College Basketball

[Rhom]

Well, I couldn't help but think in watching the WVU-Kentucky game that the big boys were getting outcoached. Has Calipari ever really had a good season when he didn't have great talent? And it seems like two of the last three years he's had the most talented team in the country, and failed to win a title. I can see why Kentucky would want him; he is indeed a great recruiter, and that is a huge part of winning. But once the season actually starts, I think Calipari is mediocre at best.

That's a fair knock on him... But couldn't the same be said about Roy Williams? And I think Cal did better this year in game than I expected. Huggins coached circles around him last weekend.

As to Cal and vacated wins; there's certainly concern when you consider where there's smoke there's fire. However, it must be noted that Calipari was the one who reported the Camby violation and the NCAA Clearinghouse cleared Rose to play. I would argue that both situations werw more administrative concerns at UMass and Memphis. Kentucky is much more concernrd with compliance now (in light of their history) than either of those schools.

REG, I'm not saying that Orton is remotely ready for the league... But I also wouldn't be surprised to see a team take a flyer on a 6'10" 255 lbs with an upside. With the prospect of a lockout (which I don't see happening) a player could be "stuck" at school until their junior year.

Bledsoe is likely looking at next years PG class (Irving, Knight, Selby, et al) and sees his stock dropping even with a better season. I think he is probably better off if he goes.

[Celtigo]

Well this is likely the last College Basketball season I pay attention to and the last tournament I follow:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800

Really once you add another 31 teams the entire regular season is cratered. Cornell's need to win the Ivy to get in wouldn't be an issue. After mid-January, I could've effectively tuned out. My other team, Cal, also would've had little suspense on selection Sunday, but could've strolled into the Pac-10 tournament with nary a worry. I really didn't need to see the 7th placed SEC, 9th place Big 12, and 11th place Big East team in the tournament this year. Thats what the NIT was for.

[S John]

God, I hate this with the fire of 1,000 suns for a few reasons.

First, it renders the regular season less relevant. No way around that one. What are we looking at with this format, the Big East getting 10-11 bids? The ACC pulling 7 or 8? Its absurd, if you weren't even in the top 50% of your conference you have no business in the tourney.

Second, what is the highest seed that has ever won the tourney in the current format? I don't know the answer to this, but I feel like it was something like an 8 seed. So if nobody in the bottom half of the seeding has EVER won the tournament anyway... seems like a fuckin' waste of time and energy. Truth be told, good teams, even great teams can wear out. They can have a bad night. In the current format you have to win 6 games in a row against stiff competition to win it all. Thats pretty f'in hard to do. Why water it down by making those teams play even more?

And finally, I feel like this is ultimately really going to favor teams with traditional names that didn't make the cut. I feel like this is a blatant play for more ratings by making sure that when (to use this years down powers) UNC, Arizona, or UCLA have a bad year they still score TV ratings by getting those fan bases involved. I feel like in the future we'll definitely see some teams that were laughable during the regular season waltz into the same reward as all the good teams because they have a large fan-base. If anything, I feel like this damages the image of the Cinderella mid major. It waters down their accomplishment, because we're about to have a first round chock full of them.

In my mind, the NCAA tournament has always stood out as an example of collegiate athletics done right. It was perfect the way it is. It's just right. Why can't we leave anything alone?

[Celtigo]

I should add that in addition to killing a lot of the interest in the Conference tournaments, how exactly is this new schedule going to work?

What I hadn't considered before was how well the tournament breaks down over the three weekends running Thurs-Sun on the first two. Would you play the first round of play in games (and there would likely be 32 contests) on the Tues and Weds? What about those student athletes we hear so much about and their precious book learnin' time when the spector of a College Football Playoff needs to be put down? People are also far less likely to sit around in bars, restaurants, living rooms, etc. getting drunk and watching basketball on a Tues, Weds, Thurs, Fri, Sat, and Sun night. There really the principal of diminishing marginal returns might kick in and hard. I can't see this boosting ticket sales, TV deals, and overall interest in the long run.

[Mack Kilimaro]

It's a pretty disappointing change. I think they take something with the perfect amount of drama right now and dilute it into something less. March Madness is a perfect storm right now and I think it is the perfect amount already - adding more can only take away from the goodness. I hope they change their minds. I don't think a 96-team men's tournament is going to be the "sports holiday" that it is right now.

