March Madness Thread

[Derwood]

The coverage ASU was getting in the local Phoenix news was ridiculous - main news story on every local news station and the lead story of their newspaper. They didn't belong compared to Arizona and Oregon though they did have a case compared to a few of the teams that did get in (Baylor). Sucks that that over-the-back call against USC came back to haunt them.

 

 

i mean, maybe they got screwed, but they'd lose in the first or second round anyway. that's why i really don't feel too bad for bubble teams that don't get in.

 

which is why two bubble teams should have to play the tuesday play-in game to get in as the 12 seed or something

 

Yeah, they just said that on Mike and Mike.

 

What do you guys think about Bobby Knights idea of having 128 teams? It is just one more game.

 

no way to 128 teams. I don't need to see the 4th place team from the Sun belt get in. Ha ha ha, who am I kidding? The Sun Belt would still only get one team in while the entire Big East and ACC would get in twice

[Exile on Waveland]

I got Duke out in the second round to the winner of Zona/WVU. Texas winning it all and Clemson tentatively in the final game. 1,3,5,3,4,2,1,10 in the elite eight

Zona is a nightmare. They either get beat right away or go crazy and get to UCLA. I always hate having to deal with them in the tourny bracket I do.

 

Im thinking if I take Zona in the first game it'll be to the elite eight, WVU to the Sweet 16. I just don't have any confidence in Duke right now.

 

I plan on having the West Virginia-Arizona winner take down Duke. I'm not impressed at all with Duke right now. The trouble is, I don't know who to take in the 7-10 game. I'm definitely leaning towards West Virginia, though.

[abuck1220]

The coverage ASU was getting in the local Phoenix news was ridiculous - main news story on every local news station and the lead story of their newspaper. They didn't belong compared to Arizona and Oregon though they did have a case compared to a few of the teams that did get in (Baylor). Sucks that that over-the-back call against USC came back to haunt them.

 

 

i mean, maybe they got screwed, but they'd lose in the first or second round anyway. that's why i really don't feel too bad for bubble teams that don't get in.

 

which is why two bubble teams should have to play the tuesday play-in game to get in as the 12 seed or something

 

Yeah, they just said that on Mike and Mike.

 

What do you guys think about Bobby Knights idea of having 128 teams? It is just one more game.

 

that would take all the excitement out of the conference tournament week. every big east, acc, big ten team with a winning record would make the tournament.

[Exile on Waveland]

The coverage ASU was getting in the local Phoenix news was ridiculous - main news story on every local news station and the lead story of their newspaper. They didn't belong compared to Arizona and Oregon though they did have a case compared to a few of the teams that did get in (Baylor). Sucks that that over-the-back call against USC came back to haunt them.

 

 

i mean, maybe they got screwed, but they'd lose in the first or second round anyway. that's why i really don't feel too bad for bubble teams that don't get in.

 

That brings up a good point, has a 11, 12 or 13 seed at large team ever made the Final Four?

 

Off the top of my head, both LSU (1986) and George Mason (2006) made the Final Four as 11-seeds.

[Derwood]

The coverage ASU was getting in the local Phoenix news was ridiculous - main news story on every local news station and the lead story of their newspaper. They didn't belong compared to Arizona and Oregon though they did have a case compared to a few of the teams that did get in (Baylor). Sucks that that over-the-back call against USC came back to haunt them.

 

 

i mean, maybe they got screwed, but they'd lose in the first or second round anyway. that's why i really don't feel too bad for bubble teams that don't get in.

 

That brings up a good point, has a 11, 12 or 13 seed at large team ever made the Final Four?

 

 

Off the top of my head, both LSU (1986) and George Mason (2006) made the Final Four as 11-seeds.

 

but George Mason wasn't an at large, right?

[bukie]

The coverage ASU was getting in the local Phoenix news was ridiculous - main news story on every local news station and the lead story of their newspaper. They didn't belong compared to Arizona and Oregon though they did have a case compared to a few of the teams that did get in (Baylor). Sucks that that over-the-back call against USC came back to haunt them.

 

 

i mean, maybe they got screwed, but they'd lose in the first or second round anyway. that's why i really don't feel too bad for bubble teams that don't get in.

 

That brings up a good point, has a 11, 12 or 13 seed at large team ever made the Final Four?

 

 

Off the top of my head, both LSU (1986) and George Mason (2006) made the Final Four as 11-seeds.

 

but George Mason wasn't an at large, right?

 

UNC Wilmington won the auto bid that year for the Colonial.

Edited March 18, 2008 by bukie

[Exile on Waveland]

The coverage ASU was getting in the local Phoenix news was ridiculous - main news story on every local news station and the lead story of their newspaper. They didn't belong compared to Arizona and Oregon though they did have a case compared to a few of the teams that did get in (Baylor). Sucks that that over-the-back call against USC came back to haunt them.

 

 

i mean, maybe they got screwed, but they'd lose in the first or second round anyway. that's why i really don't feel too bad for bubble teams that don't get in.

