| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RavenDog
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 6878
Location: Home
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/16/10 1:07 pm ::: Your Proposed Changes For NCAA and NIT Championships |
Reply  |
|
What are some of the changes you might propose as worthy alternatives to the NCAA Championship and NIT formats?
Here's One Option:
1. Reduce NCAA Championship Tournament to 16 teams.
2. Select the best 14 teams through Committee. No automatic bids.
3. Begin the play of the NIT.
4. The two finalists in the NIT get automatic bids to the NCAA tournament.
*Gets more teams to play in the NIT.
*Gets better teams in the NIT.
*Allows 2 NIT teams the chance to earn their way into the NCAA tournament.
*Improves the quality of teams playing for the NCAA Championship.
NCAA tournament then begins with the 4 sites and then on to Final Four.
*Should improve revenues and decrease expenses for NCAA and NIT.
*Should increase interest in both tournaments.
*Reduces the risks of injury to NCAA Championship players.
*Makes the NCAA and NIT competition better and more interesting.
*Reduces the whining of teams not selected to play in the NCAA.
*Improves TV games.
*Makes the game more appealing to new and old fans.
*Promotes the game.
*Shows women basketball players at the highest levels of play.
*Etc.
|
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 9699
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/16/10 1:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I like the idea of giving the top seeds a 'bye' and having the other teams do a couple of play-in rounds. This cuts down on the number of ugly 1 vs. 16 blow-outs.
Plus, in the play-in rounds you play games at the higher seed's home, so smaller schools get to host games that have real implications.
But then there's tradition... and money... and doing any of this would further separate the women's game from the men's.
Edit: I'd propose that the top 48 teams get a bye in the NCAA, including all conference champs--winning a championship should mean something!
Then the NIT starts with 64 at-large teams and whittles it down to 16, which would be your bottom 16 in the NCAA.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
colt13
Joined: 25 Sep 2009
Posts: 616
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/16/10 3:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I like most of this as is. The NCAA bought the NIT some time ago. I wish both the men and women both had 64 in the NCAA and 64 in the NIT. No need for the other small ones out there.
|
|
hooper1
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 2300
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/17/10 9:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I've always questioned the automatic bids. Really... every year Austin Peay seems to get in and every year they seem to lose in the first round. (And they even have a losing season this year!) Hampton? Portland State? Lamar? Come now!
Eh, at least it's a good way to find out about mini-colleges across the country.
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18031
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/18/10 8:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| hooper1 wrote: |
I've always questioned the automatic bids. Really... every year Austin Peay seems to get in and every year they seem to lose in the first round. (And they even have a losing season this year!) Hampton? Portland State? Lamar? Come now!
Eh, at least it's a good way to find out about mini-colleges across the country. |
See, what you question is what I love. I love that every conference has a chance to dance and pull a miracle out of its... hat, and even if they don't, they have their moment in the sun.
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
hooper1
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 2300
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/18/10 10:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
| hooper1 wrote: |
I've always questioned the automatic bids. Really... every year Austin Peay seems to get in and every year they seem to lose in the first round. (And they even have a losing season this year!) Hampton? Portland State? Lamar? Come now!
Eh, at least it's a good way to find out about mini-colleges across the country. |
See, what you question is what I love. I love that every conference has a chance to dance and pull a miracle out of its... hat, and even if they don't, they have their moment in the sun. |
I understand where you're coming from... but it seems that too often these automatic bids end up crowding out a legitimate major team that had a winning record and could have a reasonable chance of making a run in the tournament.
And really... if the automatic bid team has a losing season, they should be automatically booted.
|
|
shadowboxer
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 2126
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/10 10:41 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Those autobids teams like say, Ball St vs Tennessee last yr. Or the BG one that beat Vandy to go on to the SweetSixteen?
Thought we were about developing and encouraging talented WBB players everywhere, not reassuring the Majors that no matter how they screw up, they will always get"to dance".
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18031
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/10 2:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hooper1 wrote: |
| Queenie wrote: |
| hooper1 wrote: |
I've always questioned the automatic bids. Really... every year Austin Peay seems to get in and every year they seem to lose in the first round. (And they even have a losing season this year!) Hampton? Portland State? Lamar? Come now!
Eh, at least it's a good way to find out about mini-colleges across the country. |
See, what you question is what I love. I love that every conference has a chance to dance and pull a miracle out of its... hat, and even if they don't, they have their moment in the sun. |
I understand where you're coming from... but it seems that too often these automatic bids end up crowding out a legitimate major team that had a winning record and could have a reasonable chance of making a run in the tournament.
