Now that it is 68


#1

This is the new debate that has been circling ESPN and radio shows. I think because of television we will see a Bubble Tuesday format for ratings. For example, could saw a Illinios vs. VT type game which would be more interesting then a 16 vs. 17 format.


#2

Not only do I think that the 12/13 format would be more entertaining, but I am still of the thinking that those teams need to do something a bit more than be the 30th best team that couldn’t win squat.


#3

I concur. If I were the the broad casters, I’d insist on it. If they’re going to lay out the money to televise 4 games, they don’t want them to be what used to be the 15s playing the 16s. Take the last 8 at large bids and have them play in for what ever seed they would work out to.


#4

The NCAA is running a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TOURAMENT. Fairness should be paramount; NOT TV ratings. The TV money is already HUGE. Let’s not totally sell our souls.


#5

The money was already huge before the other teams were added and the contract was renegotiated.

Come on, this is the NCAA. They don’t sell thier souls, they sell the souls of the “student-athletes”. :wink:


#6

In my opinion, I believe that it is fair to have at large bids in the play in games. If a conference is good enough to be Div I, and good enough to have an automatic bid, then it is fair to NOT have them play a play in game.


#7
[quote="tundra, post:4, topic:1138"]The NCAA is running a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TOURAMENT. Fairness should be paramount; NOT TV ratings. The TV money is already HUGE. Let's not totally sell our souls.[/quote]

In my opinion, I believe that it is fair to have at large bids in the play in games. If a conference is good enough to be Div I, and good enough to have an automatic bid, then it is fair to NOT have them play a play in game.

I agree with you on this thought. Teams that are on the bubble need to prove they are worth of the tournament. Win a play-in and then you can dance.


#8

I heard a suggestion to split the differnce. Use a scenerio where the last 4 in, and the 4 lowest mid-majors are both put out there.

Either:

1.) Have the last 4 in play against the 4 lowested mid-majors

or

2.) Have the last 4 in play each other in 2 games, and have the last 4 mid-majors play each other in the other 2 games.

I like the first option, having the winner inserted as the 12 or 13 seed.


#9

This isn’t even a “debate”. This isn’t special interest vs not changing what was already in place.

Due to the fact that the NCAA had a 64 vs 65 team play-in game over the past few years, a game that consisted of two 16 seeds, if they were to appeal to having at-large play-in format, it would totally change the idea of making the tournament as an at-large.

Due to the large number of automatic qualifying teams due to the fact that there are so many conference tournaments, the teams who should play in the play-in games are the lowest seeds. These last 8 teams in are the automatic-conference-tournament-winning qualifying teams, the teams in the weakest conferences with the lowest winning percentage. The teams that were seeded 16 in last year’s tournament, the two teams that were in the play-in game, and two out of the four 15 seeds of last year’s tournament would have been playing in play-in games. Now, yeah it changes up the first rounds. It should add 13 and 14 seed at large teams and push the automatic conference tournament winning qualifiers back to the play-in games.

The NCAA should have declared the specifics when they release this news. Now as usual in America this is become a debate. When it’s clear what needs to happen.

You could have a situation where the at-large team could play in a play-in game if they are seeded lower than small conference tournament winners.

Has an at-large team ever been seeded 15 or 16 in past NCAA tournaments?

The history of the tournament shows that the worst seeded teams (15, 16 seeds) are not the final at large teams in the tournament. The final at large teams are usually seeded 11 or 12. In this new format, all it should do is determine play-in games by the seed, the lowest seed.

If the final at-large team if seeded 15th, then they should play in a play-in game. I hope the NCAA doesn’t go against the conventional wisdom that has existed in the NCAA for decades? This isn’t a debate, it should have to do with seeding, and in seeding you have to look at the entire team’s body of work, how difficult their conference games were, etc.


#10

Question. If you win your conference, thus securing your conference’s automatic bid, why should you have to play yet another qualifying game?


#11

Why? Arkansas-Pine Bluff and Winthrop won their conference’s automatic bid. They played in a play-in game a few months ago.

If you are going to add 3 more play-in games, why would you switch the way the play-in games are determined.

How would you even seed the play-in games if you put 8 at-large teams in them? If that system was implemented, would the winners of the play-in games between at-large teams become a 11 or 12 seed? Or would they become 16 seeds and play the #1 seeded teams? You see the inconsistencies to past tournaments with system.


#12

[quote=“PSUChamp08, post:9, topic:1138”]This isn’t even a “debate”. This isn’t special interest vs not changing what was already in place.

Due to the fact that the NCAA had a 64 vs 65 team play-in game over the past few years, a game that consisted of two 16 seeds, if they were to appeal to having at-large play-in format, it would totally change the idea of making the tournament as an at-large.

Due to the large number of automatic qualifying teams due to the fact that there are so many conference tournaments, the teams who should play in the play-in games are the lowest seeds. These last 8 teams in are the automatic-conference-tournament-winning qualifying teams, the teams in the weakest conferences with the lowest winning percentage. The teams that were seeded 16 in last year’s tournament, the two teams that were in the play-in game, and two out of the four 15 seeds of last year’s tournament would have been playing in play-in games. Now, yeah it changes up the first rounds. It should add 13 and 14 seed at large teams and push the automatic conference tournament winning qualifiers back to the play-in games.

