Expanding the NCAA Tournament? - Page 3

**Lzen** · 03-19-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

....the lowest seed to win the tournament is 11....

64-team field began in 1984.

Lowest seeds to win the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship:
1985: Villanova - #8 Southeast regional
1988: Kansas - #6 Midwest
1997: Arizona - #4 Southeast
1989: Michigan - #3 Southeast
2003: Syracuse - #3 East
2006: Florida - #3 Midwest
4 champions seeded #2
13 champions seeded #1

milkman · 03-19-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lzen

64-team field began in 1984.

Lowest seeds to win the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship:
1985: Villanova - #8 Southeast regional
1988: Kansas - #6 Midwest
1997: Arizona - #4 Southeast
1989: Michigan - #3 Southeast
2003: Syracuse - #3 East
2006: Florida - #3 Midwest
4 champions seeded #2
13 champions seeded #1

I've already been corrected on that.

I'm old, damnit!

Give me a break.

**Lzen** · 03-19-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I've already been corrected on that.

I'm old, damnit!

Give me a break.

Oops, I missed that post. Still, an 11 seed (George Mason) did make the Final Four just a couple years ago. That was impressive.

sedated · 03-19-2008, 09:43 AM

The beauty of the tournament is its simplicity.

No byes, no series, no altering brackets. Leave it as is.

chiefsfan987 · 03-19-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

The beauty of the tournament is its simplicity.

No byes, no series, no altering brackets. Leave it as is.

I think they should re-seed when they get to the final four.

ROYC75 · 03-19-2008, 10:51 AM

As WTI said, this is the same topic every year.

A case can be made for expanding the tourney for the teams left out or for the smaller schools to have that dream of playing in an NCAA tournament.To do this, you must allow all to have that chance. You can't include all, even if you expand it to 128, somebody somewhere is going to feel left out and expanding to 128 kills the oldest tournament of them all, the NIT. The confrence tournaments each year seems to affect some other team, this year Georgia killed the chances for AZ State, So.Il, etc. I'm all for a confrence tourney to give your team a test, a pre NCAA tourney test, but many times a top team falls to a team that wants to keep playing longer, the underdog that has to play their way in. This is what makes it exciting..... the David vs Goliath matchups.

My take, do away with the play in game....... IMHO, it does not serve a purpose. Leave it at 64, save the NIT for teams that need it. Teams that are probably not good enough to advance far in the NCAA that can use it to build their program for the next year.

Drop 1 game and Leave it alone .....................

Coach · 03-19-2008, 11:49 AM

They should make a new rule stating that if your conference record isn't good, (Below .500) then you shouldn't be in. (See Arizona) Especially if you lost to an opponent twice who has a better conference record, regardless of SOS/RPI (See Arizona St.)

The only way you can get in with a shitty conference record if you win the conference tournament (See Georgia)

POND_OF_RED · 03-19-2008, 12:37 PM

I think it would be fun to throw in the top 4 high school teams from the year. Have them play in the play in game against the low D-1 school. A great high school basketball team is going to have some of the top recruits meaning they will make that game against the #1 much more enjoyable to watch than a team filled with 2 and 3 star recruits. I know it will never happen because they can't be part of collegiate athletics but it sure would make the play in game more entertaining.

ROYC75 · 03-19-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEA_OF_RED

I think it would be fun to throw in the top 4 high school teams from the year. Have them play in the play in game against the low D-1 school. A great high school basketball team is going to have some of the top recruits meaning they will make that game against the #1 much more enjoyable to watch than a team filled with 2 and 3 star recruits. I know it will never happen because they can't be part of collegiate athletics but it sure would make the play in game more entertaining.

One of these days, MU might qualify to play in that play in game.

chiefsfan987 · 03-19-2008, 07:56 PM

Shrink this tourney and enlarge the NIT. Do you really deserve a shot at playing for a National Title when you lose 10 or more games?

03-19-2008, 10:51 AM	#6
ROYC75 Time For Your Wake Up Call !!! Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Barn Yard Casino cash: $5209400	As WTI said, this is the same topic every year. A case can be made for expanding the tourney for the teams left out or for the smaller schools to have that dream of playing in an NCAA tournament.To do this, you must allow all to have that chance. You can't include all, even if you expand it to 128, somebody somewhere is going to feel left out and expanding to 128 kills the oldest tournament of them all, the NIT. The confrence tournaments each year seems to affect some other team, this year Georgia killed the chances for AZ State, So.Il, etc. I'm all for a confrence tourney to give your team a test, a pre NCAA tourney test, but many times a top team falls to a team that wants to keep playing longer, the underdog that has to play their way in. This is what makes it exciting..... the David vs Goliath matchups. My take, do away with the play in game....... IMHO, it does not serve a purpose. Leave it at 64, save the NIT for teams that need it. Teams that are probably not good enough to advance far in the NCAA that can use it to build their program for the next year. Drop 1 game and Leave it alone ..................... __________________ Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it. John Lennon
Posts: 37,034

03-19-2008, 11:49 AM	#7
Coach Champs! Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $5698476	They should make a new rule stating that if your conference record isn't good, (Below .500) then you shouldn't be in. (See Arizona) Especially if you lost to an opponent twice who has a better conference record, regardless of SOS/RPI (See Arizona St.) The only way you can get in with a shitty conference record if you win the conference tournament (See Georgia) __________________ Super Bowl IV, LIV, LVII & LVIII Champions 2020, 2021, 2023, & 2024 AFC Champions 1985 & 2015 Major League Baseball World Series Champions 1980, 1985, 2014, & 2015 Major League Baseball American League Champions 2015 American League Central Division Champs
Posts: 53,228

03-19-2008, 07:56 PM	#10
chiefsfan987 MVP Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Seattle, WA Casino cash: $8668441	Shrink this tourney and enlarge the NIT. Do you really deserve a shot at playing for a National Title when you lose 10 or more games?
Posts: 6,182

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-19-2008, 12:37 PM	#8
POND_OF_RED The talking stonehead Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Blue Springs, MO Casino cash: $1353146	I think it would be fun to throw in the top 4 high school teams from the year. Have them play in the play in game against the low D-1 school. A great high school basketball team is going to have some of the top recruits meaning they will make that game against the #1 much more enjoyable to watch than a team filled with 2 and 3 star recruits. I know it will never happen because they can't be part of collegiate athletics but it sure would make the play in game more entertaining.
Posts: 5,764