"March Madness"

[Bleacher Creature]

I think the regular season conference champion should get the automatic birth in the NCAA's. Other than that, I'm ready for the show to begin.

GO DAWGS and HORNS!!!

[madyaks]

Originally posted by The Kev@Feb 29 2004, 08:54 PM
I think the regular season conference champion should get the automatic birth in the NCAA's. Other than that, I'm ready for the show to begin.

GO DAWGS and HORNS!!!

I don't think there should be ANY automatic births.
Why should the winner of some crappy Conference get a birth?
Top 64 teams period.

[Bleacher Creature]

Yaks,

I respectfully disagree.

The beauty of this tourney is seeing the wide variance of teams that make it. Under your scenerio, we'd never seen #15 Hampton pull an upset, #15 Manhattan beat Oklahoma, or Southwest Mo. St beat Clemson.

[madyaks]

Well it might be "nice" to see those teams win games, but what about the better teams that don't get a shot at the title because lesser teams are let in?

[Bleacher Creature]

Then you may as well call it the battle of the major conferences.

If I had my way, no conference could land more than five teams.

[King]

Originally posted by The Kev@Feb 29 2004, 08:21 PM
Then you may as well call it the battle of the major conferences.

If I had my way, no conference could land more than five teams.

OK, here comes the first heresy of the thread, Kev:

Only regular season conference champs go.

Let's have a true national champion, and not simply crown the last team to win six games in a row.

[ironman]

I'd pay the players based on the slot the finish the touney at.

[CD]

Originally posted by madyaks@Feb 29 2004, 06:10 PM
I don't think there should be ANY automatic births.
Why should the winner of some crappy Conference get a birth?
Top 64 teams period.

I disagree with this for one very important reason:

If you did this, it would be very rare that the small conferences would ever get bids. Whatever ranking you used to determine the top 64 teams would undoubtedly include strength of schedule and they will be killed by that because of their conferences.

The only change I would make is to drop the play-in game and reduce the field of teams back to 64 instead of the 65 it currently is.

[thetorch]

Originally posted by madyaks+Feb 29 2004, 08:10 PM-->

QUOTE(madyaks @ Feb 29 2004, 08:10 PM)

[madyaks]

Only regular season conference champs go.

Great so a strong Conference like the ACC gets one entry and some weak ass Conf gets one? thats fair.
You would have conferences collapse, why would all of those teams stay in the ACC?

If you did this, it would be very rare that the small conferences would ever get bids. Whatever ranking you used to determine the top 64 teams would undoubtedly include strength of schedule and they will be killed by that because of their conferences.

Schedule better teams.


I just want the best team to win the tourney, isn't that what we are looking for in any championship?
If the winner of the Mountain West isn't as good as the 7th best team in the ACC they shouldn't be playing for a CHAMPIONSHIP.

[Fishbone]

Originally posted by thetorch+Feb 29 2004, 10:00 PM-->

QUOTE(thetorch @ Feb 29 2004, 10:00 PM)

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 08:10 PM

[Fishbone]

I'll put my foot in my mouth. That would be three more games for each team, but that won't happen. Way too many games and sites to be worked out

[CD]

Originally posted by madyaks@Feb 29 2004, 08:02 PM
Schedule better teams.

It's hard to do that when you are bound to 20-24 conference games.

[thetorch]

A couple more rounds. It would take one weeknight and a weekend. I'll grant you it will never happen but it is doable.

[Bleacher Creature]

Teams like SIU-C are in a no win situation, when it comes to improving their scheduel. The top teams in the major conferences want no part of them.