[Brude]

There's a certain... as the French say "I don't know what"... about being able to say that your team lost to the eventual champion. So do I want WVU to win for beating Kentucky?

Meh. By that criteria I'd have to root for Michigan St., and they just bore the piss out of me. And frankly, they are becoming another Duke with all their damn winning, damn them, and I can't root for Duke.

[BLU-RAY]

Meh. By that criteria I'd have to root for Michigan St., and they just bore the piss out of me. And frankly, they are becoming another Duke with all their damn winning, damn them, and I can't root for Duke.

The reason you can't root for Duke is because they're full of preppy, private-school rich kids, not because they win. It's entirely acceptable to root for Michigan State.

[Celtigo]

The reason you can't root for Duke is because they're full of preppy, private-school rich kids, not because they win. It's entirely acceptable to root for Michigan State.

i love when Stanfurd students talk about their hatred of preppy, private-school rich kids without a hint of irony :P

[BLU-RAY]

i love when Stanfurd students talk about their hatred of preppy, private-school rich kids without a hint of irony :P

Oh, no, the reason I can get away with it is because I went to the stereotypical popped-collar, rich-ass private school that sent a bunch of kids to Duke. Entirely aware of the country club, no worries ;). In fact, I have a tough time imagining any Stanford kids talking about that sort of thing entirely devoid of irony or self-awareness; it's the sort of thing even someone who went to Cal could probably see.

But seriously, if you look at it, that kind of perception is why people root against Duke, isn't it? You don't see nearly as much vitriol for UNC, or UCLA, or Kansas, or Kentucky, or UConn, or anybody else with a successful hoops program (actually, all of those except UConn are probably historically better than Duke, but meh). It's either wealth, privilege, and obnoxiousness, or it's race, and I think it's the "fuck the snobs" mentality more than anything. ESPN being all over their nuts obviously doesn't help, but that happens to NC to some extent, as well as UK and KU, and the reaction really isn't comparable.

[Rhom]

See... I hate that my board trolling schedule is opposite from everyone else! I troll during the day when no one is around, and you guys are all here while I'm asleep!

I wrote this up for a Kentucky board that I post on, but here's my thoughts on the practicality of the expansion and just what would an expanded field look like.

ESPN.com says that the NCAA is proposing a bracket that would include 32 more teams and would incorporate a bye for the top 32 teams. Furthermore, they have stated that it would be played in the same timeframe as the current 65 team tourney. I have yet to find an article that explains it further, but from what I've seen the tournament would commence as usual and then play Tuesday - Sunday in the second week. (Which is bizarre to me.)

My question is... how would the seeding work from there? I looked at a standard 16 team region and went from there. Hopefully I can get this to sort itself in a rational way, but I looked at the 1-8 seeds getting a bye and then set up the next 16 teams with a 9 playing 24; 10 playing 23; etc.

.........1

9

24

.........8

16

17

.........6

14

19

.........4

12

22

.........3

11

21

.........5

13

20

.........7

15

18

.........2

10

23

I would presume that the current 16th seeds would likely end up as the 24th seeds under this format. (i.e. East Tennessee State et al would end up with lower seeds than the UConns, UNC's, and Arizona's that would have made the tourney this year under a 96 team field.) So essentially, a top seed like Kansas would have played a team like Northern Iowa (if a nine seed) in their very first game instead of the second round. Additionally, look at the Big East tournament this year with their dreaded "double bye" system. 3 of the 4 teams with byes ended up losing their opening game. Many people think that a bye is actually a disadvantage because of the "momentum" that the other team gets playing that opening game. I'm not old enough to remember it, but #1 DePaul famously lost their first tournament game after recieving a bye.

So if the seeding is kept as it is, the best teams are actually more likely to face tougher competition in their first game than they would have under the old system. 16 seeds are famously 0-110 (or something like that) but top seeds could very conceivably lose early in this format.

There are plenty of reasons for the NCAA to expand the tournament, unfortunately none of them have to do with basketball.

[Maithanet]

My question is... how would the seeding work from there? I looked at a standard 16 team region and went from there. Hopefully I can get this to sort itself in a rational way, but I looked at the 1-8 seeds getting a bye and then set up the next 16 teams with a 9 playing 24; 10 playing 23; etc.

