 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » NCAA Tourny selection
lvnwrth
How? By providing an entertaining opening game rout for a legitimate basketball team?
Or by the one upset every five years that knocks out a truly deserving team?
March 13, 2006 at 08:52PM View BBCode
Originally posted by max_fischer
Winthrop et al. are what makes the NCAA Tournament so much fun.
How? By providing an entertaining opening game rout for a legitimate basketball team?
Or by the one upset every five years that knocks out a truly deserving team?
lvnwrth
This is a question of preferences. I'd prefer to see a really good game. The odds of that happening are a lot better if Villanova has to play Florida State in the first round, than if they play Hampton.
Now that the NCAA controls the NIT, let the small conferences go there unless there's some legitimate reason to put them in the 64-team field.
March 13, 2006 at 08:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
...wouldn't you rather see a bunch of players who are happy to be there and might even put a scare into a top seed (or even win outright on occasion) over a bunch of dumpy losers from a big conference bubble team who screwed around all year and fell into a berth simply due to their proximity to teams that are actually good?
This is a question of preferences. I'd prefer to see a really good game. The odds of that happening are a lot better if Villanova has to play Florida State in the first round, than if they play Hampton.
Now that the NCAA controls the NIT, let the small conferences go there unless there's some legitimate reason to put them in the 64-team field.
DeVeau31
March 13, 2006 at 09:00PM View BBCode
by the way, Seton Hall actually did make the tourney.
FuriousGiorge
CG: "Perhaps after you exclude these teams, for an encore you can kick a puppy or punch an old lady in the face."
The purpose of the NCAA tournament is not beneficence towards weaker conferences. It's to determine the best D-1 basketball team in the country.
[/quote]
Once again, I point to the fact that none of those bubble teams has a snowball's chance in hell of getting as far as the final four, let alone win the title.
But besides that, this is still college basketball, right? It's a game played between amateur athletes, where regionalism, school identity and traditional rivalries drive the action at least as much as cold, sterile totals of wins and losses. In other words, it's supposed to still be FUN. Sports fans have a creepy obsession with championship bottom lines to the exclusion of the enjoyment of the event itself. Cinderellas and small conferences make the tournament more fun. Period. If they take away spots from teams who sleepwalked through the season and simply expect to fall into a spot because they are one of the best 64 teams in the country and by God they demand that you pencil them in for a spot to play for the title despite (don't worry that we lost all those games and never beat even a decent team on the road - we're a basketball institution dammit! You cannot hold this event without us!), well then I say good. I wish they'd take more.
March 13, 2006 at 09:01PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by lvnwrth[/i]
CG: "Perhaps after you exclude these teams, for an encore you can kick a puppy or punch an old lady in the face."
The purpose of the NCAA tournament is not beneficence towards weaker conferences. It's to determine the best D-1 basketball team in the country.
[/quote]
Once again, I point to the fact that none of those bubble teams has a snowball's chance in hell of getting as far as the final four, let alone win the title.
But besides that, this is still college basketball, right? It's a game played between amateur athletes, where regionalism, school identity and traditional rivalries drive the action at least as much as cold, sterile totals of wins and losses. In other words, it's supposed to still be FUN. Sports fans have a creepy obsession with championship bottom lines to the exclusion of the enjoyment of the event itself. Cinderellas and small conferences make the tournament more fun. Period. If they take away spots from teams who sleepwalked through the season and simply expect to fall into a spot because they are one of the best 64 teams in the country and by God they demand that you pencil them in for a spot to play for the title despite (don't worry that we lost all those games and never beat even a decent team on the road - we're a basketball institution dammit! You cannot hold this event without us!), well then I say good. I wish they'd take more.
ME
It also serves to help the teams that were legitimately good in the regular season by getting top seeds and getting a free win in the first round and an easy match in the second round. It's not such a bad thing.
