College Basketball Invitational

[Dane Pound]

There's an interesting thread on the Siena board along the same lines.

 

Personally I am sick to death of "bubble teams" complaining this time of year. The NCAA touney is in part about determining the national champion. I don't think any of the bubble teams can make a case for being national champhionship contenders so it's no travesty if they're left out. If they wanted to assure themselves of being in they should have won their conference tourney - that's really where March Madness starts. Everyone has a chance there, just win your games then and take the selection comittee right out of it. If you lose there you shouldn't complain later on.

[UA_MA_2000]

There's an interesting thread on the Siena board along the same lines.

 

Personally I am sick to death of "bubble teams" complaining this time of year. The NCAA touney is in part about determining the national champion. I don't think any of the bubble teams can make a case for being national champhionship contenders so it's no travesty if they're left out. If they wanted to assure themselves of being in they should have won their conference tourney - that's really where March Madness starts. Everyone has a chance there, just win your games then and take the selection comittee right out of it. If you lose there you shouldn't complain later on.

 

I agree!

[UA_MA_2000]

This post is directed more towards those who might oppose another basketball tournament (i.e., CBI):

 

What is everyone's thought as to whether an analogy can be made between college football's bowl games and the extra tournament -- the CBI -- now in play? Seems to me that many of the bowl games are equally as useless, although they spark fan's interest (even if only marginal in the smaller bowl games) and generate some money. If the CBI Tournament can do the same thing -- generate fans' interest on campus (since the games are played at the higher seeded team's arena) and generate some money (so as to at least exceed operating costs for the home team), how is the CBI Tournament any worse than all the bowl games in NCAA football?

 

Another benefit to the bowl games and teams selected to play in the CBI, although to a lesser extent for teams selected to play in the CBI, is that teams get to practice more and play another game. Of course, this has more of an impact in college football where there can be 3-4 weeks before the bowl game is played.

[KingDane]

Said differently, the additional teams playing the play-in games would not be bubble teams -- they would be the teams from smaller conferences who already earned automatic bids! Make the bubble teams play the play-in games, not the automatic qualifiers; however, that is not how it works because the bubble teams compete for the 34 at-large bids.

.

 

 

Not true. Small conference winners would become the three additional play-in games. Three slots would open for bubble teams.

 

I'm not saying I like the thought of 3 more play in games. I'm just surprised the NCAA hasn't seen this as an easy revenue producing expansion.

[S-money]

Said differently, the additional teams playing the play-in games would not be bubble teams -- they would be the teams from smaller conferences who already earned automatic bids! Make the bubble teams play the play-in games, not the automatic qualifiers; however, that is not how it works because the bubble teams compete for the 34 at-large bids.

.

 

 

Not true. Small conference winners would become the three additional play-in games. Three slots would open for bubble teams.

 

I'm not saying I like the thought of 3 more play in games. I'm just surprised the NCAA hasn't seen this as an easy revenue producing expansion.

 

I think UA_MA was saying that it should be the bubble teams that get the play-in games. But what would happen, as you say King Dane, is that the small conference winners would of course end up in the play-in games.

 

Personally, I'm old fashioned and think it should be 64 teams with the regular season winners in the Big Dance and the conference tourney winner getting the guaranteed NIT bid. That brings the best, though not necessarily the hottest, teams into The Tournament. I always had a problem with a team carrying a losing record being able to make it into the field of 65.

 

Happy bracket-filling,

S$

[UA_MA_2000]

Said differently, the additional teams playing the play-in games would not be bubble teams -- they would be the teams from smaller conferences who already earned automatic bids! Make the bubble teams play the play-in games, not the automatic qualifiers; however, that is not how it works because the bubble teams compete for the 34 at-large bids.

.

 

 

Not true. Small conference winners would become the three additional play-in games. Three slots would open for bubble teams.

 

I'm not saying I like the thought of 3 more play in games. I'm just surprised the NCAA hasn't seen this as an easy revenue producing expansion.

 

Kingdane:

I think we said the same thing -- I agree with you completely, and that's what I tried to convey (though perhaps not very well). Increasing the number of play-in games would ultimately hurt smaller conference winners (the automatic qualifiers) since these small-conference winners (i.e., America East, NEC, MAAC, Summit, and so forth) would ultimately have to play the Tuesday play-in game just to get into the field of 64.

 

S-Money:

And I also agree that it would be nice if the bubble teams (Arizona State, Va. Tech, etc.) had to play the play-in games to get into the field of 64.