The NCAA should have declared the specifics when they release this news. Now as usual in America this is become a debate. When it’s clear what needs to happen.

You could have a situation where the at-large team could play in a play-in game if they are seeded lower than small conference tournament winners.

Has an at-large team ever been seeded 15 or 16 in past NCAA tournaments?

The history of the tournament shows that the worst seeded teams (15, 16 seeds) are not the final at large teams in the tournament. The final at large teams are usually seeded 11 or 12. In this new format, all it should do is determine play-in games by the seed, the lowest seed.

If the final at-large team if seeded 15th, then they should play in a play-in game. I hope the NCAA doesn’t go against the conventional wisdom that has existed in the NCAA for decades? This isn’t a debate, it should have to do with seeding, and in seeding you have to look at the entire team’s body of work, how difficult their conference games were, etc.[/quote]

No at large team has ever been seeded worse than 13.


#13

Precisely. Some are suggesting that there is now a debate as to whether the final at-large teams should play in play-in games?

The play-in games since they have been implemented was a 64 vs a 65 team. Why would this change? They are going to have 4 play-in games for the lowest seeded teams, right? 4 games between teams from small conferences who won their conference tournament with bad or average regular seasons, the winners becoming a 16 seed, right?

Wouldn’t this system just make it so next year we have 13 seeded at large teams? 4 of them?


#14
[quote="UncleLar, post:12, topic:1138"]No at large team has ever been seeded worse than 13.[/quote]

Precisely. Some are suggesting that there is now a debate as to whether the final at-large teams should play in play-in games?

The play-in games since they have been implemented was a 64 vs a 65 team. Why would this change? They are going to have 4 play-in games for the lowest seeded teams, right? 4 games between teams from small conferences who won their conference tournament with bad or average regular seasons, the winners becoming a 16 seed, right?

Wouldn’t this system just make it so next year we have 13 seeded at large teams? 4 of them?

Almost assuredly.


#15
[quote="UncleLar, post:12, topic:1138"]No at large team has ever been seeded worse than 13.[/quote]

Precisely. Some are suggesting that there is now a debate as to whether the final at-large teams should play in play-in games?

The play-in games since they have been implemented was a 64 vs a 65 team. Why would this change? They are going to have 4 play-in games for the lowest seeded teams, right? 4 games between teams from small conferences who won their conference tournament with bad or average regular seasons, the winners becoming a 16 seed, right?

Wouldn’t this system just make it so next year we have 13 seeded at large teams? 4 of them?

Yes, there is a debate. You see, the question was “what do you prefer”, not “what do you think will happen”.

…and besides, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM !!! It’s amazing how people forget that. The purpose of this forum is to have people discuss and debate things. We are not the shot callers. We are not making the decisions. We are not the ones in control. We are the peons that are fans of the team. That’s what we do… talk about things.


#16
[quote="UncleLar, post:12, topic:1138"]No at large team has ever been seeded worse than 13.[/quote]

Precisely. Some are suggesting that there is now a debate as to whether the final at-large teams should play in play-in games?

The play-in games since they have been implemented was a 64 vs a 65 team. Why would this change? They are going to have 4 play-in games for the lowest seeded teams, right? 4 games between teams from small conferences who won their conference tournament with bad or average regular seasons, the winners becoming a 16 seed, right?

Wouldn’t this system just make it so next year we have 13 seeded at large teams? 4 of them?

Reason it would change: $$$ I don’t think networks really want to show 4 play in games with lowest seeded teams. Zero rating games if they do the lowest 8 seed since all games will be on television. The Bubble Tuesday games would give the networks better better advertising and better ratings. Remember this expansion was done for for more money, not because there was another few conferences added (though I think that might be coming soon too).


#17

I had been proposing a bubble game slate for teams to play their way into the field of 65 ever since expansion and its alternatives were brought up. Just so were on the same page, the bottom 6 teams (teams 62-68) would play 3 bubble games to determine the field of 65? OR would their be a fourth game in order to eliminate the play-in game (60-68) OR would their still be a separate play-in game for the lowest 16 seed?

I think the bubble team situation can draw major ratings. I also would love to watch these games (NIT Final 4 type games).


#18

Using the prior format of the play in game carries some weight, but it is not gospel. When, in the history of ANY NCAA tournament let alone the basketball tournament, did they ever have 1(ONE) single play in game? …yet, about five years ago, there it was. To most, it was a bone-headed move and unprecedented in the history of the NCAA. The same arguement could be made, using prior history, that the NCAA would never do a move like that …again, there it was.

I never doubt the ability of the NCAA to do something really stupid in the interest of more money. We can spend all day giving examples of that. Here’s a “for example” that nobody seems to kick around… if the single play-in game was such a great idea and it was needed due to the expansion of Div-I college basketball, why didn’t the NCAA do the same on the women’s side? Are they doing 4 play-ins for the WBB programs as well?

Like noobd and PSUDraw says, it’s all about $$$$, and if a few more bucks can be made, the NCAA will do it.


#19

Nice article on potential format, very relevant to this poll: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/5157310/committee-set-debate-68-team-format