96 Team NCAA Tourney

mason55 · #1 04-04-2005, 01:43 AM

So I'm watching Bob Ley run his old fat mouth on OTL right now and he's talking about a 96 team big dance. The first weekend is 33-96 seeds playing into a 64 team tournament, where everyone is re-seeded.

The idea is that the first weekend is more competitive.

What do you guys think? I think the conference tourneys are already the first few rounds of the NCAA tourney and we REALLY don't need more than 64 teams in the tourney. The conference tourneys are so much fun to watch that if you took 96 teams in the bid dance it would destroy the worth of the conference tourneys. We'd be talking about 10-18 teams as bubble teams. WHO THE [censored] CARES ABOUT A 10-18 TEAM. They're not going anywhere. No 10-18 team was beating Caroline or Illinois. And these guys on OTL are all acting like a 96 team tourney is the best idea since the wheel.

Dead · #2 04-04-2005, 01:49 AM

I think it should be the top 64 teams. And that's not what it is now. It's the top 45-50, plus a bunch of schools from tiny conferences that had auto bids.

Clarkmeister · #3 04-04-2005, 01:51 AM

The tournament is perfect. It already includes every single Division I school as any team can win their conference tournament and get an automatic bid. No reason to change anything as everyone already has a fair and equal shot.

mmbt0ne · #4 04-04-2005, 01:52 AM

Sounds like you're just upset one of those "schools from tiny conferences that had auto bids" beat your Orange.

Dead · #5 04-04-2005, 01:52 AM

It is just as easy to win the ACC as it is to win the MAAC. Gotcha.

mason55 · #6 04-04-2005, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it should be the top 64 teams. And that's not what it is now. It's the top 45-50, plus a bunch of schools from tiny conferences that had auto bids.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you propose determining the top 64 teams?

In my mind, we're not getting the top 64 teams. But the tourney starts when the conference tourneys start. Sure, some teams have an easier first few rounds. But are you saying that if Indiana can't win the Big 10 tourney they still deserve go? I prefer to think of it as hey, they had a chance to qualify, they can't even win their own conference. If they're good enough they get a second chance but if they can't win their conference tourney they get no guarantees.

Dead · #7 04-04-2005, 01:53 AM

How do you think they do the BCS?

Maybe create a similar system for college bball.

mason55 · #8 04-04-2005, 01:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How do you think they do the BCS?

Maybe create a similar system for college bball.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're regessing if you do that. Most people want the BCS to be MORE like the BB tourney.

mmbt0ne · #9 04-04-2005, 01:55 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
How do you think they do the BCS?

Maybe create a similar system for college bball.

[/ QUOTE ]

BCS > March Madness ?!?!

Please tell me you're joking.

Clarkmeister · #10 04-04-2005, 01:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It is just as easy to win the ACC as it is to win the MAAC. Gotcha.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is easier to get a bid *from* the ACC than the MAC, that much is obvious. Finish in the top half with a winning record and you are in. Mid Majors mostly need to WIN their conference tourney.

Besides, who gives a rats ass if Indiana, Notre Dame and Maryland were in the tourney this year. None of them had any chance of winning, so why worry about it.