 

That brings up a good point, has a 11, 12 or 13 seed at large team ever made the Final Four?

 

 

Off the top of my head, both LSU (1986) and George Mason (2006) made the Final Four as 11-seeds.

 

but George Mason wasn't an at large, right?

 

Yes, they were. UNC-Wilmington won the CAA conference championship that year.

[CuseCubFan69]

The coverage ASU was getting in the local Phoenix news was ridiculous - main news story on every local news station and the lead story of their newspaper. They didn't belong compared to Arizona and Oregon though they did have a case compared to a few of the teams that did get in (Baylor). Sucks that that over-the-back call against USC came back to haunt them.

 

 

i mean, maybe they got screwed, but they'd lose in the first or second round anyway. that's why i really don't feel too bad for bubble teams that don't get in.

 

which is why two bubble teams should have to play the tuesday play-in game to get in as the 12 seed or something

 

Yeah, they just said that on Mike and Mike.

 

What do you guys think about Bobby Knights idea of having 128 teams? It is just one more game.

 

that would take all the excitement out of the conference tournament week. every big east, acc, big ten team with a winning record would make the tournament.

 

It would take away from the conference tournaments but what it would do is not reward or punish a team from scheduling strong teams out of conference and traveling to a "mid-major" and playing on their home court. Or...you could have all the at large bubble teams play on Tuesday. The conference Champs and teams that have made the top 64 according to the committee would get a bye for that game.

 

Of course, you'd have the NIT suing the heck out of the NCAA if they did do this.

[illiniguy]

This ought to be an interesting tournament. I miss the days when I could just take Thursday off and watch the games from 12 on drinking beer and eating wings throughout the whole day.

I am off the whole weekend and plan on doing just that.

 

The UNC thing is a joke. Yes they have to beat all of the teams to win, but playing more of them than the other 1 seeds is where I see the problem. They earned the number 1 overall seed, thus they should have the easier road. They will play an IU team that was near the top ten the entire year in round two(yes IU fans you are going to win that game vs Arkansas). But, then Kansas plays Kent State or UNLV. I don't see any Eric Gordon or D.J. White's on those rosters. UNC has a shot to go down in any round. I can't see KU losing before the elite eight and that isn't because KU is better than UNC.

 

 

I think it's funny that you've spent all year talking about how bad IU is, and now all the sudden they're a looming danger to UNC.

 

Of course, you're right now, inasmuch as IU is under-seeded and is a tough 2nd round match-up. But given that you've played both sides of the fence, you had to be right one of those times. Aside from that, I don't see that much difference in our two brackets. I'd rather face ND than Clemson (advantage UNC), but I'd rather face Vandy than Wazzu (advantage KU). As for the two seeds, in a vacuum,Tennessee is better than Georgetown, but they're also a easier matchup for UNC.

Yep me saying they weren't top ten good(they weren't) nor better than Xavier(they aren't) waa what I said. I think they should be right around a 5. Not an 8. Also don't you think any team with two all americans are a threat to anyone in a single elimination style tournament?

[Guest]

They're still good teams and Luc is far too important for this team (I'm assuming Love will play since he played 30 mins against Stanford).

 

I'm unsure if I'm going to pick UConn or Drake in the Sweet 16; however, if it's UConn they present significant match-up problems for UCLA. I still UCLA would win -- I'm taking them to win the title -- but UConn's size could be a headache for Love, et al.

 

Not to look past Miss Valley State and TAMU/BYU but both Drake (zone) and UConn (size) would of course pose difficulties. Hopefully UCLA's recent solid performances against good zone teams (ASU and USC at times) and big teams (Stanford) will help them out.

[Guest]

The coverage ASU was getting in the local Phoenix news was ridiculous - main news story on every local news station and the lead story of their newspaper. They didn't belong compared to Arizona and Oregon though they did have a case compared to a few of the teams that did get in (Baylor). Sucks that that over-the-back call against USC came back to haunt them.

 

 

i mean, maybe they got screwed, but they'd lose in the first or second round anyway. that's why i really don't feel too bad for bubble teams that don't get in.

 

Yeah, I totally agree with your sentiment. I don't think ASU would have been - say, a 5-seed or 6-seed (even though they have beaten two 3-seeds already this season - Stanford and Xavier). Hopefully for their sake, they have a stronger schedule next season (and Harden returns for his sophomore year).

[Derwood]

 

Of course, you'd have the NIT suing the heck out of the NCAA if they did do this.

 

the NCAA owns the NIT now, so no, they wouldn't

[Flames24Rulz]

128 teams would be very bad. Heck, there were hardly 64 deserving teams this year. You really want to put a third of the teams in Division I in the postseason tournament? And no matter how many teams you have in the tournament, you're always going to have 5-10 schools saying they got snubbed.

 

There's no point in adding more teams to this. It's perfectly fine the way it is.

