68 Team Tourney instead of 64, 65 or 96

[OH10]

That's pretty [censored]in' low. You could've just called me a douchebag.

I wasn't trying to claim tOSU was victimized. I was just trying to make a point that the [censored]in' NCAA tournament champ is just that...the NCAA tourney champ. Not the best team from the 09-10 season. To act like adding more teams takes something away that was never really there is horse[censored]. Adding more teams means more "unbelievable upsets!!@11!!", period.

They could include every [censored]in D1 team in the tourney, and you all would still [censored]in watch. It's a good excuse to call off work when the weather is turning, and go grab a beer for lunch, and you [censored]ers know it. There aren't any other sports worth watching on tv until baseball and the NBA playoffs start.

Play like dream teamers for the first three quarters of the season, you get bounced in the first round. Play like dream teamers for the last quarter, you could be NCAA champs? That just doesn't seem fair. Who gets hot going into march isn't the best team from the season, imo. That's all I'm saying.

Maybe we could have an awards ceremony like the Oscars and a committee could vote on the best team from the regular season. Would that be preferable?

This is sports. Champions are decided on the field. The rest is left for living room debates.

 

[BUCKYLE]

And who determines that??? This year, I saw Kansas and Kentucky play what I thought were tough schedules and I thought they looked like the best teams in the country. That's the problem with playing the games in our minds instead of on the court or on the field. We are usually wrong.

If the second place team from a conference makes it further than the conference champs, then I'd say the best team didn't advance. Conference play sorts out who is the best amongst a given group of teams. For one team to catch fire or catch a weak bracket late in the year hardly fucking means they were the best team.

 

[jwinslow]

I wasn't trying to claim tOSU was victimized. I was just trying to make a point that the fuckin' NCAA tournament champ is just that...the NCAA tourney champ. Not the best team from the 09-10 season. To act like adding more teams takes something away that was never really there is horseshit. Adding more teams means more "unbelievable upsets!!@11!!", period.

I don't like more teams. I was just speaking about the notion that the fairness of CBB & CFB are similar. They are anything but.

CFB has a complete different season as well with their bowls, they just don't get any tune-up games before the big dance like basketball. OSU goes 8-4 in the regular season if they play like the squad in Glendale.

Play like dream teamers for the first three quarters of the season, you get bounced in the first round. Play like dream teamers for the last quarter, you could be NCAA champs? That just doesn't seem fair. Who gets hot going into march isn't the best team from the season, imo. That's all I'm saying.

The tournament should really be closer to 32 teams. That would make the regular season count more, though it is still important. The ability to play 2-3 weak squads before facing an equal squad is a very nice perk for the regular season... compared with playing a comparable squad, then a 2 then a 3 to get to the elite 8.

If the second place team from a conference makes it further than the conference champs, then I'd say the best team didn't advance.

Maybe the first place team shouldn't have sucked.

Conference play sorts out who is the best amongst a given group of teams.

Says who? That's just who was hot for those 7-8 weeks, not the 3-4 after that. Difference is, the first 7-8 weeks involve a LOT of bad opponents, like NW, Minn, Iowa, UM, PSU... even ILL (in terms of going for a title). The last 3-4 have a lot better lineup of ballclubs. ILL is a top-4 opponent for OSU, but they're a 12 seed in the tournament (or not involved at all).

Ohio State was streaky in conference play with JeKel Foster, but they got what they deserved when their luck ran out in March. Any ifs and buts are weak sauce, especially the notion that they deserve to advance ahead of the teams that played better.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I don't like more teams. I was just speaking about the notion that the fairness of CBB & CFB are similar. They are anything but.

CFB has a complete different season as well with their bowls, they just don't get any tune-up games before the big dance like basketball. OSU goes 8-4 in the regular season if they play like the squad in Glendale.
The tournament should really be closer to 32 teams. That would make the regular season count more, though it is still important. The ability to play 2-3 weak squads before facing an equal squad is a very nice perk for the regular season... compared with playing a comparable squad, then a 2 then a 3 to get to the elite 8.
Maybe the first place team shouldn't have sucked.