.........1

9

24

.........8

16

17

I'm fairly certain that the top of the bracket will go like this:

.........1

16

17

.........8

9

24

Because otherwise the 1 seed would very likely play the 9 seed in the round of 64, which is a much harder game than before (where they would play the 16 seed).

I agree that the current 16 seeds will become 24 seeds. Which is super lame. Now the 16/17 seed winner will get the 1 seed. The 16/17th seed will probably be some at large team, like 10th in the Big East against some second tier mid-major team, like NIT champs Dayton. The winner of this game will have a MUCH better chance of knocking off the 1 seed than before. Not that it's likely, but it is certainly possible, since these will be big name schools with the talent to spring an upset.

But the real problem is, why would we care? If 16 seed Providence beats 1 seeded Duke, is that even special? We've all seen mediocre teams from Power Conferences beat really good teams before. I was really excited when South Carolina beat Kentucky, but I wasn't going to lie to myself and say such a win was "almost unthinkable". It was entirely believable; South Carolina wasn't as good a team, but that day they obviously had the tools and matchups to win. It carries none of the excitement like when Holy Cross almost (maybe almost) beat Kansas in 2003.

Terrible terrible terrible decision. The regular season is worse. The tournament is less exciting. And it's longer. Awesome. I'm sure there are plenty of sports fans who say that sports seasons these days just aren't long enough. Look at the MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS, and you see seasons that are just too short. Thank god College basketball is listening to their fans.

Terrible.

[Rhom]

Because otherwise the 1 seed would very likely play the 9 seed in the round of 64, which is a much harder game than before (where they would play the 16 seed).

I agree that the current 16 seeds will become 24 seeds. Which is super lame. Now the 16/17 seed winner will get the 1 seed. The 16/17th seed will probably be some at large team, like 10th in the Big East against some second tier mid-major team, like NIT champs Dayton. The winner of this game will have a MUCH better chance of knocking off the 1 seed than before. Not that it's likely, but it is certainly possible, since these will be big name schools with the talent to spring an upset.

That's one option. Another one I got to thinking about would be if we switched up the paradigm for that first round and had 23 play 24 and go on to play number 1 and so on and so forth until 9 plays 10 to play number 8. It would basically make it a series of play-in games.

But the real problem is, why would we care? If 16 seed Providence beats 1 seeded Duke, is that even special? We've all seen mediocre teams from Power Conferences beat really good teams before. I was really excited when South Carolina beat Kentucky, but I wasn't going to lie to myself and say such a win was "almost unthinkable". It was entirely believable; South Carolina wasn't as good a team, but that day they obviously had the tools and matchups to win. It carries none of the excitement like when Holy Cross almost (maybe almost) beat Kansas in 2003.

I agree. It really takes away a lot of the glamour of the tournament. Some of that might be able to be preserved in the other option I just mentioned.

Terrible terrible terrible decision. The regular season is worse. The tournament is less exciting. And it's longer. Awesome.

Hrmmmm... I agree that the tournament expanding is a bad thing for the regular season. Its an even worse thing for the conference tournaments. Why bother having them as a power conference if over half of your conference is almost assured a slot in the tournament. If this does go to a 96 team field, I would be in favor of guaranteeing conference regular season winners who don't win their tourney a spot in the dance. Some years it would have no effect on the field and at worst, you end up with two teams from the Colonial Athletic Conference or the Ohio Valley Conference.

I'm sure there are plenty of sports fans who say that sports seasons these days just aren't long enough. Look at the MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS, and you see seasons that are just too short. Thank god College basketball is listening to their fans.

Terrible.

But I couldn't disagree more with this. I don't think there is any upswelling of fans who are clamoring for an extended regular season in any of these sports. Look at the empty basketball arenas and baseball stadiums across the country. In fact, just yesterday I heard Jerry West on ESPN radio talking about how the NBA season is too long for many fans and its why several NBA teams are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. He points out that an NFL fan has 8 home games to buy tickets to, but NBA fans have 41 and baseball have 82 home games!!! I don't mean to get off topic, but the length of the regular season in pro sports isn't a problem. The NBA's big problem is that almost half of their teams make the post season and the playoffs take almost two full months to play out.

