PDA

View Full Version : Hmmm, Let The Debate Begin



BobZag
06-25-2010, 04:40 PM
To pair up the small conference auto qualifiers or pair up the at-large teams, that is the question for expanded field of 68.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5329098

MickMick
06-25-2010, 04:45 PM
There is no debate.....when it comes to money. No doubt that the format perceived as most profitable will reign supreme. I have a sneaking hunch that the television networks will have a say in this.

CDC84
06-25-2010, 09:03 PM
Especially with the Turner Channels able and ready to carry multiple "play in" games.


Committee members also must determine when and where the opening-round games will be played. Previous games have been played in Dayton, Ohio.

This is a huge decision. If they decide to move the play in games to sites where 1st and 2nd round games are taking place, this will allow the play in game winners to not have to travel.

Personally, I don't think there is a perfect solution. Someone is going to get screwed. I mean, as much as I feel it is wrong for teams who won their league tourneys to have to participate in the play in games, I would also hate it if the Zags landed a #5 seed and then were forced to wait until late Tuesday night to find out who their opening round opponent was going to be on Friday morning. Not only will that opponent likely be a BCS team, but that BCS team may not have to travel after their play in game win.

dim4sum
06-26-2010, 07:18 AM
the field is too big as it is. Reducing the field to the 32 best teams in the country means more quality, less quantity. Not everyone is a winner,folks, despite serious delusions and money mania to the contrary.

BobZag
06-26-2010, 09:33 AM
the field is too big as it is. Reducing the field to the 32 best teams in the country means more quality, less quantity. Not everyone is a winner,folks, despite serious delusions and money mania to the contrary.

Probably a good idea but you know as well as I that money will never ever allow this to happen. The NIT could become more relevant if NCAA contraction took place, too. But it won't happen.

Bogozags
06-28-2010, 08:47 AM
What I want and what I'll get are two entirely different things

I want eight teams that would not normally make the field of 64 to play in Dayton.

BUT I will get eight teams, who won conference tournaments from the eight weakest RPI conferences, playing against each other at the four sites, where the winners will play the following Saturday. I believe this will be the format even though there will not be any "name" schools playing BUT also, the NCAA will save on travel costs by not paying for all the schools to first go to Dayton and the paying for the four winners to the round one site. In fact they might well place these schools in their local region to save more money.

As BZ says, its all about the money and not the product...the networks know "we" will watch no matter what or how they do it.

229SintoZag
06-28-2010, 09:06 AM
I still think the answer is to move the SEC and Big 10 tournaments up one day so that all games end on Saturday; have selection "sunday" that Saturday night, with play-in games to be held Monday at some location that is separate from the 8 first round sites. This way the onus is mostly on the bubble teams who sneak in; they get in, but they have to battle a little bit more for having been on the bubble.

And yes, those play in games are between the last 8 in, which will typically be 11-13 seeds.

This way the conference tournament winner from the MEAC and the SWAC will get a legitimate game in the round of 64, and being on the bubble will have consequences.

FlyZag
06-28-2010, 09:24 AM
As much as I'd love to see the "bubble teams" play each other to earn a ticket into the tournament, I don't believe this is the best thing for the integrity of the seeds. Therefore, to keep the seeding as fair as possible it likely is best to have the 16/17 seeds play their way into the 1 seed game. Seed the teams arbitrarily 1 - 68 without regard to school size, reputation, or conference affiliation. Have 8 lowest (highest) seeded teams play each other to earn their trip to the dance. Those games take place on Tuesday/Wednesday at the 4 first round locations where they then face the 1 seed on Thurs/Friday.

This will accomplish 2 things. First it will keep the seeding as accurate/fair as possible. And two, it will allow four "lower quality" teams to experience the taste of "success" in the tournament by giving them a victory that they likely wouldn't otherwise have.

BobZag
06-28-2010, 05:06 PM
1. Seed the field from 1 to 17, with the 61 through 68 true seeds playing four opening-round games (that's the 16 versus 17 seeds). The winners would then move to the 16 line and play the No. 1 seeds as previously done in the bracket. Each winner would get a full winner's share unit, which was valued at $225,000 last year, paid out over a six-year period, according to Shaheen.

2. Take the last at-large teams selected for the tournament in the seed lines where they were seeded by the committee and have them play for those seed lines. You could have two teams playing for the 10th seed, two for the 11th seed, two for the 12th seed and two for the 13th seed. The winners, like the scenario above, would get the unit share. The corresponding seed (7 for the 10, 6 for the 11, 5 for the 12 and 4 for the 13) would know on Selection Sunday the two possible opponents it would play.

3. Guerrero detailed a third scenario, called the hybrid option, that hasn't been seriously vetted yet but has had some movement through the membership.

Under this plan, the tournament is seeded 1 through 68. The last four at-large teams are pitted against each other. For example, No. 10 would play No. 13, No. 11 would play No. 12.



The winners of those two games would then move to the highest seed line. So if a 13 beat a 10, it would move to 10. If 12 beat 11, it would move to 11. If the higher seeds won, then they would stay the same.



The four 17 seeds would play, as well. And the two winners would replace the two 16 seeds which would have to move up one seed line to replace the spot vacated by the losers of the two at-large games. So, if suddenly the 12 and 13 are gone in a particular region, everyone in that region moves up one slot.

willandi
06-28-2010, 06:06 PM
As much as I'd love to see the "bubble teams" play each other to earn a ticket into the tournament, I don't believe this is the best thing for the integrity of the seeds. Therefore, to keep the seeding as fair as possible it likely is best to have the 16/17 seeds play their way into the 1 seed game. Seed the teams arbitrarily 1 - 68 without regard to school size, reputation, or conference affiliation. Have 8 lowest (highest) seeded teams play each other to earn their trip to the dance. Those games take place on Tuesday/Wednesday at the 4 first round locations where they then face the 1 seed on Thurs/Friday.

With the structure of the BCS conferences, it isn't physically, mentally or politically possible to seed the teams arbitrarily, where they deserve to be. If you are the 7th place team in the Big East, you are obviously better than the 1st place team in the WCC (or some other mid-major conference). I wish that it could be done, but they not only won't, but they can't.

Sorry!!