,646
    Likes Received:
    522
    I hate the idea of this tournament expanding to 96 teams. It's perfect as it is now except for that stupid play-in game they have.
     
  3. chipwich

    chipwich Administrator Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20,662
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    weak.
     
  4. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,536
    Likes Received:
    16,154
    Expansion to a 96-team tournament?

    Someone check my math, but I think this equates to all the 9-16 seeds having to go through an extra round while the 1-8 seeds get a bye.

    It would definitely kill the CBI tournament and probably the NIT, too. Obviously dilute the field a bit. I actually like it, though. Puts all the good teams in a single tournament and give me an extra 2 days of tourney basketball to watch. Should be fun. Hope it happens.
     
  5. tante

    tante Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,785
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    I think 64 teams is perfect, it is hard to get in, but not impossible.
     
  6. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,536
    Likes Received:
    16,154
    Decided to move this thread to the Basketball forum.

    ***********

    Something to think about on this issue is that, unlike in football, there is no D1 sub-division. There are currently 347 teams in D1. With a 96-team tournament, you're only talking about the top 27.6% of teams vs the current 65-team field having the top 18.7% of teams.

    For comparison:

    College Bowls = 68/120 teams (56.6%)
    MLB playoffs = 8/30 teams (26.6%)
    NFL playoffs = 12/32 teams (37.5%)
    NBA playoffs = 16/30 teams (53.3%)
    NHL playoffs = 16/30 teams (53.3%)
     
  7. dyemeduke

    dyemeduke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    198
    The NCAA is a joke, and if they accept this idea, it will only prove it's incompetency and ability to only think with their wallets. March Madness was made into the cash cow it currently is by the cinderallas. Even though most teams don't end up making the Final Four (GMason and Princeton the exceptions I can think of), their upsets in the first two rounds of the tournament are what provide the bulk of the drama. With an expanded 96 team field, you'll just have these smaller schools beating up on each other before reaching the "real field". The play-in game was not so much a way to get another small school in as it was a way to get another big-conference school into the tournament, and allow two smaller conference teams to oust each other. A 96 team field would be 16 more play-in games...and it's pathetic. I hate the NCAA - for an institution that is supposed to be responsible for the athletic and academic endeavors of amateur athletes, they sure do make a lot of money, retaining much of it, and their decision making is much like a corporation, as opposed to caring about the athletes. Myles Brand made 895k...for doing what???!!
     
  8. Scotch

    Scotch Registered User Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,801
    Likes Received:
    426
    Wouldn't be a fan of this. The tournament or 'March Madness' really starts when the conference tourneys start. Every team in the country has a shot at making the Big Dance if they win their conference tourney. The conference tourneys are also where some of the best ball is played all year imo.

    Going to a 96 team field is a big money grab that will dilute the playing. Nothing more.
     
  9. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,412
    Likes Received:
    4,434
    No like. 64 teams is perfect, IMO.
     
  10. Junction

    Junction Moderator Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    47,534
    Likes Received:
    1,000,005
    :stupid:

    Turning the first round of the NCAA tourney into the audition rounds of American Idol isn't going to help anybody.....
     
  11. CarolinaBuff

    CarolinaBuff Weekend Poster Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,646
    Likes Received:
    522
    Correct, the top 32 teams would get a bye. After the first round, we'd be starting with a 64-team field. Assuming, of course, that's how they decide to structure it. :huh:


    The problem with that logic is that roughly half those 347 schools are so small and/or play such a non-representative schedule that they can't be considered legitimate national title contenders to begin with. It's fine that leagues like the MEAC, MAAC, Patriot, etc. get an automatic bid, but you can't simply lump all their respective conference members in for a comparison such as this because it skews the numbers.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2010
  12. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,536
    Likes Received:
    16,154
    Carolina, that's a good point. Fair to say that about 1/3 of the top tier teams make it after you factor in that you've got 33 auto-bid conferences and half of them are bottom tier (65 - 17 = 48 out of 174 bids to top tier? That works out to 27.6% of the good programs are currently going to the Big Dance. Assuming that the next 31 bids would all go to programs from the top half tier, that would be 79 our of 174 (45.4%).