March 13, 2006 at 10:27PM View BBCode
Allowing teams in worthless conferences get in gives every team in every conference (except the Ivy, which is without a conference tournament, and needs one) to have a theoretical shot of winning it all. It gives the teams in crappy conferences a lot more to play for.It also serves to help the teams that were legitimately good in the regular season by getting top seeds and getting a free win in the first round and an easy match in the second round. It's not such a bad thing.
FuriousGiorge
March 13, 2006 at 11:52PM View BBCode
On a related note, does the play-in game actually have any defenders? Is there anyone on earth that actually thinks this game is a good thing?
lvnwrth
Why should Oakland (latest joke I can recall...last year's Mid-Con "champs") get into the NCAA tourney with a sub-.500 record, just because their only three game winning streak of the season happened to come during the conference tournament?
I like Kansas, but why should they be the Big 12 "champions", when they had the same record as Texas, played head to head against Texas in the conference schedule and got spanked? This has no effect on the tournament, as both teams are getting in. But I guess I"m just old-fashioned. You ought to be able to tell who won the league by looking at the league standings.
March 13, 2006 at 11:55PM View BBCode
Why does the Ivy League need a conference tourney? Right now they're the only league that doesn't cheapen the conference schedule by allowing everyone another bite at the apple, even after they've played like dung all season.Why should Oakland (latest joke I can recall...last year's Mid-Con "champs") get into the NCAA tourney with a sub-.500 record, just because their only three game winning streak of the season happened to come during the conference tournament?
I like Kansas, but why should they be the Big 12 "champions", when they had the same record as Texas, played head to head against Texas in the conference schedule and got spanked? This has no effect on the tournament, as both teams are getting in. But I guess I"m just old-fashioned. You ought to be able to tell who won the league by looking at the league standings.
max_fischer
I hate few things in sports as much as I hate the play-in game. I can't believe they get away with calling it the "Opening Round" which is then followed by the "First Round." The teams that are sent there are robbed of participation in the real tournament, and for what? So they can take one more bloated big-money school that barely finished above .500 in its own league?
March 14, 2006 at 04:33PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
On a related note, does the play-in game actually have any defenders? Is there anyone on earth that actually thinks this game is a good thing?
I hate few things in sports as much as I hate the play-in game. I can't believe they get away with calling it the "Opening Round" which is then followed by the "First Round." The teams that are sent there are robbed of participation in the real tournament, and for what? So they can take one more bloated big-money school that barely finished above .500 in its own league?
lvnwrth
March 14, 2006 at 06:21PM View BBCode
If all the automatic bids to lame conferences accomplishes is giving the really good teams an easy first round win, as someone suggested, why not go back to a 32-team field? Does anyone think that if they were allowed to pick 32 teams from the field, one of them wouldn't be the national champion? Has a 9th seed or lower ever won a championship?
folifan19
I hate coaches that whine about where their team is seeded. How they got no respect. You made the tournament. Go out and do something, then you'll get all the respect you deserve.
March 14, 2006 at 07:02PM View BBCode
Chong. It's all about the chong.I hate coaches that whine about where their team is seeded. How they got no respect. You made the tournament. Go out and do something, then you'll get all the respect you deserve.
kujayhawks15
However, we won't make it past the Sweet 16 in my opinion, Memphis is better than us. Next year though, as long as Rush doesn't leave but even then we will be a lot better, we will be a Top 10 team easy.
Also, I like the way that the tournament is right now, the little schools SHOULD get into the tournament, because it at least gives them a shot at getting a win, which could be a HUGE recruiting tool. Take Bucknell for example, 90% of people who watched the tournament last year had never heard of the Bison, but now they are a #9 seed with basically the same team, just older. Yes, they are a good team, but they wouldn't have gotten hardly any recognition at all had they outplayed and beat Kansas last year.
Even if the little schools have no shot at winning the tournament, who thinks teams like Michigan, Cincinnati and Missouri State have a shot? If it doesn't make a difference, give it to the little guy that will make their decade at the basketball level, instead of a team like Cincinnati that won't have much of an effect at all on their recruiting, etc.
