Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1

    ACC Proposes 346-Team NCAA Tournament

    https://www.outkick.com/acc-proposin...aa-tournament/

    Oh boy. I canít wait to see an 86 seed upset a 1 seed.

  2. #2
    Supporting Member XU 87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,754
    I just hope Dayton still gets the play-in games.

  3. #3
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,520
    Yeah, the selection committee will look at this and almost assuredly unanimously vote against it. Well, there is someone from North Carolina who's on it, but other than him they'll all vote against it because it's quite stupid.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  4. #4
    Supporting Member GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    28,530
    Does Bellarmine count in the 346 yet?

  5. #5
    Isn't this what we already do? If you consider the conference tournaments an extension of the NCAA tournament, what is the difference? If you are Alcorn State or you are Xavier, if you win 9 or 10 straight games starting with the conference tournament (3 or 4 in the conference tourney, 6 in the NCAA) you are the National Champ. The only real difference is the 30-something at large teams that get a do over.
    Or are they going to have 160 seed San Diego travel to play 140 seed Winthrop?

  6. #6
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,520
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    Does Bellarmine count in the 346 yet?
    As I understand it, the proposal was for all 357 teams, including the 11 transitional (or otherwise ineligible) schools. So...yes and no??
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  7. #7
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,520
    Quote Originally Posted by usfldan View Post
    Isn't this what we already do? If you consider the conference tournaments an extension of the NCAA tournament, what is the difference? If you are Alcorn State or you are Xavier, if you win 9 or 10 straight games starting with the conference tournament (3 or 4 in the conference tourney, 6 in the NCAA) you are the National Champ. The only real difference is the 30-something at large teams that get a do over.
    Or are they going to have 160 seed San Diego travel to play 140 seed Winthrop?
    Yes. Yes it is.

    The smaller conferences should actually be adamantly against this. As it stand now, the 22 regular one-bid leagues are assured to get at least one team into the Round of 64 (well, all but the two who lose in the First Four). That will not be the case with a 357 team tournament. I don't know how the payouts for such a tournament could work, but I guarantee that the leagues who don't get a single team into the Round of 64 will end up with less than usual.

    It also strips away the importance of the conference tournament, which is in many cases the biggest (or only) showcase that the smaller conferences have. Right now it means something. A chance to go in to the Round of 64. An NCAA Tournament with all the teams in it would mean winning it meant nothing.

    And lastly, as it is now the First Four is considered to be NCAA Tournament Lite at best. All they're really doing is adding games that are even less intriguing to the masses than the current First Four is. If no one cares about the First Four, then they'll care even less about the Round of 256.

    This is a really bad idea.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  8. #8
    Sophomore surfxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    F'ing Catalina Wine Festival
    Posts
    570
    My guess is that there are a lot of coaches that would love this idea due to incentive clauses that give them payouts if they make the NCAA tournament. As for athletic departments... I don't know. Probably depends on the expense vs the payout. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the current set up is a team gets money for every game they play in the tournament. Some up front and some is paid out over time with the conference taking a cut and perhaps paid out to other conference teams. If a lower level D1 team plays a couple of games, has to travel and pay for hotels, meals etc, and pay their coach a bonus... but gets paid out next to nothing (relative speaking) for the first game or two then it's going to be a further financial drain on a program that is already dealing with no revenue (no/minimal attendance, no real TV money etc). I would have to think the payout for the round of 256 is going to be significantly less than the round of 64/68 as it stands currently. I guess for the P6 teams (or whatever you want to call them) it justifies a way to get out of playing and paying for guarantee games and just stick to a conference season. Who knows... I don't know what the justification is to include everyone, but money has to be at the bottom of it. It's certainly not that the ACC thinks everyone should have a chance and that they are so nice and inclusive and don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
    I have complete faith in coach Steele and Co.

  9. #9
    Supporting Member GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    28,530
    It's been far too long since Xavier was in the NCAA Tournament. So I'm in favor.

  10. #10
    what happens to the bracketology industry if this is implemented? Across the country think of how many message board arguments take place over a proposed bracket posted in February.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •