Double-bye option

[meyers7]

I don't like it because I'd rather see UCONN play more games.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I don't like it because I'd rather see UCONN play more games.

But that's just your opinion. All the other teams want to see UConn play less games.

 

[meyers7]

But that's just your opinion. All the other teams want to see UConn play less games.

That's their problem.

 

[geordi]

There is no need for a double bye format. Remember, in effect, we don't have 64 teams in the tournament, we have a couple of hundred. The tournament effectively starts with the conference tournaments. You've got to perform there to make it to the next level; so there is opportunity there for closer games and advancement. The next level is just an extention of the entire process. A double bye, in my opinion, just makes it harder for good teams to move ahead and provides an greater opportunity for not so good teams to upset someone. Is that what we really want? Parity? Everybody feeling good about themselves? This kind of thought process smacks to me of taking a kid's soccer or basketball team that loses every game, finishes last in their league and giving all the kids trophies. The tournament isn't about making everyone feel good, it's to find a champion. What's the next option? The final 2 playing 4 out of 7?

 

[Icebear]

I think many of those teams would rather have a chance to play a top flight team than another game against someone they might well have had a chance to play in the regular winning a game against any old team in the tournament wouldn't interest me at all as a player I would have wanted a shot against the best whatever the outcome would be. More fun to tell your kids or grandkids about the time that you played UCONN the year they won the championship rather than we beat Ball State.

But I think they would now get the chance to actually win a tournament game before being crushed in the wake of one of the legendary programs.

 

[pinotbear]

. More fun to tell your kids or grandkids about the time that you played UCONN the year they won the championship rather than we beat Ball State.

or, not...

 

[chrissaran]

The first round games for the top teams aren't even close. Let the lower play what they have referred to as a play-in game. Hopefully the better teams win and will give the top teams some competition. Better than the blowouts that are over in the first five minutes.

 

[cabbie191]

More fun to tell your kids or grandkids about the time that you played UCONN the year they won the championship rather than we beat Ball State.

It was probably about 15 years ago, during one of UConn's NC years, when a friend of mine from our little city in Wisconsin had a daughter playing at a Ball State type of school (not remembering what the school's name is right now) and they had a home game against UConn. Mel went to the game and afterward I asked him how Sarah and her teammates felt about their experience. He said the team was exhilarated - before the game, the team huddled with their coach and set a goal - to lose by less than 50. As I recall, they lost by 46 or 47 so they were happy to have met their goal for the night, and as so many other teams have been quoted during the years, found it very valuable to play a premier school, see how they practiced, etc.

 

[Icebear]

It was probably about 15 years ago, during one of UConn's NC years, when a friend of mine from our little city in Wisconsin had a daughter playing at a Ball State type of school (not remembering what the school's name is right now) and they had a home game against UConn. Mel went to the game and afterward I asked him how Sarah and her teammates felt about their experience. He said the team was exhilarated - before the game, the team huddled with their coach and set a goal - to lose by less than 50. As I recall, they lost by 46 or 47 so they were happy to have met their goal for the night, and as so many other teams have been quoted during the years, found it very valuable to play a premier school, see how they practiced, etc.

Exactly.

 

[UcMiami]

Let me be clear - I have no problem watching Uconn romp through the first two games of the current format - I enjoy watching blow-outs, no stress and usually some really good basketball played by one team, and a chance to see some of the bench play extended minutes. And I would agree that some teams really enjoy the experience of being beaten up by Uconn; others, not so much!
But ...
If the idea is to increase casual fan support for the game, I do think looking at ways to help lesser teams build fan support is good - and some adjustment to the format of the tournament might help. The idea would be to create fewer blow-outs and to extend some home games to a lower level of team without penalizing the top teams.
I don't like the idea of creating a two tier system of conferences where some conference champs are guaranteed a place and others are not - all you need to do is look at the chaos that created in CFB and in conference alignments to make that unattractive. And if you guarantee the 31 conference that means you are including in the field what end up being the 16 to 20 weakest participants that have no chance of winning it all and little chance of advancing beyond round 1.
Some form of play-in round/double round for the bottom of the field seems worth of consideration.
Another change I would like to see is the return of the 4th game of the final four - the losers of the semi-finals playing for 3rd place. Those are usually very good teams and arguably many years the second best team in the country has lost in the semis. Be nice to see that game.

 

[Dawgs Bite]

I don't know if i has been suggested before but I am intrigued by the idea of expanding the NCAA Tourney to 96 teams. The first 32 get a buy. The middle group plays the bottom 32 to fill the 64 team field as it is now. I can see more revenue as everyone still plays 6 games with the bottom 64 having to play 7. More schools get to play in the tourney which IMHO will create a wider fan base. Chances are the students, parents, etc. of the let's say 85th ranked team in the country have never attended any type of playoff or tournament game. They well may go see their school or their kids team play providing for a chance to maybe develop more interest in the game.

 

[Phil]

I don't believe there is any serious consideration of expansion. If anything there is a possibility of contraction. There has been some sentiment expressed that the field should be contracted to 48 or 52. (See page 42 of the White Paper). Val Ackerman has not endorsed this reduction; I don't think there will be a reduction, but the chance of expansion is virtually zero at this point.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Now you know that you will be slammed for a 96 team idea with the quality of play for the bottom 64 not being so hot, but this is the day of equality and freedom of thought, so why not?

WNIT maybe bows out, but the second tier of 64 teams get a chance to slug it out on a more equal basis before they start their competition against the top 32 teams. Yes, that is maybe 30% of the total teams at 96, but so what, with FB teams getting to play in mindlessly concussed bowl games with 6-6 records, why not let a few of those bubble teams with 20+ wins or top 10 SOS's get in the fray. We already have teams with losing records getting into the tourney, and this way UConn still gets to play 6 games (meyers7 seal of approval there), there are competitive first round play-in games where the South Southwest of Southeast champion doesn't have to get blown out by 100+ points in their first tourney game, and 32 more games are available to the ESPN chow down. And for those who say that getting blown out by UConn by 100+ points is a great honor, this just means a team has to win one more game to get that reward.