Does anyone else think that Billy Packer and especially Jim Nantz were out of line when they talked to Littlepage? At the end, Nantz even cut off Littlepage, let him start again, only to cut him off again. It wasn't very good at all by Jim, and they were talking about what the ACC did 5 years ago and stuff. The comittee has always said past tournaments have exactly ZERO influence on the seedings and placement, although it is hard to believe that Bucknell would have gotten a #9 seed out of the Patriot League had they not gotten the national recognition mentioned above.
OK, here comes the fun stuff...Elite Eight predictions:
Atlanta:
LSU over Texas
Oakland:
UCLA over Memphis
Washington D.C.:
UCONN over North Carolina
Minneapolis:
BC over Georgetown*
*My Elite Eight sleeper obviously
March 15, 2006 at 12:03AM View BBCode
Well, first off, thank you YAS for your belief in KU.However, we won't make it past the Sweet 16 in my opinion, Memphis is better than us. Next year though, as long as Rush doesn't leave but even then we will be a lot better, we will be a Top 10 team easy.
Also, I like the way that the tournament is right now, the little schools SHOULD get into the tournament, because it at least gives them a shot at getting a win, which could be a HUGE recruiting tool. Take Bucknell for example, 90% of people who watched the tournament last year had never heard of the Bison, but now they are a #9 seed with basically the same team, just older. Yes, they are a good team, but they wouldn't have gotten hardly any recognition at all had they outplayed and beat Kansas last year.
Even if the little schools have no shot at winning the tournament, who thinks teams like Michigan, Cincinnati and Missouri State have a shot? If it doesn't make a difference, give it to the little guy that will make their decade at the basketball level, instead of a team like Cincinnati that won't have much of an effect at all on their recruiting, etc.
Does anyone else think that Billy Packer and especially Jim Nantz were out of line when they talked to Littlepage? At the end, Nantz even cut off Littlepage, let him start again, only to cut him off again. It wasn't very good at all by Jim, and they were talking about what the ACC did 5 years ago and stuff. The comittee has always said past tournaments have exactly ZERO influence on the seedings and placement, although it is hard to believe that Bucknell would have gotten a #9 seed out of the Patriot League had they not gotten the national recognition mentioned above.
OK, here comes the fun stuff...Elite Eight predictions:
Atlanta:
LSU over Texas
Oakland:
UCLA over Memphis
Washington D.C.:
UCONN over North Carolina
Minneapolis:
BC over Georgetown*
*My Elite Eight sleeper obviously
youngallstar
March 15, 2006 at 02:19AM View BBCode
You dont even have Duke making it to the elite eight? Craziness.
youngallstar
Dummy.
March 19, 2006 at 12:25AM View BBCode
Originally posted by youngallstar
I pick Kansas to win it all.
Dummy.
barterer2002
March 19, 2006 at 04:15AM View BBCode
OK, I'm late to the discussion again but ever unable to keep my opinions to myself I'll weigh in. Surprisingly enough I disagree with lvnwrth. To me the greatest two days in sports all year are the first two days of the NCAA tourney. Whether it be Tyus Edney running the length of the floor to beat Missouri or Bryce Drew flipping in a three pointer to put Valpo into the second round the thing about the first day is that with 16 games a day there is almost always a good game on. Thursday I loved watching BC and Pacific through two overtimes, rooting for Buckness (my brothers alma mater) over Arkansas yesterday was a highlight. Even though I didn't get to see it, the Northwestern St victory was extremely cool and on the flip side, so was watching Gonzaga hold off Xavier. It isn't all about the upset but those are certainly a lot of fun. Cutting the tourney back to 32 teams would lessen my interest in it. Round 1 sucks me in and I watch Round 2. By round 3 I'm content to get the highlights and usually don't even bother with the finals unless a Philly team is in it (OK that would be 1985). I don't really care that much about college basketball except for this four day period and cutting out the teams that don't play in the right conferences would totally ruin the experience for me.
chamberlien
March 19, 2006 at 02:53PM View BBCode
Amen, brother max, AmenOriginally posted by max_fischer
Seriously. Who wants to see all the big conference teams that went 7-9 in their leagues? The whole reason they have automatic bids is because the NCAA Tournament was originally designed as a reward for teams that were already champions in their own regions.
