The most wonderful time of the year - NCAA TOURNEY BABY! - Page 5

Strangler Lewis · 03-30-2010, 09:05 AM

I'll do it myself. Hell, I'll spot 'em an H.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-31-2010, 07:03 AM

96 teams? 96 teams!? Laaaame.

scaeagles · 03-31-2010, 07:45 AM

I agree - completely lame.

The way I see this they are trying to accomplish a couple things.

First, they don't want to have to make the tough decisions as far as leaving out a Rhode Island or a Florida and making those controversial decisions.

Secondly, they want ticket revenue. The money this event takes in in mind boggling. In 1990, I went to the first and second round games in Tuscon at the University of Arizona, and the price was $45 for decent seats. Same set of tix now (well, last time I checked was a coupleyears ago) was over $200.

Also, this allows those they deem as the top 32 to essentially get a first round bye and forces the mid majors to play an extra game, most likely on the Monday or Tuesday before the first game, giving their coaching staff less time to focus on how to beat the higher seeds.

I hate everything about the idea of increasing the size of the tournament. Everything. Well, I don't begrudge them their revenue, but i still hate it.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-31-2010, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

First, they don't want to have to make the tough decisions as far as leaving out a Rhode Island or a Florida and making those controversial decisions.

Except that all it does is shift that decision, it doesn't eliminate it. There is still a dividing line and controversial decisions will still have to be made. I suppose the schools left out will be incrementally smaller and less talented than before, but I don't see it as being any less of an issue.

Quote:

Secondly, they want ticket revenue. The money this event takes in in mind boggling. In 1990, I went to the first and second round games in Tuscon at the University of Arizona, and the price was $45 for decent seats. Same set of tix now (well, last time I checked was a coupleyears ago) was over $200.

And I suppose, taking the more positive spin, it will help more, smaller, schools get in on some of that revenue

Quote:

Also, this allows those they deem as the top 32 to essentially get a first round bye and forces the mid majors to play an extra game, most likely on the Monday or Tuesday before the first game, giving their coaching staff less time to focus on how to beat the higher seeds.

But this isn't even a problem worth the effort of solving. I was looking and since the '85 expansion, only 7 teams ranked lower than 5th have even made it to the Final Four. Admittedly, IF they do make it to the Final Four, they then have pretty good odds. Of those 7, 4 made it to the championship game, and 2 of those won. And the lowest seed to have won the championship was a #8. It's hardly like major teams have been consistently edged out by mids.

scaeagles · 03-31-2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

It's hardly like major teams have been consistently edged out by mids.

They are in the selection process, though, because of the requirement of each conference champion getting a spot (thus the expansion to 65 teams with the play in game when a new conference was formed a few years ago - didn't want to eliminate an at large bid). At least that's how many perceive it, especially those who look at the mid majors as teams that don't belong in the tournament, and there are many who look at it that way.

Alex · 03-31-2010, 09:10 AM

If the first round of 64 teams is so very exciting (as it seemed to be when this thread was started) even though it is known that about 40 of them have essentially zero chance of winning it all it seems to me another round with even more unworthy teams wouldn't hurt the enjoyment much.

Though for the major conferences I assume this will so expand the opportunities to get into the tournament that it will significantly reduce even further the value of the conference championship tournaments.

I'm not a fan of college basketball (or even professional basketball) so it is moot to me, but since 96 teams only brings post-seasons hopes (27.7% of all possible) onto a parity with the stingier major professional sports leagues (NFL: 25%, MLB: 26.7%; NBA: 53.3%; NHL: 53.3%; MLS: 50%) and we like to pretend that college sports are more amateur and egalitarian than the dirty world of big money professional athletics it seems like a reasonable move to me. But if one doesn't like it, can't one just ignore the first round and start watching when it is again down to 64 teams just as before (and people who hated the expansion to 64 teams can wait until it is 32 to care).

