It's been an enjoyable tournament. ...

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,697
Reaction score
4,837
Points
113
with a lot of nail-biters, but I have to say this is one of the weakest "Final Two" I remember seeing. I guess that's speaks to this year's parity.

After seeing Kentucky on Saturday (I hadn't caught much of 'em in the tournament), I must say I'm even more disappointed in Ohio State. I know in a one-and-done tourney all it takes is one off night, but there's no way OSU should have lost to that UK squad, which certainly was not "the best 4 seed of all time" as someone here suggested. OSU let a huge opportunity slip away, big time. Kansas, too.
 

Well, if this were college football, it would be OSU vs Kansas tonight.

I'm so glad it isn't college football because there would be no Butler and this Butler squad is my favorite non-Duke or non-Minnesota squad ever. The Sisters of the Poor from something called the Horizon League are in the National Championship game in back-to-back years. Just an awesome story. People will remember that Duke beat Butler last year and if UConn beats Butler tonight, people will remember that as well. However, these 2 years belong to Butler. They won't be known as the Duke or UConn years. They'll both be remembered mostly as Butler's seasons. That's what makes it so awesome. We've seen OSU vs Kansas before, many, many times. We've NEVER seen something like Butler in the 64 team+ tournament and we've seen it twice in 2 years. Just awesome. I love this year's tourney.

I love Butler because they appear to have no excuses. I get tired of excuses from programs (cough, the Gophers, cough) that have so many more advantages over Butler that it's not even funny.

Go Butler!
 

No argument here Pewter. Butler is a great story (as is VCU).

I think the downside (if there is one) of Butler and VCU's success is that it will give coaches more ammo that the field should be expanded. I suspect we'll be seeing that "Field of 96" within the next 5 years or so, so I'm gonna' enjoy the coming seasons in which the regular season will still at least have some meaning.
 

Some would argue that the regular season is already watered down beyond repair. That's fine. I still enjoy it. I enjoy the non-conference for seeding purposes and comparing conferences. I enjoy conference play because the prize is a conference title. I enjoy the conference tourneys because of the volume of games in a single weekend and other title up for grabs. I enjoy the NCAA tourney because it's a reflection of the regular season based on seeding and the end goal is the National Championship where someone like Butler has a chance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against expanding the field further and I think public sentiment will show expanding to 96 teams would be a negative. They're pushing it with 68 teams. Making a drastic change could permenantly harm the product for many reasons. I personally think that if you don't win your conference or finish in the top half of your conference standings, you have no business being included in the field.
 

Pewterschmidt said:
Some would argue that the regular season is already watered down beyond repair. That's fine. I still enjoy it.
Click to expand...

I think this is correct. As it is currently I don't think people who aren't college bball fans watch the regular season. If you are a fan, I think it is broken down into 2 types of fans: 1) the fan who just loves college basketball and watches ESPN and ESPN2 all winter and 2) fans like me who love the team thay they root for, watches every or nearly every game for that team but doesn't pay much attention to college bball as a whole until Selection Sunday.

I don't think that expanding the tourney will change either of these 2 groups of fans viewing habits, so I don't see much downside from that standpoint. That being said, I'm against expansion too.
 


Pewterschmidt said:
I personally think that if you don't win your conference or finish in the top half of your conference standings, you have no business being included in the field.
Click to expand...

Well, that eliminates one of tonight's participants! :)
 

About the only positive I see to expanding the field to 96 would be that the #1s and #2s, especially, would have a much greater chance of getting knocked off in the 2nd round (Round of 64). It comes down to I just don't want to see teams who had regular seasons like the Gophers had get rewarded (perhaps) with a shot at a national title. As it is pretty much everyone has a crack at it by way of their conference tournament, with the exception of the Ivy League and the few remaining independents/non-automatic qualifier conferences (Great West). It's already a national tournament.
 

SelectionSunday said:
No argument here Pewter. Butler is a great story (as is VCU).

I think the downside (if there is one) of Butler and VCU's success is that it will give coaches more ammo that the field should be expanded. I suspect we'll be seeing that "Field of 96" within the next 5 years or so, so I'm gonna' enjoy the coming seasons in which the regular season will still at least have some meaning.
Click to expand...

I am one of the few that thinks 96 teams would be great. Just absorb the NIT into the field. The top 32 teams get byes in the first round, which in my mind is a pretty decent argument for retaining some meaning to regular season. It would reward the regular season conference champions from all the mid-major/low major schools as well. Logistics wise, just play the opening round "play-in" game at the home site of higher seeded team. After that opening round of 32 games, re-seed those teams and resume the tourney as we have it now with 64 teams at 8 neutral floor sites.

Make all the conference tourneys finish on Saturday and have the first selection show that evening. Play all the opening round games on Monday and Tuesday and resume with the 64 team tourney on Thursday as it is now.

Right now, what makes Thursday and Friday two of the greatest sporting days of the year? I would say it is the possibility of upsets by mid/low majors against high major teams, usually on the 5-12, 4-13, and 3-14 (rarely) lines. I think that adding 32 more teams would make the 2-15 and 1-16 games just as compelling as those 3-12, 4-13 matchups.

The only real downside I see to this format is that the March tradition of brackets being filled out by non-basketball fans would probably go by the wayside. There would only be one day (Wednesday) when people could fill out a 64 team bracket.

The other losers in this format would be the college basketball media who LOVES all the "bubble" talk. They don't want to be talking about the 80-100 range teams about possibly making the tourney. I think there would still be an added amount of talk about who gets the top 8 seeds and the first round bye though to make up for it.
 

You make a strong argument. I like the idea of the first-round games being played at home sites.

I wouldn't want them to re-seed, however. I like a bracket to remain a bracket, not change it on the fly based on who won the first-round games. That's part of the charm of the tournament. ... sometimes the bracket falls your way, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you take advantage of it (Gophers in 1989 and 1990), sometimes you don't (Kansas in 2011).

All that said, my main opposition to tournament expansion remains further devaluing of the regular season, not so much what it would do to the tournament itself. The NCAA Tournament would be inching closer to the NBA and NHL.
 




I'd like to think that this tournament strengthens the fear that a 96-team field will make the regular season meaningless. We've already shown that seeding means little. VCU has shown that having to play an extra game means little, so how hard will you really push to get into the top 32? They will completely trash the regular season and teams will be resting players, etc. as they do in the NBA.
 

I have enjoyed it as well. I can't help thinking though, that if they had not imploded, this was a year the Gophers could have really made a run.

As we have seen, everyone is beatable. Hopefully this trend continues for awhile.
 

howeda7 said:
We've already shown that seeding means little.
Click to expand...

We have? Is that why a 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed? Is that why a 15 seed has beaten a 2 seed 4 times? Is that why this is the first time in the history of the tournament that the Final Four contained no 1 or 2 seeds?
 



Pewterschmidt said:
No it doesn't. Both Butler and UConn won their conference tourneys. They're both automatic bids.
Click to expand...

I understand. Both would have made it as at-larges, too. UConn, however, was not in the upper half of their conference. Goes to show you a team that doesn't finish in the upper half just might have some business being included.
 

SelectionSunday said:
You make a strong argument. I like the idea of the first-round games being played at home sites.

I wouldn't want them to re-seed, however. I like a bracket to remain a bracket, not change it on the fly based on who won the first-round games. That's part of the charm of the tournament. ... sometimes the bracket falls your way, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you take advantage of it (Gophers in 1989 and 1990), sometimes you don't (Kansas in 2011).

All that said, my main opposition to tournament expansion remains further devaluing of the regular season, not so much what it would do to the tournament itself. The NCAA Tournament would be inching closer to the NBA and NHL.
Click to expand...

I would re-seed because it would provide more incentive to get one of the top seeds and help maintain the integrity of the regular season, which as you later expressed is one of the main dangers of tourney expansion. I like the inclusive nature of giving lots of teams chances to become Cinderalla, but making it slightly more difficult to pull off. Likewise, I don't think it would be healthy for the game if 1 and 2 seeds were falling left and right every year, but at least make them break a sweat in that first round game with the occasional upset.
 

dpodoll68 said:
We have? Is that why a 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed? Is that why a 15 seed has beaten a 2 seed 4 times? Is that why this is the first time in the history of the tournament that the Final Four contained no 1 or 2 seeds?
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's what I was referring to. Not the fact that no #1 seeds made the Final Four and an 8 and an 11 did. No I meant that 16 seeds can beat #1's. I'm sure that's what everyone else understood too. :rolleyes: Sorry I was so unclear.

My point is that once making the tournament becomes a complete slam dunk for 2/3 of the BCS schools jockeying for the difference between and #1 and #2 or #3 isn't going to be a huge motivator down the stretch. Even playing for the 'bye' that the top 32 teams will get won't help much, IMO. Any player with a minor injury will get saved for the games that count.
 

howeda7 said:
My point is that once making the tournament becomes a complete slam dunk for 2/3 of the BCS schools jockeying for the difference between and #1 and #2 or #3 isn't going to be a huge motivator down the stretch. Even playing for the 'bye' that the top 32 teams will get won't help much, IMO. Any player with a minor injury will get saved for the games that count.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. You can't coast your way to the finish and get a protected seed. Kentucky won their conference tournament and still only got a 4 seed.

Moving the tournament to 96 teams is a terrible idea because it is too many teams, it will make brackets far too complicated, and will cause the casual fan to not care or participate, and thus will keep them from following the games. Teams are not going to start coasting because they will be "guaranteed" a spot in the tournament. It's still going to be better to get a 1 seed than a 2, a 2 than a 3, etc. Having the highest combined seeds participating in the history of the championship game is an anomaly, not an indicator of anything.
 