[Maithanet]

But I couldn't disagree more with this. I don't think there is any upswelling of fans who are clamoring for an extended regular season in any of these sports. Look at the empty basketball arenas and baseball stadiums across the country. In fact, just yesterday I heard Jerry West on ESPN radio talking about how the NBA season is too long for many fans and its why several NBA teams are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. He points out that an NFL fan has 8 home games to buy tickets to, but NBA fans have 41 and baseball have 82 home games!!! I don't mean to get off topic, but the length of the regular season in pro sports isn't a problem. The NBA's big problem is that almost half of their teams make the post season and the playoffs take almost two full months to play out.

I was being sarcastic. The only sport that anyone wants to get longer is the NFL, which is why I didn't include that one. I guess I need to use one of these, :rolleyes: , but the truth is I hate emoticons.

[Rhom]

I was being sarcastic. The only sport that anyone wants to get longer is the NFL, which is why I didn't include that one. I guess I need to use one of these, :rolleyes: , but the truth is I hate emoticons.

:rofl:

My apologies. It went entirely over my head.

[Rhom]

I saw a proposed bracket for the expansion of the tournament while watching ESPNU at home during lunch. Apparently, they would have the 16/17 seeds play against each other to face the 1.

Which is all fine and good, with the exception that the 16/17 seeds in the new tournament would likely be more equivalent to a 12 or 13 seed as they are currently seeded. Lets be honest... the 8 seeds that currently make up the 15th and 16th seeds will be the new 23s and 24s. So by adding these teams and giving a bye game, they are making the opening game significantly more difficult for the top teams.

[RedEyedGhost]

I'm not a fan of the tourney expansion especially this bit (same article as linked above):

The first-round games for the 64 non-bye teams would take place on Thursday and Friday, with the winners playing the top eight seeds in each region on Saturday and Sunday. Winners on Saturday would likely play again on Tuesday, and the Sunday winners on Wednesday.

Those winners would then move on to the regionals, playing alternate days starting on Thursday. Shaheen said the NCAA hasn't decided on whether to keep the same sites for second and first-round games or to make the midweek sites the same as the regionals.

I hope they change their minds. I don't think a 96-team men's tournament is going to be the "sports holiday" that it is right now.

How could it when the "first weekend" will now take an entire week to play, and rolls straight into the second weekend with only Monday as the day off from the tourney.

Plus you don't get as good of quality games that first Thursday and Friday, so people won't be nearly as inclined to play hooky those days... Then we'd have our normal Saturday/Sunday matchups on Tuesday and Wednesday? This is a terrible idea.

Luckily it's not official yet:

Although the plan still needs to be approved by the Division I Men's Basketball Committee and passed on to the board of directors, most of the details already seem to be in place.

But with this being all about $$$$$, and a "board of directors" voting on it I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

[Brude]

Adding another round is just like the current situation where they have one or two play-in games right? Only it would be more formalized and that first round would play for positions into what is now the 9-16 positions, right?

The reason you can't root for Duke is because they're full of preppy, private-school rich kids, not because they win. It's entirely acceptable to root for Michigan State.

i love when Stanfurd students talk about their hatred of preppy, private-school rich kids without a hint of irony :P

It's not about that for me. I went to the most expensive damn college in America, and about 1/2 of my friends from there are preppy (or artsy) private-school rich kids.

It's just more that I'm a Maryland fan (cause my school only had equestrian, crew and badminton teams), and the damn Dukie fans are always such dicks about the fact that they've been more successful...and they have. Like I said, they're like the Yankees, which when you are a fan of an other AL East team (the Orioles n my case) is especially annoying (though I understand the Orioles were just as annoying to everyone else during their late 1960's to mid 1980's years of dominance).

[aeu]

I'm not a fan of the tourney expansion especially this bit (same article as linked above):

How could it when the "first weekend" will now take an entire week to play, and rolls straight into the second weekend with only Monday as the day off from the tourney.

Plus you don't get as good of quality games that first Thursday and Friday, so people won't be nearly as inclined to play hooky those days... Then we'd have our normal Saturday/Sunday matchups on Tuesday and Wednesday? This is a terrible idea.

Luckily it's not official yet:

But with this being all about $$$$$, and a "board of directors" voting on it I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

That is pretty stupid. If anything, they should start the tournament with the 32 "play-in" games on a Tuesday / Wednesday, then go on to play the same schedule as before.