Sure, this is nothing but fun conjecture at this point, I was mainly pointing out that Cuse has a decided homecourt-style advantage playing in MSG. I'd be thrilled if we can finally break thru to the Sweet 16.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Bracketology 2013/2014
- Thread starter whatthebuff
- Start date
Sure, this is nothing but fun conjecture at this point, I was mainly pointing out that Cuse has a decided homecourt-style advantage playing in MSG. I'd be thrilled if we can finally break thru to the Sweet 16.
Wtf?
Furk - back to Spokane. doesn't bode well...
You mean 2nd and 3rd rounds right? They ruined the first day
cubuffs85
Active Member
Technically the 3rd and 4th days. I don't think the Tournament really begins until Thursday. I don't think it's ruined either.
True. everyone knows the dance still really starts on Thursday.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Agreed. This "play-in" round one arrangement is horse hockey. VCU is the only team that has done well since the change and I'm pretty sure the ncaa uses that team/year for it's "see how well it works" argument.
cubuffs85
Active Member
You realize we're talking about a grand total of THREE years. The fact that one of the 24 teams (and it's really 12 since we know those other 12 had absolutely no shot in the first place) actually made the Final Four is an accomplishment in my books.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Yes, the expansion to 68 teams occurred 3 years ago, however teams #64 & #65 have played the "play-in" game since 2001.
To me, if they want to truly expand the field of teams then they need to just do it. This onesy/twoesy stuff is bs and denigrates the first weekend of the tourney.
cubuffs85
Active Member
There was a lot less interest when #64 and #65 played. The First Four actually made it intriguing with brand names in there. VCU further legitimized making the Final Four.
While I concur with you I prefer 64 to 68, if anything I'll take like 48 teams. There needs to be LESS teams not more. I don't like the idea of going to 128 teams and making the regular season even more watered down than it already is. Duke and Syracuse can still have "bad" regular seasons as it is, but make up for it in the Tournament as it is.
I don' t think there needs to be less. 64 is just about the right number. I really don't understand the need for a play-in game though.
cubuffs85
Active Member
I'm fine with 64, just saying the regular season is watered down as it is.
The "need" is this, they added another conference initially and didn't want to take away an automatic bid. Then they decided, "why not make an event out of this" with the First Four.
All that the play-in games prove is that there are 2 few at-large teams in the field of 64 that could replace 2 of the conference champion 16-seeds and make it a better tournament. But we already knew that. It's never been the best 64. It's the conference champs and the best 36 are selected to get us to 68.
wyobuff
Well-Known Member
You forgot about lasalle last year. They didnt make the final 4 like VCU did that year, but the explorers were in the sweet 16 last year.
cubuffs85
Active Member
If you really did the best 68 and didn't automatically take conference champs, it's not as exciting of a tourney since you be getting many more brand teams instead of the schools people haven't heard of.
I agree. Tourney is fun.
I think the play-in games had to be added due to a growth in the number of D1 teams and conferences. There's a balance. It's not a good thing if a 20-win Syracuse, Kentucky, Arizona or North Carolina team is left home in a down year. Tournament loses cache along with losing a team that, despite its struggles, has the talent to win games against the field.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Don't get me wrong -- I really like the field at 64. However, count me in the group who couldn't care less about the 2 play-in games.
cubuffs85
Active Member
Four play-in games now, I don't love it either. It just doesn't phase me too much.
FrankRizzo
Active Member
[video=youtube;cxyPeME9TbI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxyPeME9TbI[/video]
"Watch out for Eckerd this year they have a full roster AND they're having practices."
"Watch out for Eckerd this year they have a full roster AND they're having practices."
64 was a perfect number because every team played in every round and you didn't have any "Opening Round" games or some fabricated "First Round" with 8 teams. If you're not one of the 32 top at-large teams or a conference champion then you don't deserve to get the chance to play for a national title. 64 teams was plenty, it seems like one of the big reasons they added these additional at-large spots was just so a few more coaches could say they made the big dance.
Or maybe it was asked for by the networks. That would also explain why the play-in games aren't just for the 16-seed games.
I'm guessing there was alot of pressure from the coaches but yea, there's no doubt that money was a big drive, as it is in most decisions that fans don't like or aren't necessarily good for the sport. It's not just college basketball, the NFL is talking about going to 18 games and adding 2 playoff teams is all but a done deal.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
68 is horrible. If you want to go big, then go big. Adding 4 to extra spots just makes for a weird, non-sensible format.
cubuffs85
Active Member
Great from a pool standpoint, it rounded off perfectly as well with no byes. More teams would've made it harder for the casual fans. Less teams would make the brackets not as exciting.
I think it actually hurts coaches with more teams making it rather than helping them. As it is, coaches are getting fired after making the tournament that year (Tubby Smith, Ben Howland).
Last edited:
cubuffs85
Active Member
I'd rather have 68 than 96. Given the choice, I'd go back to 64 but at this point, I don't think they are taking away teams as much as adding them.
cubuffs85
Active Member
The tournament isn't as much chalk as it used to be. And at the same time, teams like Syracuse can have not so great regular seasons and make the Tournament and have a good run. If you make it anymore, it's crazy IMO. If anything not that this is going to happen, I'd make it more selective not more accessible.
Last edited:
Well, for the moment, we're still in this thing! As teams beat each other up during conference play, we shouldn't give up hope for the tourney. The pac now has the most teams with 7, which is pretty interesting.
cubuffs85
Active Member
I hope this ends any talk for expansion (which it won't), 96 teams would make the regular season even more meaningless.