Tuesday, March 25, 2008
new topic
Now that the first two rounds are over and we've seen everyone play for a couple games. Who takes it home? Only sixteen to choose from: UNC, Wazzu, Louisville, Tenn, Kansas, 'Nova, Wisc, Davidson, Memphis, Mich St. Stanford, Texas, UCLA, W. Kent, Xavier, WVU.... So there you have it. I think my pick would have to be Kansas or UNC right now based on the first two rounds, but Wazzu is inching up and they played higher seeded teams so they are battle tested. Convince me. My preliminary vote is UNC (partially b/c they toasted my piggies.)
Friday, March 21, 2008
Food for thought this weekend...
I can't claim this idea as original to me, it was actually proposed by the announcers of the Coppin State vs. Mt. St. Mary's game, bu t I've thought about it quite a bit since then, and have expanded on it and what to get some input.
In my opinion, 1 seed vs. 16 seed games in the current system are boring to watch. I mean lets be honest, is there ever really going to be an upset? Secondly, the NIT is a joke, especially since its on at the same time as the NCAA games, so people further don't care about it, plus there is too much winning going on about how this team should have made it over that team etc (oh by the way, my proposal doesn't fix this problem either) So here's what I've been thinking...Since they tourney is already set up for a "play in" game why not have 4 "play on" games. Here's how it may work, and granted there are many different ways to work out the details, but here's a starter.
Conference Champs are in, just like before but maybe not as a 16 seed (again detail to be worked out later). There are now 4 play on games between teams like Ohio State, Virginia Tech etc and the winner of those games moves on to the tourney as ____ seed (another detail). I think this would shake things up, especially if the winner of these games becomes the 16 seed. Imagine what a better game NC vs. Ohio State would be than NC vs. Mt. St. Mary's! Even if these winners aren't 16 seeds, maybe 8 seeds or something...I think this way, the whole tournement is a tournement and teams actually have to work to win the title rather than a couple boring first round byes (cause thats pretty much what they are).
So here are my 2 questions: 1) Do you like this idea, or some other version of it, or should it be left the way it is? 2) Would/could this idea ever actually work?
In my opinion, 1 seed vs. 16 seed games in the current system are boring to watch. I mean lets be honest, is there ever really going to be an upset? Secondly, the NIT is a joke, especially since its on at the same time as the NCAA games, so people further don't care about it, plus there is too much winning going on about how this team should have made it over that team etc (oh by the way, my proposal doesn't fix this problem either) So here's what I've been thinking...Since they tourney is already set up for a "play in" game why not have 4 "play on" games. Here's how it may work, and granted there are many different ways to work out the details, but here's a starter.
Conference Champs are in, just like before but maybe not as a 16 seed (again detail to be worked out later). There are now 4 play on games between teams like Ohio State, Virginia Tech etc and the winner of those games moves on to the tourney as ____ seed (another detail). I think this would shake things up, especially if the winner of these games becomes the 16 seed. Imagine what a better game NC vs. Ohio State would be than NC vs. Mt. St. Mary's! Even if these winners aren't 16 seeds, maybe 8 seeds or something...I think this way, the whole tournement is a tournement and teams actually have to work to win the title rather than a couple boring first round byes (cause thats pretty much what they are).
So here are my 2 questions: 1) Do you like this idea, or some other version of it, or should it be left the way it is? 2) Would/could this idea ever actually work?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Mid-Majors!?!
just a few things....first off before we get too far into the subject at hand i'd like for us to take care of some chores. We need to decide if the the blog is going to be open or closed, if we want it to show up on search engines or not, etc..... As far as these things go i don't care if it's open or closed, i just didn't want to open it unless everyone was cool with that. I don't see us weighing in on too many social issues. I'm not afraid of people knowing my opinion anyway. Some people might be running for office or something though and i don't want them to feel afraid.