And really... if the automatic bid team has a losing season, they should be automatically booted. |
If you do it on one side, you have to do it on the other. You knock out the Ohio Valley's auto-bid... well, do you watch the men's tournament? Did you see the best shot of the day? Guess which conference Murray State plays in. Take out the Big Sky, Portland State's conference? Did you watch Montana-New Mexico last night?
I'll agree with you that a losing record should cause the bid to be given elsewhere... but IMO, it should go to the regular season champion in that case, and only in that case.
I'd rather have Cinderella any day than a "legitimate major" team that will make a short run that'll end at the hands of a super-power.
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
RavenDog
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 6878
Location: Home
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/10 3:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The biggest concern I have is someone getting hurt while playing less talented teams. I'd like to see a more limited field. Losing a Maya Moore or a Kelly Cain while playing Austin Peay etc. seems senseless.
Usually after someone important gets hurt then it gets questioned.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/10 4:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
| hooper1 wrote: |
I've always questioned the automatic bids. Really... every year Austin Peay seems to get in and every year they seem to lose in the first round. (And they even have a losing season this year!) Hampton? Portland State? Lamar? Come now!
Eh, at least it's a good way to find out about mini-colleges across the country. |
See, what you question is what I love. I love that every conference has a chance to dance and pull a miracle out of its... hat, and even if they don't, they have their moment in the sun. |
Forget for a moment that the auto-bids are central to what makes most conferences support the way the tournament is run. (In other words, it ain't gonna change.)
Even if that weren't true, I'm with Queenie on this. The idea of getting into The Dance is one of the best things about college sports, for both men and women, and the last thing I'd do is tell teams that there's no way they can earn their way in, which is exactly what getting rid of auto bids would mean for about 250 (maybe more) of the teams in the country.
Also, killing off auto bids could pretty much end most women's conference tournaments, since they generally don't make money and there'd be no independent reason for them. I think that would be a shame, too. (I know, certain people - I'm looking at you, hoopfan24 - disagree.)
The truth is that the genius of the NCAA tournament is that it has all of these incremental levels of achievement that can make people happy - getting a bid, the Sweet 16, the Final Four, the national championship. I'd hate to lose any of them.
Oh, and about letting "more deserving" major conference teams into the tournament: I'm not one of the people who has a problem with, say, North Carolina over the second-place team in Conference USA, but I also think that once you get past the teams that have a semblance of a chance to make it to, oh, the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 there isn't much incremental benefit to taking the next major conference team over anyone else. Take Syracuse as an example. The Orange were no threat unless they somehow drew Rutgers in an early round, so it's no big deal to have them out, and certainly more meaningful in terms of memories for Southern to get a chance to play with the big girls, if even only for 40 minutes. (And I'd absolutely take Chattanooga or La Tech over Syracuse.)
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11151
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/10 4:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| There's no reason for conference tournaments even with the automatic bids. The team that gets rewarded with a trip to the NCAAs should be the team that has proved itself over two months, not the one that proved itself over three days.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18031
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/10 5:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| There's no reason for conference tournaments even with the automatic bids. The team that gets rewarded with a trip to the NCAAs should be the team that has proved itself over two months, not the one that proved itself over three days. |
Like we don't all know the rea$on$ for conference tournaments- and for expanding them so everyone gets in, making them really fucking pointless and counterproductive. (Because who really, really wanted to see Seton Hall one more time?)
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
hooper1
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 2300
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/10 8:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
OK, so if you're assuming the NCAA tournament is not necessarily about the top 64 teams playing, then I saw, "Let the automatic bids from the mini-conferences play." But if you're actually looking for the top teams in the country, then you really have to rethink throwing in teams that won a conference tournament but ended with a losing record... and teams that just ended with a losing record... and teams whose RPI is so low that it's a joke....
Those teams should go to the WNIT and have a walloping good tournament (seriously), where they'll be playing against similarly skilled teams.
I'm sure Austin Peay is thrilled to be playing yet again, but ...
(And I'm fairly confident that the whole tournament won't fall apart if you change the automatic bid situation. That seems like a silly argument.)