[Derwood]

128 teams would be very bad. Heck, there were hardly 64 deserving teams this year. You really want to put a third of the teams in Division I in the postseason tournament? And no matter how many teams you have in the tournament, you're always going to have 5-10 schools saying they got snubbed.

 

There's no point in adding more teams to this. It's perfectly fine the way it is.

 

i'd do away with the play-in game at this point too.

[Jon]

They're still good teams and Luc is far too important for this team (I'm assuming Love will play since he played 30 mins against Stanford).

 

I'm unsure if I'm going to pick UConn or Drake in the Sweet 16; however, if it's UConn they present significant match-up problems for UCLA. I still UCLA would win -- I'm taking them to win the title -- but UConn's size could be a headache for Love, et al.

 

Not to look past Miss Valley State and TAMU/BYU but both Drake (zone) and UConn (size) would of course pose difficulties. Hopefully UCLA's recent solid performances against good zone teams (ASU and USC at times) and big teams (Stanford) will help them out.

They do seem to be better against the zone now.

 

My favorite sequence from the Pac-10 title game was the first possession UCLA had in the second half after Stanford switched to the zone. Collison basically held the ball 5-10 feet behind the three-point line for a good 30 second before they settled on a horrible shot. On their next time down the court, Collison just took it right down the lane and nearly hit a ridiculous reverse layup before it was cleaned up for an easy 2. After that, they didn't have much trouble.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah, I can't believe that after the way the bubble broke this year that people would still argue to increase the field. I'm so sick of the college football bowl argument. All anyone ever does is piss and moan about how many bowls there are. So why not ruin basketball's postseason by letting everyone in so these same people can piss and moan. 64 is perfect. Eliminate the play-in. 33 at large. Baylor/Arkansas will survive.

[Exile on Waveland]

Agreed. Don't expand, go back to 64.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

Of course, you'd have the NIT suing the heck out of the NCAA if they did do this.

 

the NCAA owns the NIT now, so no, they wouldn't

 

So what they could do is have X amount of the losing teams play in the NIT. I think this could actually work.

[Derwood]

 

Of course, you'd have the NIT suing the heck out of the NCAA if they did do this.

 

the NCAA owns the NIT now, so no, they wouldn't

 

So what they could do is have X amount of the losing teams play in the NIT. I think this could actually work.

 

sure, have 4 play-in games among 8 bubble teams. The winners get, say, the four #12 seeds in the NCAA and the losers are the #1 seeds in the NIT.

 

way too "radical" an idea for the old men in charge to consider, of course

[snoodmonger]

To echo the general sentiment:

 

It doesn't need fixing. College football does because sometimes deserving teams are frozen out of the national title hunt. That's not the case in hoops. Every team with a legit shot at winning the title makes the tourney in hoops. The bubble teams don't. I don't see any point in changing things up so those teams get to lose immediately anyway.

[Guest]

So what's the web site for watching those tourney games on your computer? I know TT has mentioned it in past years.

 

Gonna need it on Thurs and Fri. :(

[Derwood]

So what's the web site for watching those tourney games on your computer? I know TT has mentioned it in past years.

 

Gonna need it on Thurs and Fri. :(

 

is this it?

[snoodmonger]

So what's the web site for watching those tourney games on your computer? I know TT has mentioned it in past years.

 

Gonna need it on Thurs and Fri. :(

 

is this it?

 

yes

[chuckywang]

The coverage ASU was getting in the local Phoenix news was ridiculous - main news story on every local news station and the lead story of their newspaper. They didn't belong compared to Arizona and Oregon though they did have a case compared to a few of the teams that did get in (Baylor). Sucks that that over-the-back call against USC came back to haunt them.

 

 

i mean, maybe they got screwed, but they'd lose in the first or second round anyway. that's why i really don't feel too bad for bubble teams that don't get in.

 

which is why two bubble teams should have to play the tuesday play-in game to get in as the 12 seed or something

 

Yeah, they just said that on Mike and Mike.

 

What do you guys think about Bobby Knights idea of having 128 teams? It is just one more game.

 

It won't work out with TV. CBS will not push the Masters back as that event is a cash cow for them.

[chuckywang]

 

Of course, you'd have the NIT suing the heck out of the NCAA if they did do this.

 

the NCAA owns the NIT now, so no, they wouldn't

 

So what they could do is have X amount of the losing teams play in the NIT. I think this could actually work.

 

sure, have 4 play-in games among 8 bubble teams. The winners get, say, the four #12 seeds in the NCAA and the losers are the #1 seeds in the NIT.

 

way too "radical" an idea for the old men in charge to consider, of course

 

The only problem I see with that is that it isn't fair for the 5 seeds to not know who they are going to play until Tuesday. Unlike 16 seeds over 1 seeds, 12 seeds have a legit and very real shot at beating 5 seeds.

 

However, if the committee only picks 8 teams on Sunday and then reseeds the round of 64 based on those Tuesday play-in games, then that would be an idea I would support.

Edited March 18, 2008 by chuckywang