UC coulda won the last NIT ship.

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

T

TheLivingLegend

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
3,837
Location
Nati
Well with UC losing, that went up in smoke. But if they expand the NCAA this more than likely will be the last NIT tourney. Expanding the dance could be the dumbest idea ever. A poll i saw showed something like 85% of people dont want it... However it sounds like the deal is getting closer and closer and word could come mid April.
 
The current system is great. Good teams and cinderellas in the field, along with a fairly strong NIT. It's like having every team from the BE in the conference tourney. Too many games, too many teams, and can't watch it all anyways. It's a money grab, that may backfire.
 
ralph1950 said:
It will make it a better tournament. Instead of Kansas playing Lehigh in the round of 64 they would have played the 64 vs 65 winner which this year would have been UConn vs UC.
Click to expand...

From what I have seen, UC would have been more like a 13 seed in the tournament this year if it were 96 teams.
 
I like the idea...I mean anything that makes the regular season almost pointless in terms of making post season play is fine in my book. Oh and throwing a terrible UNC team in the tournament is good too.

Seriously, Making the NCAA tournament should be a reward on a very good season-not something that is a disgrace to a program when they dont make it.
 
Good point DontMissHm. Expansion is a terrible Idea.
Pretty good article about why it would be a bad idea:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5048513


"The convoluted plan goes like this: The tournament would begin on a Thursday or Friday, as it always does, but only teams seeded 33 through 96 would play on those days. The winners would face teams 1 through 32 on Saturday or Sunday.

The winners of those games advance to the second round, to be played on Tuesday and Wednesday, with the Sweet 16 continuing Thursday and Friday, as always.

In other words, if we had had a 96-team bracket this season, ninth-seeded Northern Iowa would have been playing its third game in six days when it squared off against top-seeded Kansas."

That's pretty ridiculous. First off, that is way too many games for these teams to play, secondly, how on earth are they expecting fans to be able to miss a whole week of work/school to make the Tuesday/Wed. games?
It's really amazing that the NCAA would not change a thing to the post season everyone hates (cfb) yet change the one everyone loves. It would make the regular season pointless, and like DMH said, instead of honoring a great season, they will reward a below average season. Sorry, but a UNC team that went 5-11 in ACC has done nothing to say they should play in the NCAA tourney. Anyone that thinks this isn't about the money is fooling themselves.
 
Last edited:
ralph1950 said:
It will make it a better tournament. Instead of Kansas playing Lehigh in the round of 64 they would have played the 64 vs 65 winner which this year would have been UConn vs UC.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This will UPGRADE the field. Teams will still be rewarded for good seasons with first round byes. Half of the first round games are awful cause you have these big teams verse these awful ass small teams.

People will bitch about it for a year or two and then forget about it.

The NIT field had some good teams. Everyone will still watch. Again this is a good idea. More big team in the field is always good. I want to see the big time players all get it. Still isn't easy.
 
Kingsley Court said:
Good point DontMissHm. Expansion is a terrible Idea.
Pretty good article about why it would be a bad idea:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5048513


"The convoluted plan goes like this: The tournament would begin on a Thursday or Friday, as it always does, but only teams seeded 33 through 96 would play on those days. The winners would face teams 1 through 32 on Saturday or Sunday.

The winners of those games advance to the second round, to be played on Tuesday and Wednesday, with the Sweet 16 continuing Thursday and Friday, as always.

In other words, if we had had a 96-team bracket this season, ninth-seeded Northern Iowa would have been playing its third game in six days when it squared off against top-seeded Kansas."

That's pretty ridiculous. First off, that is way too many games for these teams to play, secondly, how on earth are they expecting fans to be able to miss a whole week of work/school to make the Tuesday/Wed. games?
It's really amazing that the NCAA would not change a thing to the post season everyone hates (cfb) yet change the one everyone loves. It would make the regular season pointless, and like DMH said, instead of honoring a great season, they will reward a below average season. Sorry, but a UNC team that went 5-11 in ACC has done nothing to say they should play in the NCAA tourney. Anyone that thinks this isn't about the money is fooling themselves.
Click to expand...

Kansas should be rewarded for their season. Northern Iowa beating Kansas is NOT good for the tournament.

Give me the best teams winning. N. Iowa did nothing but take away from the FF. Michigan St. and Butler? No thanks.
 
Greatone, does this mean you like the way the BCS decides their championship game? You don't like that the "best teams" didn't make the final four, so you must like that the BCS has the best teams playing in the championship no matter what. Your probably one of those people that says, let the football teams decide it on the field, yet when they do that for college basketball your unhappy about how it turned out.
 