    Given the above, the next 31 would likely be teams ranked somewhere between 35 and 85 in the RPI. Here are those teams as of today:

    (Wins / Losses / Schedule Strength / Schedule Rank / RPI)

    35. Cornell 16 3 .5107 148 .6030
    36. St. Mary's 18 3 .5328 113 .6022
    37. San Diego St. 13 6 .5695 61 .6015
    38. Clemson 16 6 .5760 47 .6009
    39. Texas Tech 14 7 .6110 15 .6008
    40. Richmond 16 6 .5657 63 .6007
    41. Dayton 15 6 .5772 45 .6001
    42. UNLV 16 4 .5339 111 .5994
    43. Charlotte 16 5 .5269 121 .5980
    44. Siena 19 4 .5036 158 .5964
    45. Connecticut 13 8 .6521 3 .5960
    46. Old Dominion 17 6 .5383 103 .5943
    47. Louisville 13 8 .6442 5 .5941
    48. Wichita St. 18 4 .4999 163 .5915
    49. Cincinnati 14 7 .5829 40 .5907
    50. Maryland 13 6 .5887 31 .5851
    51. William & Mary 14 6 .5412 98 .5836
    52. Florida 15 6 .5633 65 .5833
    53. Arizona 12 9 .6263 8 .5822
    54. South Florida 14 7 .5736 49 .5804
    55. Utah St. 15 6 .5352 109 .5799
    56. Northeastern 14 8 .5806 43 .5784
    57. Minnesota 13 8 .6077 18 .5775
    58. Marquette 13 8 .5932 27 .5772
    59. Seton Hall 12 7 .6085 16 .5764
    60. Va. Commonwealth 15 5 .5037 157 .5751
    61. South Carolina 13 8 .5932 26 .5750
    62. Tulsa 16 4 .4948 176 .5747
    63. Northwestern 14 7 .5749 48 .5747
    64. Washington 14 7 .5712 55 .5726
    65. Mississippi St. 16 5 .4964 174 .5720
    66. Nevada 12 8 .5841 37 .5703
    67. Harvard 13 4 .4591 245 .5702
    68. Oakland 14 8 .5306 115 .5687
    69. Kent St. 13 7 .5455 93 .5686
    70. Virginia Tech 16 4 .4616 239 .5685
    71. Notre Dame 15 7 .5575 72 .5677
    72. St. John's 12 8 .5810 42 .5671
    73. Western Carolina 14 5 .4708 219 .5670
    74. Louisiana Tech 18 4 .4522 260 .5663
    75. UTEP 15 5 .5150 143 .5661
    76. North Carolina 13 8 .5959 25 .5643
    77. Sam Houston St. 10 5 .5178 137 .5617
    78. Georgia 9 10 .6405 6 .5591
    79. Memphis 15 6 .5206 133 .5590
    80. Illinois 14 8 .5542 79 .5586
    81. Marshall 13 6 .5244 126 .5581
    82. New Mexico St. 12 8 .5488 85 .5563
    83. Oklahoma 12 9 .5725 52 .5559
    84. Missouri St. 15 7 .5119 147 .5557
    85. Iona 16 6 .4961 175 .5548

    These are not bad teams. I understand the point you guys are making and I really appreciate the sentiment that if it ain't broke you don't fix it. But as a basketball fan, I have no problem with any of the teams on that list being part of the tournament (Edit: Except Georgia. No teams with losing records unless they win their conference tourney). Every one of them would be a threat to win 1 or 2 games against most teams in the field of 65.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2010
  13. Sexton Hardcastle

    Sexton Hardcastle Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    17,472
    Likes Received:
    367
    If it's not broke....
     
  14. Ruckus

    Ruckus Peep my words. Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    16,544
    Likes Received:
    1,784
    .....break it. Apparently that's what the NCAA is thinking.
     
  15. coereg

    coereg New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow! I too disagree with the 96-team field, it's just to much.

    You now can dilute the field, giving many a chance of what is considered a very prestigious event. You run the risk of damaging the excitement.

    Plus, there's already so many good things surrounding the current event like championship week for example, you may now hurt the overall competition and the excitement of that week. How bout the bubble watch, and seeing teams really scrap to get one of those handful of remaining spots and all the controversy that surrounds that. This "Brooks" guy has a point when he mentions concerns about "March Madness" being embraced like it always has with the added 31 teams.

    I also like his quick piece on the justification of football not having a tournament after what the NCAA is about to put basketball (and it's players) through.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2010
  16. coereg

    coereg New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good point, and I've actually always thought that MLB should expand their playoffs some. Besides the Yankees, Red Sox, and some of the other top teams, you don't know about the others. I mean it could 50 years before some of these teams get back into the playoffs. Who knows.

    But 96 still seems like a load.

    So will they go to 97, and add a play-in game there too after a couple of years?
     
  17. Mick Ronson

    Mick Ronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,858
    Likes Received:
    268
    kind of a false positive. making means less. used to be, win the pennant or else out of 2 divisions in the NL and AL. it's *already* expanded.

    OP, i'm not for more than 64/65. but, more the commercials we see, the better for the people really driving the train. i'm really losing interest in televised sports, to be honest.

    start going to more HS games. anything.
     
  18. buffs04

    buffs04 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    223
    I don't have a problem with this. It's the only way CU is ever going to make the tourney, IMO.
     

Share This Page