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.
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?
March 13, 2006 at 09:00PM View BBCode
by the way, Seton Hall actually did make the tourney.March 13, 2006 at 09:01PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
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.
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.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?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.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?
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?March 14, 2006 at 07:02PM View BBCode
Chong. It's all about the chong.March 15, 2006 at 12:03AM View BBCode
Well, first off, thank you YAS for your belief in KU.March 15, 2006 at 02:19AM View BBCode
You dont even have Duke making it to the elite eight? Craziness.March 19, 2006 at 12:25AM View BBCode
Originally posted by youngallstar
I pick Kansas to win it all.
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.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.
March 19, 2006 at 03:06PM View BBCode
I love Winthrop. UW Mil, the Zags (although they're now bigtime).March 26, 2006 at 10:31PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ME
happy convinced me that George Mason is going to win it all
March 26, 2006 at 10:47PM View BBCode
Originally posted by youngallstar
You dont even have Duke making it to the elite eight? Craziness.
March 27, 2006 at 01:51AM View BBCode
No, LSU beat them.March 27, 2006 at 01:56AM View BBCode
Originally posted by kujayhawks15
No, LSU beat them.
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.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."Originally posted by lvnwrth
...why not go back to a 32-team field?
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.
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