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/10 9:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| There's no reason for conference tournaments even with the automatic bids. The team that gets rewarded with a trip to the NCAAs should be the team that has proved itself over two months, not the one that proved itself over three days. |
The reason for the conference tournaments is that they keep things interesting for fans of more than just the top couple of teams in a one-bid conference. If there were no automatic bids, conferences would have great disincentives to have tournaments, since in most cases (the majors and maybe the A-10 excepted) the tournaments would be unlikely to improve a team's likelihood of getting an at large bid.
There's certainly a principled case to be made against conference tournaments (and I find it interesting that I hear it most often from West Coast/Pac-10 people), and I kind of admire the Ivy League for holding out. Still, I must admit that I like them, and would be sad to see them go. They add a lot of drama to the end of the season.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/10 10:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Someway for most of the games to be on TV so that they're not competing against each other.
There are 16 games each of the first two days.
If ESPN and ESPN2 would each show a game every couple of hours they could get at least 12 of them in if they start at 11 am. They could have the 1-16 games and the 2-15 games at the same time since those are the most likely to be a blow-outs. (Have they showed much of the 1-16 games today?)
Games could start at
11:00
1:30
3:00
5:30
8:00
10:30
I don't know, maybe it won't work, but it seems like something needs to be done so that fans aren't missing so many games.
|
|
Bretter
Joined: 31 May 2009
Posts: 1502
Location: Paradise
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/10 11:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
| I don't know, maybe it won't work, but it seems like something needs to be done so that fans aren't missing so many games. |
I thought about something to that effect earlier. The men's tournament seems to do a much better job of spreading out the games so that all of them don't end at the same time. Not only was there a 2-3 hour break between the two groups of games for the women today(afternoon games, night games), but the games seemed to be all ending at the same time.
I've never been much of a fan of ESPN's coverage patterns either. In any sport. Owning the rights to broadcasting every grand slam tennis tournament was one thing I completely rolled my eyes at. If ESPN gains the rights to the men's NCAA tournament, that'll be a frustrating day, IMO. It's like they're seeking a monopoly on sports broadcasting (as if they aren't already close to having one).
|
|
bricklayer
Joined: 30 Jan 2009
Posts: 1031
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/10 11:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I doubt espn has any intention of dedicating any more of it's valuable air time to womens basketball. I'm not too bothered by the four sets of four games at a time for the first round, but having two sets of four games in the second round? We should be able to see more of those games.
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/10 6:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| hooper1 wrote: |
I've always questioned the automatic bids. Really... every year Austin Peay seems to get in and every year they seem to lose in the first round. (And they even have a losing season this year!) Hampton? Portland State? Lamar? Come now!
Eh, at least it's a good way to find out about mini-colleges across the country. |
I've always questioned the at-large bids. Why should a team that doesn't win its conference be able to play for the national championship. And why do you feel better about teams who are selected on the basis of some nebulous criteria that change from year to year instead of teams that actually beat their competition on the court.
Back in the early seventies the men's tournament gave bids only to conference winners and at large bids to teams that weren't in conferences.
There are 31 conferences. Add one at-large for the independents and you have a nice 32 team tournament, and everyone has to earn their way in. Conferences can determine whether they want a tournament to determine their entrant or if they just want to give it to the regular season winner.
|
|
xzchief
Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 89
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/10 2:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="calbearman76"][quote="hooper1"]I've always questioned the automatic bids. Really... every year Austin Peay seems to get in and every year they seem to lose in the first round. (And they even have a losing season this year!) Hampton? Portland State? Lamar? Come now!
Eh, at least it's a good way to find out about mini-colleges across the country.[/quote]
I've always questioned the at-large bids. Why should a team that doesn't win its conference be able to play for the national championship. And why do you feel better about teams who are selected on the basis of some nebulous criteria that change from year to year instead of teams that actually beat their competition on the court.
Back in the early seventies the men's tournament gave bids only to conference winners and at large bids to teams that weren't in conferences.
There are 31 conferences. Add one at-large for the independents and you have a nice 32 team tournament, and everyone has to earn their way in. Conferences can determine whether they want a tournament to determine their entrant or if they just want to give it to the regular season winner.[/quote]
This year--under that rule--Nebraska, Notre Dame, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Baylor, Florida State, Iowa State and Oklahoma State don't get in the field because they didn't win their conference tournament. Maybe the Big 12 decides to let the regular-season champion, Nebraska, have its spot in the NCAA Tournament. Then remove Texas A&M instead.
Without those teams, the field simply isn't as good. The men's tournament wasn't as popular before at-large teams were added and more people had a rooting interest.
|
|
|
|
