March Madness: Would you rather have......................
SanctionII
Posts: 12,120 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
.......................................:
1. an expanded tournament (68, 96, 128 or more teams) where "parity" results in Championship games like the lousy game played last night; or
2. a reduced tournament (64, 48 or even 32 teams) where only the best get to play and thus you have a better chance of having the Championship game being played between teams with the highest level of talent?
It is unfortunate that the college game is changing to where all of the superstar, NBA level talent, is gone after one year and the quality of play is less than it was when superstar players would stick around 2-4 years.
1. an expanded tournament (68, 96, 128 or more teams) where "parity" results in Championship games like the lousy game played last night; or
2. a reduced tournament (64, 48 or even 32 teams) where only the best get to play and thus you have a better chance of having the Championship game being played between teams with the highest level of talent?
It is unfortunate that the college game is changing to where all of the superstar, NBA level talent, is gone after one year and the quality of play is less than it was when superstar players would stick around 2-4 years.
0
Comments
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>.......................................:
1. an expanded tournament (68, 96, 128 or more teams) where "parity" results in Championship games like the lousy game played last night; or
2. a reduced tournament (64, 48 or even 32 teams) where only the best get to play and thus you have a better chance of having the Championship game being played between teams with the highest level of talent?
It is unfortunate that the college game is changing to where all of the superstar, NBA level talent, is gone after one year and the quality of play is less than it was when superstar players would stick around 2-4 years. >>
I don't mind keeping it at 64 teams but I would:
A) Require conferences give their automatic bids to their regular season champions not their tournament champions
C) Require that teams play at least 1/3 of their non-conference schedule on the road. Neutral site games would count toward the 1/3 only if at least 250 miles away from home.
D) Institute a rule stating no conference can send more than half its teams to the tournament
E) Publish the actual seeding of the teams from 1-64
F) Eliminate the four play-in games
G) Institute an internal audit as to why, year after year, a BCS team is "on the bubble" of making the tournament - yet somehow ends up as a 9 or 10 seed instead of the guaranteed one-and-done of a #15 or #16.
Tabe
It's laughable the basketball teams can play 5-8 more games than they did 5-10 years ago, yet football can't add a playoff system "because the student-athletes will miss too much school time". Such a joke. I'm so glad that Fiesta Bowl scumbag got caught, and the $500k salaries of these "bowl CEOs" has come to light. Hopefully, a football playoff is around the corner.
<< <i>Institute an internal audit as to why, year after year, a BCS team is "on the bubble" of making the tournament - yet somehow ends up as a 9 or 10 seed instead of the guaranteed one-and-done of a #15 or #16.
Tabe >>
The champions from the very weak conferences (i.e. the NEC, SWAC, America East, etc.) alway get those high seeds. The last at-large teams in are always #11 or #12 seeds.