It's just shocking how the ninth-place team in the "Big LEast" is the favored team in the national championship game, against a team that was also in the championship game last year. :rolleyes:
 

Kudos to UConn, which played well above its seed, unlike 6 (Pitt, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Louisville, Georgetown & St. John's) of its conference brethren.

But I get your drift GW. ... I can't really say much on behalf of the the Big Ten until it wins the whole ball of wax. It's been too long (2000).
 

The other way to retain meaning for the regular season and expand the tourney would be to reward the top seeds by hosting the first pod of games.

128 teams, first two rounds are played at the home site of the top 32 teams. Have 4 or 8 regional sites the next weekend to narrow the field down to the Elite Eight. Send the whole Elite Eight to the finals rather than the "Final Four" as we have it now. The "Final Four" is purely arbitrary anyway, and an 8 team final tournament is a much more natural number for the culminating event of college basketball (a la the conference tourneys and the regular season holiday tourneys).

I think that would be awesome as well. I think it would be a pretty big deal for teams and fanbases to be one of the top seeds in this scenario in order to play at home for a couple of rounds.
 

dpodoll68 said:
That makes no sense. You can't coast your way to the finish and get a protected seed. Kentucky won their conference tournament and still only got a 4 seed.

Moving the tournament to 96 teams is a terrible idea because it is too many teams, it will make brackets far too complicated, and will cause the casual fan to not care or participate, and thus will keep them from following the games. Teams are not going to start coasting because they will be "guaranteed" a spot in the tournament. It's still going to be better to get a 1 seed than a 2, a 2 than a 3, etc. Having the highest combined seeds participating in the history of the championship game is an anomaly, not an indicator of anything.
Click to expand...

The tournament itself will be damaged for all of those reasons. I think the devaluation of the regular season will be just as bad. Seeding will still matter, but not as much. Since the worst 32 teams are being eliminated right off the bat, the difference between being a #1 and a #4 will be decreased. Either way you will get a bye in into the round of 64 and either way you won't get any easy games. There will be a new 'bubble-watch' over who gets the 32 byes but I don't see that generating much interest for the paying fans.
 

I think the amount they added was just enough. I didn't have anything else going on and I watched some of the play in games those nights. If they expanded the field, there would be way too much going on IMO. Unless my team was playing I'd probably skip the whole thing until the new bracket came out after the first round.
 

This thread started off speaking about a weak “final two” and I have to agree. But I wouldn’t limit it to the final 2 or just this year. The upsets we have had the last two years have given us relatively weak Final Fours. I don’t say this to try and diminish Duke/Butler/WVU/MSU last year or the teams this year, but I came away from the 2010 tournament thinking Duke was a nice team; pretty good, but not great. And based on what we have tonight, I see the same reaction. I love the tournament (as I think we all do) and don’t want any change other than to go back to 64, but the inability of the better teams to make it through this gauntlet does leave me somewhat dissatisfied.

I understand this is widely debated, but count me as one who likes the big match-up. If we had Kansas and Kentucky last year and OSU-Kansas this year, it would have captured my attention that much more. I was excited to see some big battles this year. Even Duke, who I root against, would have made for a great spectacle. UConn-Butler does diminish my level of excitement. We will once again have a National Champion that is really good, but not great. (I know – you can argue they are great since they won it – but I don’t think their overall year supports that).

Oh well, I guess I don’t get what I want.
 

In 2010 Duke was a number 1 seed that walloped pretty much everyone that came their way.

In the final four they beat #2 seed West Viriginia by 21. I don't like Duke but that was a good team. Butler beat a #1 and #2 before catching a break and getting #5 Michigan State in the Final Four. This year they beat 1,2 and 4 in their bracket.

I guess my point is these teams make their own luck.
 

ParaBadger said:
I would re-seed because it would provide more incentive to get one of the top seeds and help maintain the integrity of the regular season, which as you later expressed is one of the main dangers of tourney expansion. I like the inclusive nature of giving lots of teams chances to become Cinderalla, but making it slightly more difficult to pull off. Likewise, I don't think it would be healthy for the game if 1 and 2 seeds were falling left and right every year, but at least make them break a sweat in that first round game with the occasional upset.
Click to expand...

It will never happen because that would make filling out brackets way too hard for the casual fan. The less casual fans filling out brackets, the less people you have watching the tourney.
 

Winnie - I agree that Duke was a very good team last year. I don't watch as much ball as I used to, so you can chalk it up to that, but last year I felt there were two clear "upper echelon" type teams; Kansas and Kentucky. This year, I saw the top teams as OSU, Kansas and Duke (once they were whole again). The point I was trying to get across is that when you don't have the best teams in the Final Four it is diminished (again, my opinion). I understand that who I saw as the best few teams these last two years is not the same as everyone else.

When you throw in what I've seen of the Final Four games this year (about 10 minutes through the final now), it only strengthens my belief that Cinderella's are fun, but I want the great teams playing for the title.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom