The Field of 68 (as currently constructed) is stupid

Donate To GopherHole
dpodoll68

dpodoll68

Elite Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
19,283
Reaction score
894
Points
113
I brought this up when the expansion to 68 was first announced, and no one really seemed to want to discuss it. I'll try bringing it up again now.

I'd love to hear one good explanation as to why it makes any sense that VCU, an 11 seed, must win 7 games to win the title, while, for example, Richmond, a 12 seed, must win only 6. It goes entirely against any and all rules of tournaments, brackets, and logic.

And don't give me the "had to have better games for the play-ins on Tuesday and Wednesday" excuse either. I'm sure the ratings were much higher for USC/VCU than they would have been for a riveting Long Island/Hampton tilt.

You can still have 68 teams, but the only logical course is to have 8 16 seeds who play each other on Tuesday and Wednesday. There are always at least 8 teams who don't really belong there. Make them earn their way in.
 


I couldn't agree more. I've never understood this.

To spin it slightly, why should a 5-seed like West Virginia and a lame 6-seed like Georgetown get to play a team that's had to play an extra game already? It's a significant advantage for them to play anyone who had to play an extra game, much less Clemson and VCU who have 36-48 hours in between games, with travel necessary. And I don't understand why these teams should have a better chance to win their first game than the other teams at their seed lines and the higher seeds above them.

The last four in aren't going to win the title anyways - if they're truly the last four in, I think they also deserve 16-seeds and the chance to play their way into a game against a top seed. You never know - that might add more intrigue to the 1/16 games too.

Doesn't make any sense at all. But life isn't fair, as we Gopher fans know all too well.
 

Current config

The current config just plain sucks.

Money talks.

:(
 

The only justification is that Richmond won an automatic birth, VCU did not. But the current format of 2 play-ins for at-large and 2 for automatic bids is dumb. Either have all 4 games be for the last 4 at-large births or all 4 be for the #16 seeds. The current format is not 'unfair' just silly.
 


Not a big fan of the format, wish they would just go back to 64 (not gonna' happen), but am still grateful the leap wasn't made to 96.

I actually think it can work both ways. Even with the travel for Clemson & VCU, it can be a disadvantage for West Virginia and Georgetown. They're forced to play teams pretty similar in ability (the point spreads will reflect this) that already have some tournament feel & confidence after getting a game under their belts. It's similar to the second day of conference tournaments, when lower-seeded teams that played the day before (i.e. Michigan State, Penn State) get some mojo going vs. higher-seeded teams that didn't play the first day (i.e. Purdue, Bucky). I think it's the 3rd game where you start to see a cumulative (tiring) impact on the team that played the extra game.
 

It's stupid, confusing, unbalanced, distracting, unfair, and oh yeah.....more tv money.
 

As you said SS, I'm curious as to how the games between Clemson-West Virginia and VCU-Georgetown go. Not only do those two play-in at larges have their feet wet in the tourney and have beat a competitive team (well, at least in VCU's case), but it's also been awhile since their true first round competition played-eights days for West Virginia, nine days for Georgetown. You could expect Clemson & VCU to be sharper, at least early in the game, than those two opponents.

But if they get past those teams? You would expect the Saturday/Sunday game to be a killer for them.
 

Two of the play-in games involve the four "worst" automatic berth teams (UNC-Ashville, Arkansas-Little Rock, Texas-San Antonio, Alabama State).

The other two play-in games involve the four "worst" at-large berth teams (VCU, USC, Clemson, UAB). Theoretically, NONE of these four would have made the Field of 65 last year, so the argument is they are given a chance this year in a Field of 68.


Clearly, I'm in the minority, but including the last four at-large teams makes Tuesday "somewhat" interesting. Had it simply been a matchup of the eight worst, little-known schools then no one would care (again, I realize not many did even with the more "name" schools involved).
 




I too am not a fan of the current changes. Unsure why the four play in games aren't to play in for the four 16 spots. Go back to 64 teams.
 

I know this isn't necessarily the most important thing, but is there anyone who actually likes the new format better, or the idea of a 96 team tournament? I have not heard one person say it's a good idea. I know it's all about revenue and what not, just saying.
 

If they did go to 4 games for the 16s, it would only be a matter of time before a number 1 went down in the first round.
 



GopherFan75 said:
I know this isn't necessarily the most important thing, but is there anyone who actually likes the new format better, or the idea of a 96 team tournament? I have not heard one person say it's a good idea. I know it's all about revenue and what not, just saying.
Click to expand...

Teams 66-68
 


MotherNight said:
If they did go to 4 games for the 16s, it would only be a matter of time before a number 1 went down in the first round.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. All you're doing is taking 4 crap 16 seeds and turning them into 8 crap 16 seeds.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Doubtful. All you're doing is taking 4 crap 16 seeds and turning them into 8 crap 16 seeds.
Click to expand...

Well, you'd really be lumping the current 15s in with the 16s, and 15s have won four times so I think its fair to say a one seed would be more likely to lose.
 

z-stein said:
Well, you'd really be lumping the current 15s in with the 16s, and 15s have won four times so I think its fair to say a one seed would be more likely to lose.
Click to expand...

More likely, yes, but all of those 15 seeds beat 2 seeds, not 1 seeds.
 

I guess we disagree. There have already been 2 1 pt loses and an overtime game for the 16 seed during the previous format. Theoretically the worst 1 would play the current best 15. I'm not saying it's super likely, but it would happen eventually.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I brought this up when the expansion to 68 was first announced, and no one really seemed to want to discuss it. I'll try bringing it up again now.

I'd love to hear one good explanation as to why it makes any sense that VCU, an 11 seed, must win 7 games to win the title, while, for example, Richmond, a 12 seed, must win only 6. It goes entirely against any and all rules of tournaments, brackets, and logic.

And don't give me the "had to have better games for the play-ins on Tuesday and Wednesday" excuse either. I'm sure the ratings were much higher for USC/VCU than they would have been for a riveting Long Island/Hampton tilt.

You can still have 68 teams, but the only logical course is to have 8 16 seeds who play each other on Tuesday and Wednesday. There are always at least 8 teams who don't really belong there. Make them earn their way in.
Click to expand...
It is dumb.
The 16 seeds all decided by 4 play in games. The purpose of expansion I thought was to get more teams into the tourney that deserved it and to create better competition. The thing I was going to like about the expansion is that all those 12-5 upsets were now 13's. All those 13 upsets were now 14s. The few 14 upsets were now 15s. The very very rare 15 upsets were now 16s. It was supposed to (and would) have make first round games better if done right. If Clemson was really supposed to be a better team than the 13 seeds, then you can't make them play more games than the 13 seeds. Just dumb.
 

Ultimately it is a compromise between the Have's and the Have not's. It is no surprise that here in the "Have's" land we dislike the bubble teams playing an extra game (even more so since Minnesota has a history of possibly landing there). On the flip side fans of the smaller leagues don't want to be forced to play an extra game either. So back to my original point...it is a compromise.
 

It's easy to see the conspiracy. We're SUPPOSED to hate the new format so that we're practically begging for a 96-team field in a few years. We're a bunch of sheep, you know.

People will do some pretty stupid things for money or addiction - or addiction to money. All any addict needs is just a little bit more...and then a little more...etc. They can't be happy with what they got, because they could have more! Why would you be happy with what you got, when you can have more?!? Ironically, the people (or institutions) with a lot of money are the most covetous, most greedy. You see that in the NFL situation. I don't think most of us can identify with that level of greed because we can't relate to that level of wealth. It's beyond our experience.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I brought this up when the expansion to 68 was first announced, and no one really seemed to want to discuss it. I'll try bringing it up again now.

I'd love to hear one good explanation as to why it makes any sense that VCU, an 11 seed, must win 7 games to win the title, while, for example, Richmond, a 12 seed, must win only 6. It goes entirely against any and all rules of tournaments, brackets, and logic.

And don't give me the "had to have better games for the play-ins on Tuesday and Wednesday" excuse either. I'm sure the ratings were much higher for USC/VCU than they would have been for a riveting Long Island/Hampton tilt.

You can still have 68 teams, but the only logical course is to have 8 16 seeds who play each other on Tuesday and Wednesday. There are always at least 8 teams who don't really belong there. Make them earn their way in.
Click to expand...

For once I agree with you 110%...

It is totally stupid...
 

Bad Gopher said:
It's easy to see the conspiracy. We're SUPPOSED to hate the new format so that we're practically begging for a 96-team field in a few years. We're a bunch of sheep, you know.

People will do some pretty stupid things for money or addiction - or addiction to money. All any addict needs is just a little bit more...and then a little more...etc. They can't be happy with what they got, because they could have more! Why would you be happy with what you got, when you can have more?!? Ironically, the people (or institutions) with a lot of money are the most covetous, most greedy. You see that in the NFL situation. I don't think most of us can identify with that level of greed because we can't relate to that level of wealth. It's beyond our experience.
Click to expand...

I don't mean being a sheep when it is the right shepherd. The only shepherds we have are ones that care for their own needs and not the sheep.

My conspiracy theory was that they put UAB and Clemson in tournament and omitted more worthy teams like Colorado and VT (sorry, VCU deserved it) to show that in 68, there are just not enough slots for all the "quality" teams we have. They want us to beg for 96, even though there was an uproar last year when they floated the balloon. Expanding to 96 will increase TV revenue, but will turn away the casual fan who puts together a bracket of 64. 96 is unmanageble and impossible to effectively put on one 8 1/2 x 11 page. They will have more money and fewer people interested. I would hate to see it go the way of our high school state basketball tournaments, with games everywhere that few people outside the participating schools attend.

68 is stupid, but it is better than 96. It will keep me because I love the game. But it will send the March only people away. Even 68 is confusing. My office staff could not even come up with a pool this year.
 

People still do paper brackets? With almost all brackets being online now I'd think 96 teams would be almost no problem at all for bracket pools.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom