Question regarding the 68-team field

[615dawg]

I was under the understanding that the last four at-large teams would play the last four automatic qualifiers, giving us matchups like Mississippi State vs. the SWAC champion last year to get into the tournament. Another step, yes, but still very unlikely that those last four at-large teams are going to slip up.

I just read an article that explained it as the last four automatic qualifiers will be seeded 1-4 and will play each other for 16 seeds, and the last four at-large will be the same, playing for 11 and 12 seeds.

That isn't really fair. Think about it this way. if Georgia, Colorado, Michigan State and Virginia Tech are the last four in, and they have to play each other to get into the field. That's a tough game. But if a Mississippi State comes through and wins the SEC Tournament, they get a 12 or 13 seed and Georgia gets to play a play in game.

That's horseshit. And I should have been following more closely.

I honestly think you should merge the NIT and NCAA formats and get rid of the CBI/CIT garbage. 96 teams. All conference tournament champions and conference regular season champions make it. Between 34 and 65 at-large teams. Top 32 get a first round bye. Next 64 have a "play in" to the traditional bracket.

 

[patdog]

They need to just go back to 64 teams with no play in games. Way too many very mediocre teams make the tournament as at-large bids.

 

[ArlngtnDawg]

They need to just go back to 64 teams with no play in games. Way too many very mediocre teams make the tournament as at-large bids.

Might as well get use to it. There is no doubt in my mind the field is going to be at 96 within the next 4-5 years. I don't think it's a matter of if but when.

Money drives everything and more games = more money.

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

just to get the true top 64 teams in the land in the tournament.

If I had my way, they would break up D1 into major/minor conferences and get rid of all these completely ******** teams that get in for no good reason.

 

[patdog]

The 64th best team is a VERY mediocre team., and may even have a losing record. It's the equivalent of a football team that makes the Motor City Bowl.

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

but if you want to cut the field down, be my guest. That's the opposite direction they are going, though.

 

[o_1984Dawg]

Honestly, with a 16 never having even beaten a 1 seed, the play-ins for the 16 seeds don't even feel like part of the tournament. I've never watched more than 5 minutes of one. I'm much more interested in seeing bubble teams who could actually make some noise in the tournament.

To be honest though, I'd rather they just go back to 64 or expand to something like 80 or 96.

 

[patdog]

And yes, I do realize the field is just going to keep expanding.

 

[MSUArrowCS]

The saving grace of the tournament has always been that it clearly defines what it takes to win the championship. If you want to win the tournament, do what it takes to qualify for it. Once you're in, don't lose. It's the antithesis of the BCS, really, where media exposure basically decides who plays in the one game that counts.

In that sense, only the AQs have a right to be there. You can make an argument for teams that lose their conference tournament or have some other blemishes but are still good enough to win a championship, etc. But it's never been about the best 64 (or so) teams, and why should it be?

 

[RebelBruiser]

Automatic qualifiers are automatic qualifiers, and yes if you won the tourney and Georgia was one of the last 4 in, I think Georgia should have to play their way in. You already did.

Plus it makes for better TV to have real teams playing their way in, rather than the SWAC and CAA champion facing off on a Tuesday with no one watching.

 

[RebelBruiser]

just to get the true top 64 teams in the land in the tournament.

If I had my way, they would break up D1 into major/minor conferences and get rid of all these completely ******** teams that get in for no good reason.

You're going under the premise that the Top 64 teams deserve to be there. You already get the Top 45 or 50. Do you really need more?

You probably don't need more than the top 30 or so to really be able to crown a true champion. The rest is just fodder for early weekend entertainment. Don't get me wrong. The first weekend I think is the best weekend and mostly because of the teams that have no shot at a national title, but for the sake of it being a legit national championship tournament, it doesn't need to have any more at large teams than you already have.

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

with a 16 never having even beaten a 1 seed.... I've never watched more than 5 minutes of one.

having the true top 64 would be better. You can argue that you don't need that many, certainly. Then cut the field to 32. But if you don't need the true #64 team in the tourney, then you sure as hell don't need the BOGUS #64 team in there that is really the #134 team, but got lucky in their tournament and knocked off #223, #198 and #256 on their way to their "championship".