With "Dayton" potentially on the table again.....just want to get officially on record again
- Thread starter NickRU714
- Start date
A lot of words for stuff shouldn't matter.
No problem with play-in games. Just make them the worst seeds. Still not sure how this is controversial.
Who cares if East Bumbefck vs. Northwest Seminary College is a play-in game?
If these teams are so terrible then don't let them even in the tournament.
You nailed it "way more exciting than watching bad 16 seeds". So then kick out the 16 seeds. Throw out AQ - only "exciting games" are allowed.
Answer this simple question: why does #13 OSU need to win 5 games for the Big Ten Tournament championship while #6 Maryland only has to win 4? Why does #1 Purdue only have to win 3 games?
Perhaps because the lower seeds have to play more games than higher seeds?
What a concept........
Do you actually have a clue why this tournament is the most anticipated in all of college sports?
Because these responses here and elsewhere clearly indicate you would screw the whole thing up if you were in charge.
BTW do you hear the teams complaining? No, because they wanted those play in games to have a chance that they felt they were being denied by the selection committee. Just take the L at this point.
Again - no actual answer.
More justification for "entrertainment" over fairness.
Still waiting for an answer: Why does a 14 seed need less wins than an 11 seed?
Not saying to kick out any teams. Keep it 68 teams.
Just make the actual lower seeds play more games.
What teams are getting left out? Instead of being on the bubble for Dayton/play-in, it's on the bubble for the 2nd round.
Then remove the expanded field and problem solved. It was added to give power 5 more bites at the Apple. If you do that the. Rutgers does not get in the tournament last two years, is that better? We should not be even discussing the play in game or the format. Pike waited to long to put Simpson in the starting line up. That’s the only reason this conversation is being had.
You're still waiting on an answer because you refuse to listen. Good luck on your journey for 'The Answer". Maybe Michael Moore will make a documentary on it.
Completely wrong.
68 teams isn't an issue.
Keep it 68. Go back to 64. Make for at.
Has nothing to do with Rutgers.
The issue is seeding and giving 1st round byes to lower ranked teams. It's not rocket science.
Has no impact on "bubble talk" or anything else. You still have the same teams vying for the last "at-large" spots.
The only impact is fixing 2 Dayton games to include actual lowest seeded teams.
2 games that everyone agrees are set up the current way (11 seeds) ONLY for
TV ratings.
Look at the list of 68 teams as an example.
Move ASU and Pitt down to 12 seed line. Everyone else moves over 2 spots. You get 8 #16 seeds instead of 4.
Make the 8 #16 seeds play-in. The worst seeded teams.
It's exactly how the Big Ten Tournament (and every other tournament) is designed. Hell even make it 4 #16 and 4 #17 seeds. Then the winners play the #1 seeds. That would make even more sense than the current format.
I don’t think we’ll be Dayton but I agree the whole Dayton thing makes no sense.
Some 1 seed would be really pissed to have to play RU or PSU in the first round.
I understand what your saying but your missing the point . Midmajors being Cinderella is the essence of the tournament and that will never change. So to your point the 4 16 seeds and the 4 15 seeds are midmajors who won their conference tournament and your suggesting they face each other in the play in games. Well the NCAA wants them in because they essentially become byes for the 4 number 1 and number 2 seeds. In such by earning a one or a two seed you get a very easy first round game. Only 10 times has a 1/2 seed lost ever to a 15/16 seed so basically a bye to reward the best teams. In your scenario your eliminating some of those easier matchups and potentially giving the 1/2 a tougher opponent by knocking them out in the play in games. The down stream effect continues from there the 14-11 seeds all become stronger. So either leave it the original format and some power 5’s are left out or by going to the 68 you gibe those power 5 extra teams a chance to be in but they have to earn the seed by playing each other. For those teams in the play in you should have had a stronger season and you would not have to play that game.
Last year ND and RU had good seasons if it was 64 one would be out not in the tournament but instead of one of them being out completely they both have a chance in the field by wining to get in. Not saying it’s the best but I agree with it. Original context and intent of the tournament format with an added chance for a few additional power 5’teams to go deep in the tournament .
Except they just ruined the world cup by expanding to 48 teams starting with the next one. The new format they came up with is horrendous and why I'm glad it's been reported by people who would know that the NCAA tourney isn't doing anything drastic in terms of expansion anytime soon.
To the OP's point, I fully disagree. March Madness is perfect, leave it alone.
OP is not completely wrong, but you can't seed the at-large play-ins as 16s because it's unfair to the 1s. The NCAA Tournament being a universally loved tournament has nothing at all to do with the Dayton games so that's a pretty weak argument as well.
That said, the current format makes enough sense.. you just need to sort of think of Dayton as a separate tournament for the right to get into the main bracket. The main bracket is then seeded the way it should be.
That said, the current format makes enough sense.. you just need to sort of think of Dayton as a separate tournament for the right to get into the main bracket. The main bracket is then seeded the way it should be.
"March Madness is perfect" from the round of 64 onwards. I don't think the weird Dayton thing is perfect at all. But it also doesn't really detract. It just kind of doesn't matter (with the exception of having to wait until Wednesday night to fill out your bracket if you actually care who the last at large team is).
Also the entire concept of the tournament is for entertainment value. It’s not like anyone seriously thinks a big single elimination tournament is an efficient way to identify the best team.
Not the same.
As part of seeding process, as you point out, they mandate "all AQ get seeded ahead". That's a separate issue.
But then what happens with the format of the games?
THE LOWER SEEDS PLAY FIRST.
