MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: KipsBayEagle on April 22, 2010, 11:19:01 AM
-
enough said
-
enough said
Damn...too bad.
-
no teal?
-
Guess I can add something, every game will be shown live across 4 national networks, which is awesome
-
Sweet! I see that ESPN is reporting that they are on the verge of a 68-team deal. Good news. I would have had no problem with 80 teams or less. This is less.
Now if they expand slowly over the next 5-10 years that will make a lot more sense than a 50% increase overnight.
-
very interesting.
-
no teal?
Oh no. I like basketball. The more games the better.
If I ruled the bball universe, I would get rid of conference tournies and have one massive tournament where everyone qualifies like in high school.
-
68 is a better fit, at least now you have 4 play in games...much better than 80, 96, or whatever else was thrown out there.
-
Dammit. What am I going to do with these tickets to next year's SLU-Wofford play-in game?
-
Oh no. I like basketball. The more games the better.
If I ruled the bball universe, I would get rid of conference tournies and have one massive tournament where everyone qualifies like in high school.
Wouldn't that actually not really change the amount of total games then?
Good move on the NCAA's part. The tournement had never expanded in such large fashion so quickly before and there is no reason for them to do it now. 4 bye-in games is a good number. It will be interesting to see how they do it though.
Will they have 1 play-in game from each region play in Dayton on Tuesday and then play on Friday? The downside is that all #1 seeds will then play on Friday and the NCAA likes to split each seed in half on each day for viewing purposes. Will they have 2 of the teams play on Thursday, which is a disadvantage to those team? We'll see, but I like this a heck of a lot better than the 96 team idea that was thrown around. The tournie may get there at some point, but let expansion take its course as it has in the past.
-
The reality is that the play in teams have very little chance of beatinga one seed. Therefore, whether they play on thursday or Friday does not matter.
-
In theory, this sounds perfect to me. I'd like to see a confirmed article on the subject though. Take the time to do expansion the best way possible, rather than what seemed like a knee-jerk reaction to a clause in the CBS contract.
NCAA doesn't obliterate College Basketball
They'll leave that to the Big 11 / BCS.
-
Or the 8 bad conference champions?
I would like it to be the 8 teams on the bubble....but what if it were last year and the soft bubble made it nearly impossible to fill the 65 team field?
-
but I thought chicos said 96 was a done deal?? :P
-
The reality is that the play in teams have very little chance of beatinga one seed. Therefore, whether they play on thursday or Friday does not matter.
This was a unique year that may not be repeated, but parity has expanded pretty deep far. 15 seed RMU almost beat Nova - this knocks them down to a 16 seed and makes them play a 1 seed. Maybe it's a bad analogy because Nova wasn't deserving of their spot, but still I guess my point is that this actually increases the possibility of a 1 seed losing.
-
Or the 8 bad conference champions?
I would like it to be the 8 teams on the bubble....but what if it were last year and the soft bubble made it nearly impossible to fill the 65 team field?
I've always felt that would be a very interesting way of doing it, although I understand why they don't.
-
Will they have 1 play-in game from each region play in Dayton on Tuesday and then play on Friday? The downside is that all #1 seeds will then play on Friday and the NCAA likes to split each seed in half on each day for viewing purposes. Will they have 2 of the teams play on Thursday, which is a disadvantage to those team? We'll see, but I like this a heck of a lot better than the 96 team idea that was thrown around. The tournie may get there at some point, but let expansion take its course as it has in the past.
Maybe play-ins Tuesday/Wednesday, with the winners respectively playing Thursday/Friday?
-
but I thought chicos said 96 was a done deal?? :P
You should go back and read what I said, including the exact phrase "96 isn't a done deal yet and it still could be 68 or 80"
And before everyone gets too excited on this, what we are hearing is that there is still an out clause for 96 in this particular contract.
Personally, this sucks hard for Marquette in many ways long term but it seems too many people can't see down the road to understand this.