Kingsley Court said:
Good point DontMissHm. Expansion is a terrible Idea.
Pretty good article about why it would be a bad idea:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5048513


"The convoluted plan goes like this: The tournament would begin on a Thursday or Friday, as it always does, but only teams seeded 33 through 96 would play on those days. The winners would face teams 1 through 32 on Saturday or Sunday.

The winners of those games advance to the second round, to be played on Tuesday and Wednesday, with the Sweet 16 continuing Thursday and Friday, as always.

In other words, if we had had a 96-team bracket this season, ninth-seeded Northern Iowa would have been playing its third game in six days when it squared off against top-seeded Kansas."

That's pretty ridiculous. First off, that is way too many games for these teams to play, secondly, how on earth are they expecting fans to be able to miss a whole week of work/school to make the Tuesday/Wed. games?
It's really amazing that the NCAA would not change a thing to the post season everyone hates (cfb) yet change the one everyone loves. It would make the regular season pointless, and like DMH said, instead of honoring a great season, they will reward a below average season. Sorry, but a UNC team that went 5-11 in ACC has done nothing to say they should play in the NCAA tourney. Anyone that thinks this isn't about the money is fooling themselves.
Click to expand...

Could have been Northern Iowa would never have played Kansas because Kansas, instead of playing Lehigh, would have played the winner of say UC vs UConn for their first tourney game. 16 and 17 seeds will beat #1 seeds in a 96 team format. You get rid of 20 weak teams now in the 65 team field because they will lose in the 33 to 96 first round games. The 96 team field makes for a much, much, better field of the remaining 64 teams than the current 65 team field. Going to 96 makes it a better tournament.
 
Thegreatone said:
Exactly. This will UPGRADE the field. Teams will still be rewarded for good seasons with first round byes. Half of the first round games are awful cause you have these big teams verse these awful ass small teams.

People will bitch about it for a year or two and then forget about it.

The NIT field had some good teams. Everyone will still watch. Again this is a good idea. More big team in the field is always good. I want to see the big time players all get it. Still isn't easy.
Click to expand...

Wrong. This makes the season pointless. The BE tourney pointless.
 
I'd rather go back to 32 than to increase the field.

This is why I love college football. Every game matters. Unlike the pros and college hoops.
 
Kingsley Court said:
Why stop at 96? Lets just let everybody who had an above 500 season play in the tournament. Getting pretty close to that with 96 teams. What a joke.
Click to expand...

After the first round games are played and the 20 teams who would have been in the old field of 65 have lost, the remaining 64 teams will be a lot better than this years field of 64. 16 seeds will now beat 1 seeds. This makes for a better tournament.

Why is this so hard for some to get?
 
So because it "makes for a better tournament" in your eyes, we should just reward average seasons? That's a dumb statement.
 
swg said:
I'd rather go back to 32 than to increase the field.

This is why I love college football. Every game matters. Unlike the pros and college hoops.
Click to expand...

You're a UC fan and every game matters? Really? You wanna rethink that?
 
Kingsley Court said:
So because it "makes for a better tournament" in your eyes, we should just reward average seasons? That's a dumb statement.
Click to expand...

The current format puts 20 teams in the tournament that do not belong there. No reason for an Arkansas Pine Bluff to be in and Dayton to be left out when Dayton is a better team. Pick the 64 best teams.
 
ralph1950 said:
The current format puts 20 teams in the tournament that do not belong there. No reason for an Arkansas Pine Bluff to be in and Dayton to be left out when Dayton is a better team. Pick the 64 best teams.
Click to expand...

20 teams? I'd like to see the 20 teams that didn't belong. Especially this year when there were not too many blow outs. Are you going to say a team like Ohio didn't belong, they demolished gtown. I would like to see the 20 teams you didn't think belonged in the tournament. I would also be kind of interested to see who you think the 20 teams that belonged in the tournament instead of the 20 that did.
 

Similar threads

G
This Year Compared to the Past Few Years
2
Replies
37
Views
11K
sedziobs
S
B
What Big 12 Expansion Should Look Like
Replies
7
Views
5K
Bearcat1234
B
B
Creighton Rundown
Replies
11
Views
5K
bearcat jeff
bearcat jeff
bearcat jeff
Dehner's Interview With Mick Part 2
Replies
2
Views
3K
adrock
adrock
swg
2010 Top UC Moments
Replies
0
Views
8K
swg
swg

Latest posts

Back
Top