The NFL doesn't say "7 teams make it. We have seeds 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6. Teams seeded 4th will play first round".
I don't understand how having the 8 lowest SEEDS (teams 60-68) play in the 1st round is so abominable and ruins the entire tournament.
It's literally the exact same concept as the Big Ten Tournament.
I pay attention to this about 15 minutes every year, admittedly more now that RU is involved, so some of the below questions comments may seem really dumb, lol.
I see that 2 of the 16s have play in games, right?
Are all 4 of those teams from conferences that get a AQ?
Would everyone consider any of the teams in Dayton as having “made the tournament”?
If the answer is yes to all those, I do kinda get Nick’s point. We already weed out the crap from the low level AQs once, why not do it twice? Seems silly that we say it’s absolutely great and makes sense to do it once, but it breaks all the laws of nature and humanity to do it twice.
Yes. The 4 #16 seeds that play in the 1st round/Dayton are AQ.
A routine argument is "well AQ teams deserve a bye since they are AQ".
Except that the worst 4 already play there. Make it the 8 worst teams and stop penalizing higher seeded teams.
So RU was one of the last two out and would have made the tournament if the NCAA didn't arbitrarily decide to have 2 play in games for 16 seeds. Maybe now Nick will figure out why it's important to the high major & mid major teams to have those Dayton games go to 8-12 seeds and not the small conferences.
You completely miss the point.
It's not difficult to understand.
Take the field of 68. Don't remove any teams at all.
Take the 2 worst #15 and make them #16 seeds.
Dayton is 4 games to determine the final #16 seeds.
Instead of "last 4 in" being all 11 seeds. Make 2 an #11 seed and 2 #12 seed. Shift everyone else down 2 spots.
You need 8 #16 seeds for 4 play-in 1st round games.
Not 6 #16 and 6 #11.
The games in the current format are popular because they make for great TV. Though this year's ratings will take a tumble because they opted for two 16 seed play in games. No one wants to watch low quality games, we get enough of that during the regular season.
What are you talking about?
Every year has two #16 seeds games in the 1st round.
Are you serious?
And you prove my point - the tournament 1st round is designed for TV not actual merit.
Like I said - terrible design.
If we want exciting TV - make the #1 seeds play in the First round. That'll be even more exciting!
Thursday in Dayton - Purdue v. Houston! Think of the ratings!
Should the Big Ten drop their 1st round too? How wants to watch bad teams play games?
Got the actual S-curve. Here is how the games should actually work and how stupid the current system is.
1st round games in Dayton have zero impact on the actual teams making the field.
Instead of "Will Rutgers end up in Dayton or a bye?" the conversation is now "Will Rutgers end up in as a #12?"
It's the same exact talk.
Last 4 in is still the same Last 4 in and all the same "bubble talk".
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...-ncaa-tournament-bracket-seed-list-from-1-68/
Starting at the 10 seeds:
#10: Boise St., PSU, USC, Utah St.
#11: NC. State, Providence, Miss. State, Pitt
#12: Arizona St., Nevada, Col. of Charleston, Oral Roberts
#13: Drake, VCU, Kent St., Iona
#14: Furman, Louisana, Kennesaw St., UC Santa Barbara
#15: Grand Canyon, Montana St. Vermont, Colgate
#16: Princeton, UNC Ashville, Northern KY, Howard, A&M-CC, Texas Southern, Southeast MO. St., FDU
Then the 1st round is all 8 #16 seeds (4 games). The actual WORST TEAMS in the field.
In stead of this dumb 6 #11 seeds and 6 #16 seeds. You shift everyone over 2 spots.
Some get moved down a line - Furman from #13 to #14 - but too bad you should have been there all along.
Too bad that you only want to see 2 games with #16 seeds instead of 4.
Don't care about TV ratings for literally 2 games out of the entire tournament - that shouldn't be the priority over actual athletic merit.
And before someone says "It's not fair to the lower AQ schools. they should get a bye".
4 of those schools already have to play in Dayton. That bubble is already burst.
1st round games in Dayton have zero impact on the actual teams making the field.
Instead of "Will Rutgers end up in Dayton or a bye?" the conversation is now "Will Rutgers end up in as a #12?"
It's the same exact talk.
Last 4 in is still the same Last 4 in and all the same "bubble talk".
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...-ncaa-tournament-bracket-seed-list-from-1-68/
Starting at the 10 seeds:
#10: Boise St., PSU, USC, Utah St.
#11: NC. State, Providence, Miss. State, Pitt
#12: Arizona St., Nevada, Col. of Charleston, Oral Roberts
#13: Drake, VCU, Kent St., Iona
#14: Furman, Louisana, Kennesaw St., UC Santa Barbara
#15: Grand Canyon, Montana St. Vermont, Colgate
#16: Princeton, UNC Ashville, Northern KY, Howard, A&M-CC, Texas Southern, Southeast MO. St., FDU
Then the 1st round is all 8 #16 seeds (4 games). The actual WORST TEAMS in the field.
In stead of this dumb 6 #11 seeds and 6 #16 seeds. You shift everyone over 2 spots.
Some get moved down a line - Furman from #13 to #14 - but too bad you should have been there all along.
Too bad that you only want to see 2 games with #16 seeds instead of 4.
Don't care about TV ratings for literally 2 games out of the entire tournament - that shouldn't be the priority over actual athletic merit.
And before someone says "It's not fair to the lower AQ schools. they should get a bye".
4 of those schools already have to play in Dayton. That bubble is already burst.