Now for the mid-majors, i think they're getting more respect of late (mostly since George Mason). The seeding thing doesn't bother me at all. If they're seeded high and lose they ruin it for all the other mid-majors. Seeding them lower gives them inspirational material for the locker room, and makes the Cinderella Theme better. The real place where i agree with Jeff is the 1st round matchups, i know they have fancy formulas for all that but those playing other mid-majors really got screwed. It screws the others also, because now much fewer mid-majors get through to the 2nd round and so on. This makes the overall representation less and gets them less in the future. Other than the 14-16 seeds you can pretty much play your way out of the seeding problem, but the first round matchup, that's a problem. I think conspiracy is a little strong, but i do think they got messed over.
Also, i made every author an admin so do what you need/want to do, but be responsible about it; don't go kicking people off unless we have a vote or whatever. Don't edit others' posts just if you need something different or want to change the layout/background/overall look just do it and we can always change it back if everyone hates it. Be sure to weigh in on the open/closed and whatever other settings you care about.
Now for the mid-majors, i think they're getting more respect of late (mostly since George Mason). The seeding thing doesn't bother me at all. If they're seeded high and lose they ruin it for all the other mid-majors. Seeding them lower gives them inspirational material for the locker room, and makes the Cinderella Theme better. The real place where i agree with Jeff is the 1st round matchups, i know they have fancy formulas for all that but those playing other mid-majors really got screwed. It screws the others also, because now much fewer mid-majors get through to the 2nd round and so on. This makes the overall representation less and gets them less in the future. Other than the 14-16 seeds you can pretty much play your way out of the seeding problem, but the first round matchup, that's a problem. I think conspiracy is a little strong, but i do think they got messed over.
Also, i made every author an admin so do what you need/want to do, but be responsible about it; don't go kicking people off unless we have a vote or whatever. Don't edit others' posts just if you need something different or want to change the layout/background/overall look just do it and we can always change it back if everyone hates it. Be sure to weigh in on the open/closed and whatever other settings you care about.
Mid-Majors
So I thought I would bring up a topic to talk about. I think that the mid-majors were screwed with their seedings and pairings. Xavier is really good and have the best seed among the schools, but they didn't even win their conference tournament. Drake is a 5 seed and then Butler and Gonzaga are 7 seeds? BYU is an 8 seed? These are teams that have been ranked in the top 25 late in the season.
An even bigger beef I have is the first round match-ups. They have paired mid-major against mid-major. Butler vs. South Alabama, Drake vs. Western Kentucky, Gonzaga vs. Davidson, UNLV vs. Kent State. Think how many of these teams could beat teams from the power conferences in the first two rounds. No longer do you get these great mid-major programs beating the major conferences. You get less of these good teams further in the tournament because they have to beat each other. Schools and conferences get money for every game they win in the tournament. Is this some way of keeping money out of the smaller schools and conferences? (A conspiracy theory)
Tell me what you think.
An even bigger beef I have is the first round match-ups. They have paired mid-major against mid-major. Butler vs. South Alabama, Drake vs. Western Kentucky, Gonzaga vs. Davidson, UNLV vs. Kent State. Think how many of these teams could beat teams from the power conferences in the first two rounds. No longer do you get these great mid-major programs beating the major conferences. You get less of these good teams further in the tournament because they have to beat each other. Schools and conferences get money for every game they win in the tournament. Is this some way of keeping money out of the smaller schools and conferences? (A conspiracy theory)
Tell me what you think.
Bracket
You might as well just give me the bragging rights, since I won the Elder's Quorum tourney last year...of course I think somebody's wife beat me, so I'm still not sure on how to handle that yet!
Bracket Names
I know there are only 3 brackets so far in our group but could we get some better names on those brackets? Your last name and the number of brackets you have submitted is not a good name. Also, Are we limiting this to one entry in this group per person or are we going for as many as you want to put in. I am in favor of only one per person. You pick the bracket you think will do the best. That will make the bragging rights better.
1st item of business
Everyone should have received an invitation to be an author, as soon as you accept i can make you an admin. Also, i made a group on ESPN for the tournament challenge. you should've received an email about that to. It only takes a few minutes and should be done by Wednesday night b/c the brackets lock when the first game starts on thursday. This should be a great first step. And automatic bragging rights....... Just sayin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)