More fair isn't all the way fair. If it isn't all the way fair, then the fairness argument is horseshit. It's either fair or it isn't. You're just arguing which unfair method you prefer.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Says who? That's just who was hot for those 7-8 weeks, not the 3-4 after that. Difference is, the first 7-8 weeks involve a LOT of bad opponents, like NW, Minn, Iowa, UM, PSU... even ILL (in terms of going for a title). The last 3-4 have a lot better lineup of ballclubs. ILL is a top-4 opponent for OSU, but they're a 12 seed in the tournament (or not involved at all).

Ohio State was streaky in conference play with JeKel Foster, but they got what they deserved when their luck ran out in March. Any ifs and buts are weak sauce, especially the notion that they deserve to advance ahead of the teams that played better.

Okay. So get rid of conferences, then I'll concede that the winner of the 317 team tourney is the best team in CBB in a given year. Until then, you're wasting your breath.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Maybe we could have an awards ceremony like the Oscars and a committee could vote on the best team from the regular season. Would that be preferable?

This is sports. Champions are decided on the field. The rest is left for living room debates.

Spare me the memorable quotes.

So if two teams meet in the 'ship that have already played once...the game need not be played. The champ was already decided, "on the field", right?

 

[Jake]

This appears to have been in the works for a few years, when the NCAA took over the 32 team NIT tournament and - coincidentally - the College Basketball Invitational was born. Now the 32 NIT teams will fall into the NCAA's new 96 team tourney and the CBI will remain as the consolation tournament.

VCU just beat Saint Louis to win the CBI by the way. Can't wait for the victory parade.

 

[Best Buckeye]

Would anyone watch the T enough to make money for the networks? I mean if 96 and 78 played would you watch?
Too many teams, JMO

 

[PlanetFrnd]

blah

blah

blah

blah

i didnt read a word of what you wrote... thats a fucking sick avatar

 

[Meyer]

[quote='BusNative;168433;2]i didnt read a word of what you wrote... thats a [censored]ing sick avatar[/quote]

I know you meant to say that to me

But really that is a sick avatar

 

[OH10]

Spare me the memorable quotes.

So if two teams meet in the 'ship that have already played once...the game need not be played. The champ was already decided, "on the field", right?

That's why they have a "regular season" and a "postseason." Postseason games just mean more, and as well they should. You have to have a culmination to the season. Otherwise, we are just having glorified awards ceremonies for regular season accomplishments.

The tournament adds closure to the season. Its not a popularity contest. The regular season is for getting there and positioning yourself. That's the way it should be... especially in college sports where there is so much necessary turnover and youth among the athletes. The team at the beginning of the year is rarely the same team at the end of the year. I would argue its the end that should matter most. I suppose you disagree with that notion.

 

[OH10]

Would anyone watch the T enough to make money for the networks? I mean if 96 and 78 played would you watch?
Too many teams, JMO

I will watch Ohio State and the Final Four, period. I only watched the rest of it because of the mass popularity of the bracket pool. It was something we could all do together. They are taking that away and they think its for money. Unfortunately, they'll probably sucker NBC into actually paying too much for it... because I'm promising you viewership will plummet next year.

 

[Bucklion]

OK, let me be the first to ask the obvious...when will the first #18 seed beat a #5 seed?

 

[buckeyesin07]

i'd rather have a championship where 18.7% (65/347) of the teams have an opportunity to win it all than a championship were 1.7% (2/120) of the teams have an opportunity.

Yeah, because those two teams are just randomly chosen.

 

[buckeyesin07]

short of, say, 5- or 7-game series for each of the 65 matches, which is obviously impossible, the current basketball tournament format is the best system available. letting many teams decide overall superiority on the field of play is always preferable over picking (read: guessing) the two best teams and letting one game decide superiority over all other teams.

At risk of turning this into a "College football playoff vs. No college football playoff" thread, why is it that you insist on characterizing the BCS as nothing more than a "guess" as to who the two best teams are? It seems to me that almost every year there is a consensus as to who should be in that game. So what, exactly, does opening up the pool to 2, 6, or 14 more teams provide, besides, as Buckyle said, the chance that a 2 or 3-loss team gets hot and wins it all? Under your "settling it on the field is always best" train of thought, why not just let every single college football team into a giant tournament at the end?