Butler is in!!! 68 team bracketology (merged thread) | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Butler is in!!! 68 team bracketology (merged thread)

uconnfan68 said:
If UConn wasn’t there, I wasn’t paying much attention. I am now.
Expand ...
Happened in 2018, to UMBC. UVa won the Championship the next season, so that took quite a bit of the sting out of the infamy of being the first #1 seed to lose in the first round.
 
With the additional four teams, one thing for certain, there will always be another four teams that are "deserving to be in the tournament".
 
.-.
If this signals parity in the facilities and treatment of female athletes at the tournament, I'm fine with it. The number isn't likely to change in the future unless it's a desirable change for the men.
 
cohenzone said:
Only one team per conference the conference champ. The ACC was the only conference to have a post season tournament and their tournament champ got in, so if the season champ didn’t win their tourney, they were out of luck. It’s why the NIT was prestigious. Really good teams got in and once in a while a team preferred to play in the NIT in MSG. UConn got in my first two years and then the NCAA dropped the Yancon automatic bididv, which was an insult because UConn had played well those two years including beating your heavily favored Bill Bradley team my freshman year when Dom Perno sealed the win by stealing the ball from Bradley. In fact they used to play a consolation game in the Final Four and I’m pretty sure Bradley set the tournament one game scoring record one of his years in the consolation game. He was a great college player.

There was a near riot in Storrs my junior year when UConn won the Yancon, was snubbed by the NCAA for one of the few at large bids after two years of solid play in the tournament and an invitation to the NIT was rejected by Athletic Director J.O. Christian because he felt UConn owed allegiance to the NCAA which had screwed the Yancon. He was hanged in effigy at a rally outside the Fieldhouse.
Expand ...
Yes, there was a consolation game for third place. Princeton killed Wichita State. Bradley was named the tournament Most Outstanding Player. IIRC, yes, he set the one-game scoring record in this consolation game, in the 50's.
 
JordyG said:
Sure the talent pool in WCBB barely warrants 32 teams. But heck, this will be the first and only opportunity for some of these young women to look back and say "Yeah, we played (UConn, SCar, Stanford etc) in the big tourney, and I scored 10 points". Or even, "Yeah I played in the tourney". Isn't that worth it?
Expand ...
I am all for expanding the tourney to 68 teams. As you are. But this week I was watching a replay of the DePaul vs. #24 Texas A&M game, and I was disheartened by how poorly the teams played. The talent difference between UConn and most of WCBB is jarring. It will be interesting to see the UConn vs. DePaul game in late December. I hope DePaul plays better.
 
There's probably not a lot of difference between the bottom 8 tournament seeds. All it means is the 16th and 17th seeds will play an extra game for the right to play the #1 regional seeds.
 
Don't agree with the expansion to 68 teams. These two games will be played in empty arenas.

The top 16 seeds will host first- and second-round games. For the 2022 tournament, the four new opening-round games will be held at four of those 16 sites. Starting in 2023, the opening round will be held at a neutral site to be determined.

Is there a mistake in the above paragraph as there should only be two sites that would host these playoff games?

Fans of a team that is hosting these two playoff games will have no reason to attend the game which was scheduled at the last minute.. I understand that that it might be easier to travel to a site where they will play their next game if they win. However, like I wrote they will play to an empty arena unless tickets are free.
 
.-.
I would like to see the committee select only teams from Mid Major Conferences for these play-in games. Instead what will probably happen they'll end up selecting a team(s) that have losing conference records.
 
Wbbfan1 said:
Is there a mistake in the above paragraph as there should only be two sites that would host these playoff games?
Expand ...
In order to get the new "second round" down to a balanced bracket of 64, the bottom 8 teams will need to play a preliminary round to cut the 68 teams down to 64.
 
I like Iowa as #2 seed in our region. Assuming Caitlin and Paige play and dominate WCBB like last year, alot of effort to get them to play a rematch.
 
It certainly didn’t take ESPN very long to whip up a 68 team bracket. It’s still too early for these things, but Stanford falling to a 2-seed seems appropriate.
 
jdubct said:
There's probably not a lot of difference between the bottom 8 tournament seeds. All it means is the 16th and 17th seeds will play an extra game for the right to play the #1 regional seeds.
Expand ...
Not necessarily. A lot of times they play into the 11th seed.
 
.-.
More teams in the NCAA tournament might lead to better
recruitment at the extra teams, good for possible more
quality play at more schools. Everyone has a better chance
to get to the BIG DANCE......... Let's promote more dancers!!
A nice dream to make to the BIG DANCE, and then lose to UCONN!
 
meyers7 said:
Not necessarily. A lot of times they play into the 11th seed.
Expand ...
Two of the play-in games will be between the last 4 bubble teams who got in (usually 11 or 12 seeds).

The other two play-in games will be between the bottom 4 teams (65-68) in the entire bracket, i.e., the worst four of the automatic qualifiers and seeded #16.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,351
Messages
4,566,676
Members
10,469
Latest member
xxBlueChips


Top Bottom