Now everybody thinks that the tournament is supposed to decide who the "best" team is, which is ridiculous. The tournament is a celebration of the best things in college basketball, and that does not have to include all the big-money schools.
Winthrop et al. are what makes the NCAA Tournament so much fun.
rkinslow19
Just think of the as foreplay
March 19, 2006 at 03:06PM View BBCode
I love Winthrop. UW Mil, the Zags (although they're now bigtime).Just think of the as foreplay
kujayhawks15
Wow, what a prediction.
Looks a lot better now.
March 26, 2006 at 10:31PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ME
happy convinced me that George Mason is going to win it all
Wow, what a prediction.
Looks a lot better now.
tworoosters
I've been asleep for awhile - did Duke make the elite 8 ?
March 26, 2006 at 10:47PM View BBCode
Originally posted by youngallstar
You dont even have Duke making it to the elite eight? Craziness.
I've been asleep for awhile - did Duke make the elite 8 ?
kujayhawks15
Two of my Elite Eight Predictions (Oakland and Atlanta Regionals) I got exactly right, where as the other two I got one team right total out of the 4 I even predicted making it that far. Not quite as good.
March 27, 2006 at 01:51AM View BBCode
No, LSU beat them.Two of my Elite Eight Predictions (Oakland and Atlanta Regionals) I got exactly right, where as the other two I got one team right total out of the 4 I even predicted making it that far. Not quite as good.
drew
I think your sarcasm monitors are broken.
Back on topic, I picked UCLA to win it all so I am still alive there. But, as much as I like the Bruins, I would root for GMU if they were to meet in the finals.
[Edited on 3-27-2006 by drew]
March 27, 2006 at 01:56AM View BBCode
Originally posted by kujayhawks15
No, LSU beat them.
I think your sarcasm monitors are broken.
Back on topic, I picked UCLA to win it all so I am still alive there. But, as much as I like the Bruins, I would root for GMU if they were to meet in the finals.
[Edited on 3-27-2006 by drew]
drunkengoat
This might be something I may live to regret, because I doubt something like this is going to happen again in my lifetime.
March 27, 2006 at 03:13AM View BBCode
I think just about anybody would. I was wondering what kujo's quip about George Mason meant, so I checked out the bracket. Wow. I've been at work most of the day and haven't really been tracking the tourney much if at all this year.This might be something I may live to regret, because I doubt something like this is going to happen again in my lifetime.
whiskybear
The crusades against the mid-major---by lvnwrth and Billy Packer, among others---are particularly ill-timed.
Congratulations, you just took a tournament berth away from a Final Four team.
March 27, 2006 at 07:35AM View BBCode
Well, George Mason's run has been pretty neat and all, but as I watch them play I can't help but think, "Gosh, it sure would be nice to see Florida State or Maryland in their place."The crusades against the mid-major---by lvnwrth and Billy Packer, among others---are particularly ill-timed.
Originally posted by lvnwrth
...why not go back to a 32-team field?
Congratulations, you just took a tournament berth away from a Final Four team.
max_fischer
I'd love to hear from either of them how the crow tastes.
March 27, 2006 at 11:49AM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
The crusades against the mid-major---by lvnwrth and Billy Packer, among others---are particularly ill-timed.
I'd love to hear from either of them how the crow tastes.
FuriousGiorge
March 28, 2006 at 03:26AM View BBCode
I'm guessing it tastes kind of like renaming your players to reflect former major leaguers.Pages: 1 2