• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Tournament expanding to 68

This is a joke as no BCS teams will ever have to play in any of these play in games, never have liked the idea of 65 teams and now this.
 
real fan said:
This is a joke as no BCS teams will ever have to play in any of these play in games, never have liked the idea of 65 teams and now this.
Click to expand...

We don't this for sure yet. It will take a few weeks for the NCAA to finalize this deal. And then they will decide how these four play-in games will play out (no pun intended! :D).

Obviously we will either see four 16 seeds play four "17" seeds from the small conferences, or we will see the last eight teams in (last four in versus last four out if this were a 64 team tournament) play each other.

You know which one I would rather see, and I'm not talking about Prairie View A&M playing Jackson St! :D
 
Bravesfan said:
Well we will have 64 teams once the 8 bubble teams get done playing each other. At least that's what I hope for because if it's the 8 lowest seeded teams from the bottom 10 conferences, why even bother including them?
Click to expand...

I see your point, but that's not the way it works now. The last two teams included in the tournament field are not the two teams in the "play-in" game. I seriously doubt that will change in the future.
 
The four play in games will be filled with autobids from bottom feeder conferences and have no effect on the seeding of bubble tema other than to increase the number of bubble teams that make it by two or three (depending on when/if the Great West conf gets an autobid).
 
Bravesfan said:
Well we will have 64 teams once the 8 bubble teams get done playing each other. At least that's what I hope for because if it's the 8 lowest seeded teams from the bottom 10 conferences, why even bother including them?
Click to expand...

I don't think this could work at all. You would be giving the 1 seed a harder game in the first round than whichever seed plays these bottom conference winners in this scenario? Doesn't make sense.
 
BUfan14 said:
I don't think this could work at all. You would be giving the 1 seed a harder game in the first round than whichever seed plays these bottom conference winners in this scenario? Doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Well for this to work, if the 4 play-in games involve the last 8 at-large teams, the winners would be seeded 12 or 13, leaving the weaker conference winners seeded 13 to 16 as usual.

Hope that helps explain things. :)
 
I very highly doubt that's how the tourney will be structured. It's far less reasonable than just having the bottom 8 teams play in. Anything's possible though as they haven't worked out or released implementation details.
 
I need help on this and I'm not criticizing anyone's thoughts on this, you guys know more than I do. What I would have liked to see is the field go to 128. It would be just one extra game for those who make it through. I watched more tournament games this year than ever before thanks to the NCAA putting them online. A lot of close, fun games to watch. So help on this, what would have been wrong with 128 teams and having just one more game added to the tournament.
 
It's not that simple. If it did go to 128 teams, would you have them seeded 1-32 in each regional? Would every team play 1 extra game? Would the #1 seeds play the #32 seeds, #2 vs. #31, etc?
If so, there would be too many blowout games to count, and nobody would ever want to watch all those blowouts. The 1st round upsets would become a thing of the past, since it's unlikely any team seeded less than #12 would stand a chance of being upset.
If you arranged for higher seeds to get a 1st round bye, and allowed the lower seeded teams to play each other, it would still produce a ton of games nobody would care to see. So networks would not pay much to televise those games.
Plus, adding another 63 teams would almost double the costs to the NCAA of transportation and lodging for all those extra teams that would draw few extra fans, and be blown out immediately. It would be a logistic nightmare. I have heard the idea of having the 1st round games on-campus, but that would detract greatly from the NCAA tournament.
 
Ever since they went from 64 to 65, I have wondered why not go to 68.

A. Why should one #1 seed wait to see who they play while the other three can prepare for that mighty 1 vs. 16 game!.
B. There are always 8 teams that have an RPI over a hundred. Those 8 teams should play-in and it allows the bubble to expand with 3 more teams.
C. This is the best.

Take care and have a great summer everybody!
 
Did anyone see how TBS and TNT said they will use their own announcers, likely from the NBA ranks? I think this means CBS will only probably have 2 teams of announcers. So likely this means no more Gus Johnson on the NCAA tournament.
 
MDCowboy said:
Did anyone see how TBS and TNT said they will use their own announcers, likely from the NBA ranks? I think this means CBS will only probably have 2 teams of announcers. So likely this means no more Gus Johnson on the NCAA tournament.
Click to expand...

Nantz is the #1 guy.
Lundquist is the #2 guy and very very very very old.
Enberg is the #3 guy and retired.
Gus is the #4 guy.

I'm not worried. And besides, you need 8 announcing teams the first weekend, no matter who televises what. CBS is going to loan a few of them over, there's no other way.

What DOES make me worry is the Harlan/Eagle/Brando level of announcer who'll go away.
 
Bravesfan said:
Well for this to work, if the 4 play-in games involve the last 8 at-large teams, the winners would be seeded 12 or 13, leaving the weaker conference winners seeded 13 to 16 as usual.

Hope that helps explain things. :)
Click to expand...

Ya but still even in this scenario the 8 teams fighting to be 13 seeds should have to play an extra game while the 14-16 seed doesn't? I don't know that just doesn't seem fair to me. So while in principle its not a bad idea, I still just don't think it could work.

Plus if you think about it the lower conference teams will rarely ever win against the 1 or 2 seeds. A 16 has never won, and a 15 has won what 2 or 3 times? So it would give them a much better chance to win a tourny game, plus it still wouldn't take away their shot at a big boy if they win the play in game. This scenario is of course where the 8 lower conference teams would play to face a 1 seed, which is the best way to do it IMO.
 
BUfan14 said:
Ya but still even in this scenario the 8 teams fighting to be 13 seeds should have to play an extra game while the 14-16 seed doesn't? I don't know that just doesn't seem fair to me. So while in principle its not a bad idea, I still just don't think it could work.

Plus if you think about it the lower conference teams will rarely ever win against the 1 or 2 seeds. A 16 has never won, and a 15 has won what 2 or 3 times? So it would give them a much better chance to win a tourny game, plus it still wouldn't take away their shot at a big boy if they win the play in game. This scenario is of course where the 8 lower conference teams would play to face a 1 seed, which is the best way to do it IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree completely, I think this is the best way to do it, and while the actual format hasn't been disclosed, I would be shocked if the NCAA is seriously considering anything other than this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top