Strangler Lewis · 03-31-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

They are in the selection process, though, because of the requirement of each conference champion getting a spot (thus the expansion to 65 teams with the play in game when a new conference was formed a few years ago - didn't want to eliminate an at large bid). At least that's how many perceive it, especially those who look at the mid majors as teams that don't belong in the tournament, and there are many who look at it that way.

I think we've found Scaeagles' Achilles heel of victimology.

scaeagles · 04-06-2010, 04:46 AM

What an incredible game, what an incredible tournament. Would have loved for Butler to have won it, but Krzyzewski is a classy guy, who is always gracious in victory (and defeat).

That last shot was really, really, close.

Moonliner · 04-06-2010, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What an incredible game, what an incredible tournament. Would have loved for Butler to have won it, but Krzyzewski is a classy guy, who is always gracious in victory (and defeat).

That last shot was really, really, close.

I have to say, I probably enjoyed the game more knowing my brackets were long since dead.

scaeagles · 04-06-2010, 06:25 AM

Brackets....sigh. My one money poll that I was informed I was going to win should Duke win their semi final....I was deceived. Unintentionally. But I still took second, meaning I win 30% of the pot. Not too bad.

Sadly, in my non money pool amongst my family members, my 8 year old daughter has bragging rights as the only one who took Duke. Sigh.

So...Steph....odds on UConn-Stanford? I say UConn by 16.

03-30-2010, 09:05 AM	#41
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	I'll do it myself. Hell, I'll spot 'em an H. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

03-31-2010, 07:03 AM	#42
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	96 teams? 96 teams!? Laaaame. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

03-31-2010, 07:45 AM	#43
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I agree - completely lame. The way I see this they are trying to accomplish a couple things. First, they don't want to have to make the tough decisions as far as leaving out a Rhode Island or a Florida and making those controversial decisions. Secondly, they want ticket revenue. The money this event takes in in mind boggling. In 1990, I went to the first and second round games in Tuscon at the University of Arizona, and the price was $45 for decent seats. Same set of tix now (well, last time I checked was a coupleyears ago) was over $200. Also, this allows those they deem as the top 32 to essentially get a first round bye and forces the mid majors to play an extra game, most likely on the Monday or Tuesday before the first game, giving their coaching staff less time to focus on how to beat the higher seeds. I hate everything about the idea of increasing the size of the tournament. Everything. Well, I don't begrudge them their revenue, but i still hate it.
	Submit to Quotes

03-31-2010, 09:10 AM	#46
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	If the first round of 64 teams is so very exciting (as it seemed to be when this thread was started) even though it is known that about 40 of them have essentially zero chance of winning it all it seems to me another round with even more unworthy teams wouldn't hurt the enjoyment much. Though for the major conferences I assume this will so expand the opportunities to get into the tournament that it will significantly reduce even further the value of the conference championship tournaments. I'm not a fan of college basketball (or even professional basketball) so it is moot to me, but since 96 teams only brings post-seasons hopes (27.7% of all possible) onto a parity with the stingier major professional sports leagues (NFL: 25%, MLB: 26.7%; NBA: 53.3%; NHL: 53.3%; MLS: 50%) and we like to pretend that college sports are more amateur and egalitarian than the dirty world of big money professional athletics it seems like a reasonable move to me. But if one doesn't like it, can't one just ignore the first round and start watching when it is again down to 64 teams just as before (and people who hated the expansion to 64 teams can wait until it is 32 to care).
	Submit to Quotes

04-06-2010, 04:46 AM	#48
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	What an incredible game, what an incredible tournament. Would have loved for Butler to have won it, but Krzyzewski is a classy guy, who is always gracious in victory (and defeat). That last shot was really, really, close.
	Submit to Quotes

04-06-2010, 06:25 AM	#50
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Brackets....sigh. My one money poll that I was informed I was going to win should Duke win their semi final....I was deceived. Unintentionally. But I still took second, meaning I win 30% of the pot. Not too bad. Sadly, in my non money pool amongst my family members, my 8 year old daughter has bragging rights as the only one who took Duke. Sigh. So...Steph....odds on UConn-Stanford? I say UConn by 16.
	Submit to Quotes