-
You should go back and read what I said, including the exact phrase "96 isn't a done deal yet and it still could be 68 or 80"
And before everyone gets too excited on this, what we are hearing is that there is still an out clause for 96 in this particular contract.
Personally, this sucks hard for Marquette in many ways long term but it seems too many people can't see down the road to understand this.
explain please Chicos. :)
-
NCAA leveraged a nice 8-9% increase with minimal expansion from 65 to 68. Is such a rule of thumb in expansions, a la b10 issue.
Because if so the conservative joinder of just one team gets it the big money champ game.
No football league in USA exceeds 12 ---why should they if the minimal expansion/maximization of $ rule applies.
-
Chicos, I imagine no more Mega Marchness on DirecTV? And please tell me truTV is or will be going HD
-
Personally, this sucks hard for Marquette in many ways long term but it seems too many people can't see down the road to understand this.
Why do you believe this? Didn't people go through and find only a few years since the early 90s that MU would have gotten in a 96 team field but not a 64/5 team field? Do you think the next 20 years will be much different? Based on recent history (and homerism) I don't forsee many years in the near future where MU won't be in a 68 team tourney.
-
Just to throw this out there, I am a complete fan of this.
-
The 96 team tourney would have sucked the life out of the regular season. Nice to see the NCAA get it right once in a while.
-
The reason that this decision is BAD for MU is because it makes us "non-BCS" schools expendable. If a 96- team tournament was successful the major powers of the "super conferences" would have an impossible time putting a tournament together without the non-football and mid-major schools. With a 68 team tournament it is possible for the super conference schools to say the heck with it and start their own 64 team tournament which leaves non-football schools (like MU) and all mid majors on the outside looking in.
-
The reason that this decision is BAD for MU is because it makes us "non-BCS" schools expendable. If a 96- team tournament was successful the major powers of the "super conferences" would have an impossible time putting a tournament together without the non-football and mid-major schools. With a 68 team tournament it is possible for the super conference schools to say the heck with it and start their own 64 team tournament which leaves non-football schools (like MU) and all mid majors on the outside looking in.
So you could envision a tournament where every "BCS" team gets in and nobody else does? I highly doubt that would ever happen.
-
If the BCS schools think they can get more money that way, than absolutely!
-
This is great compared to the thought of over 90 teams.
-
So you could envision a tournament where every "BCS" team gets in and nobody else does? I highly doubt that would ever happen.
+1, I don't know why people are freaking themselves out over this b/c it is so ridiculous. The Big Ten going to 20 teams isn't even close to as improbable as that.
Butler just went to the National Championship game and the entire tournament is marketed on its 'madness' in that you can't predict anything. They would lose a ton of money and credibility if they try that. If they do, the best and most successful thing to do is to form a basketball-only school super-conference to compete against it (which is the same thing these people piss on as an idea).
-
+1
The 68 game format is better for everyone, even the little $hit non-football schools like ours.
-
The reason that this decision is BAD for MU is because it makes us "non-BCS" schools expendable. If a 96- team tournament was successful the major powers of the "super conferences" would have an impossible time putting a tournament together without the non-football and mid-major schools. With a 68 team tournament it is possible for the super conference schools to say the heck with it and start their own 64 team tournament which leaves non-football schools (like MU) and all mid majors on the outside looking in.
Why does the size of the NCAA tournament have any impact on whether the BCS conferences can break away from the NCAA and start their own organization with their own tournament?
-
+1, I don't know why people are freaking themselves out over this b/c it is so ridiculous. The Big Ten going to 20 teams isn't even close to as improbable as that.
Butler just went to the National Championship game and the entire tournament is marketed on its 'madness' in that you can't predict anything. They would lose a ton of money and credibility if they try that. If they do, the best and most successful thing to do is to form a basketball-only school super-conference to compete against it (which is the same thing these people piss on as an idea).
Do you really think that the basketball-only conference formations that have been proposed on this site would ever be described with the word "Super"? It was the Big East minus some of the best programs and plus some mid-majors with decent basketball success.
On top of that, with no football 50-80% of college sports fans wouldn't care about the conference no matter how good it was.