Lunardi makes a case for the smaller schools

[SelectionSunday]

Don't necessarily agree with everything he's saying here, but at least he supports his arguments with some numbers. Found especially interesting his "tournament eligible" theory (near end of column) for at-large bids, comparing it to becoming "bowl eligible" in football. Though I don't think it will ever happen, I think it's a theory that has merit. It would certainly make conference tournaments for the "big boys" much more interesting and meaningful. If you're 9-9 heading into the Big Ten or Big East tournaments (like the Gophers were this year), it would be simple. ... win that first game or you have no chance for an at-large bid.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4073000

 

[vaporboy]

Good or bad

That would eliminate some of the suspense of Selection Sunday and it makes logical sense. The problem is, not all BCS conferences are equal, i.e. SEC this past season. Also, I think comparing basketball to football is difficult to justify as there are so many fewer games. Plus, isn't there a superfluous amount of bowl games?

 

[Tater]

I actually like the tourney the way it is now. The only change I would make is minor -- I'd do four play-in games for the 16 seeds. That adds 3 more teams making it a field of 68. It gives you a full day of play-in games to wet everyone's pallet and to showcase the goofy little minor conference teams.

It also has the effect of adding three solid bubble teams most likely from strong major conferences (Penn State comes to mind this year) who deserve a 10-13 seed over some crappy team that just happened to win the horizon league (or some other crappy league).