I hate mid-majors and lesser conferences

[Sports Guy]

That's fine you think that way.

I think the tournament as it is is beautiful. There is nothing better than watching a mid or low major take a team to the wire in the Dance. If you want to get rid of that, ok, but it seems silly to me.

The only thing I'd change about the tournament is that instead of making teams 64 and 65 play in the play-in game (teams that won their conference tournaments and should be able to experience a true NCAA experience). I would have at-large bids 33 and 34 play a play-in game. Those teams had their chances, and barely got in. Make them play for a chance to actually play in the tournament. Make the winner be a 12 seed and you're good to go. Then the game on Tuesday night would actually be interesting, rather than watching the two worst teams in the tournament play in front of nobody in a total non-NCAA environment.

Yea I agree...The only good thing about that game is it gives these smaller, crappy teams a chance to win a game in the tourney.

[YardBirds13]

My favorite part of march is watching the fans storm the court after watching their team win their "lowly" conferences like the American East or Big Sky. As for your second point I agree, the teams earned the right to be in the proper tournament, and besides the play in game between the two last at larg bids would be a much more enticing match up. Sounds to me like the OP is a fan of a mediocre power conference team who probably wont be getting an at large bid. FWIW so am I and I still wouldnt change a thing, in fact I think mid majors near the top of their conference like Rhode Island or Siena should be given the at larges over .500 power conference teams (again including over my team)

That I disagree with. When it comes to the at-large teams, take the best teams.

If a Siena wants to not win their conference tournament and chance getting an at-large, how about beating somebody? They don't have a single nice win.

I love that the conference tournaments give all those conferences a chance to be represented in the tourney and think it would be bad not to have them.

However, when it comes to at-large bids, pick the best 34 teams. Every team has a chance to win their conference tournament, beyond that, you pick the best teams.

[YardBirds13]

Yea I agree...The only good thing about that game is it gives these smaller, crappy teams a chance to win a game in the tourney.

Yeah, but nobody is fooled when they see a "Win" in the tournament for that game.

It's not an "Opening Round Game" no matter what they say. It's a play-in game.

How much cooler would it be to see, say Maryland and Providence in that game?

[BaltimoreTerp]

It only sucks if the 11th best ACC team is better than the Atlantic Sun champion.

If they weren't, you wouldn't be complaining.

[Birds of B'more]

I don't mind the mid majors at all...I get the idea that Delaware St isn't good but as has been said, that is the beauty of the tourney and championship week.

That being said, i do think there should be more teams in the tourney now.

I disagree with adding more teams. I think that the numberof at-large bids available (33 of them currently, if I'm not mistaken) is plenty. To add more would just be watering down the field. No matter how many teams you add, there will always be a few who think they were wrongly left out. In fact, I think they need to get rid of the play-in game and go back to a 64 team field. The team that loses that game must come away feeling like they were never really a part of the tournament.

And I definitely disagree with the OP about eliminating the automatic bids and just taking the top 65 RPI teams. This isn't college football, the top teams in the country still make it to the tournament despite the automatic bids, so we don't need another BCS-like setup. And Championship Week would be just another week of basketball season if the mid-major teams weren't battling for a spot in The Dance.

[Dan-O®]

As a diehard supporter of a mid-major team, I take major (no pun intended) offense to the premise of this thread.

The SWAC Champion, for example, may never win an NCAA tourney game, but they were the champion of their league, and that makes them certainly more qualified to be there than, say, Georgetown or Michigan or somesuch other team who can't even go .500 in their own conference. Sure, the worst team in the ACC may have better athletes than the best Big South or Summit League team but great athletes do not necessarily make a great team.

For me, having the mid-majors and low-majors in there is the reason I watch the tournament. Watching a team like Gonzaga or Kent State or Davidson or George Mason or Bucknell or Vermont hang with the big dogs and win a game or two makes for great entertainment. And I hope as many of them as possible win games on March 19 thru 22.

Go Binghamton!

[Pedro Cerrano]

As a diehard supporter of a mid-major team, I take major (no pun intended) offense to the premise of this thread.

The SWAC Champion, for example, may never win an NCAA tourney game, but they were the champion of their league, and that makes them certainly more qualified to be there than, say, Georgetown or Michigan or somesuch other team who can't even go .500 in their own conference. Sure, the worst team in the ACC may have better athletes than the best Big South or Summit League team but great athletes do not necessarily make a great team.

For me, having the mid-majors and low-majors in there is the reason I watch the tournament. Watching a team like Gonzaga or Kent State or Davidson or George Mason or Bucknell or Vermont hang with the big dogs and win a game or two makes for great entertainment. And I hope as many of them as possible win games on March 19 thru 22.

Go Binghamton!

If Georgetown is a better team than the SWAC or whatever champion, they certainly deserve a bid more than that team.

[Dan-O®]

If Georgetown is a better team than the SWAC or whatever champion, they certainly deserve a bid more than that team.

How can you make the argument that they are a better team if they can't even go .500 in their own conference? No matter what the league, winning a regular season title or conference tournament is an endurance test worth rewarding.

[Pedro Cerrano]

How can you make the argument that they are a better team if they can't even go .500 in their own conference? No matter what the league, winning a regular season title or conference tournament is an endurance test worth rewarding.

Lol, are you really asking that? It's something called "Strength of Schedule" (btw GTown is #1 -- what do you think your conference leader's record would be if they played GTown's schedule?)

[Fairfax Bird]

Lol, are you really asking that? It's something called "Strength of Schedule" (btw GTown is #1 -- what do you think your conference leader's record would be if they played GTown's schedule?)

I get your point, but what is the point in rewarding GT for having a very average regular season.

Three possible solutions:

1. Leave it alone it is fine the way it is.

2. Create a 1-AA for college basketball so that they have a chance to compete for their own national championship.

3. Add more teams to the tourney and keep in the conference champions.

To exclude conference champions and not give them their own championship wouldn't make sense tome.

I am fine with all three options, though I think the tourney is the best 3 weeks of sports just as it is.

[Moose Milligan]

Meet Pedro Cerrano, college basketball snob.

[YardBirds13]

Pedro just thinks it should be the 65 best teams. I 100% disagree with him.

The tournament gives the best of both worlds. It gives every team a chance to make it, not matter how small the conference. Most conferences only get one shot, the conference tournament.

Watch some teams during Championship Week, Pedro, you'll actually see some pretty good basketball.

Do they have the talent that the big guys do? No, of course not. And Dan-O's argument is ridiculous, of course Georgetown is a better team than the SWAC champion or the MEAC champion.

However, the tournament isn't the 65 best teams in the country. It's the champion from every league in the country getting a fair shot at a National Championship, then the next 34 best teams also getting a chance.

No one is arguing Georgetown wouldn't go undefeated in the SWAC, it's ridiculous to do so.

However, to just pretend like those conferences exist is unfair. The tournament gives plenty of spots for the big boy conferences. It's not like the SWAC and MEAC are taking up 3 or 4 bids to the Dance. They get 1. The ACC and Big East (deservedly) get 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or what ever.

I just find it hard to believe that anyone who is a college basketball fan would want to eliminate what makes the early part of the month of March (from the beginning of Championship Week until the Sweet 16 , at least) so special.

[YardBirds13]

I get your point, but what is the point in rewarding GT for having a very average regular season.

Three possible solutions:

1. Leave it alone it is fine the way it is.

2. Create a 1-AA for college basketball so that they have a chance to compete for their own national championship.

3. Add more teams to the tourney and keep in the conference champions.

To exclude conference champions and not give them their own championship wouldn't make sense tome.

I am fine with all three options, though I think the tourney is the best 3 weeks of sports just as it is.

Four weeks and more if you include ALL the Conference Tournaments (yes, even the ones that some people think are irrelevant).

And I agree with you, there is not better time in sports than Championship Week through the Big Dance, which funnels us right into baseball season.

The only thing I would change is having the play-in game be between the "Last 2 In" At-Large teams instead of the two crappy 16 seeds.

The 16 seeds won their tournament and deserve to get a real tournament experience, which the Tuesday game isn't at all.

The Last 2 in At-Large teams usually have bigger followings, and would certainly make the game more interesting on a Tuesday night. Most of the last-team in types have struggled through the year, so make them earn their way into a real tournament atmosphere.

That will never happen, but one can hope.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Pedro just thinks it should be the 65 best teams. I 100% disagree with him.

The tournament gives the best of both worlds. It gives every team a chance to make it, not matter how small the conference. Most conferences only get one shot, the conference tournament.

Watch some teams during Championship Week, Pedro, you'll actually see some pretty good basketball.

Do they have the talent that the big guys do? No, of course not. And Dan-O's argument is ridiculous, of course Georgetown is a better team than the SWAC champion or the MEAC champion.

However, the tournament isn't the 65 best teams in the country. It's the champion from every league in the country getting a fair shot at a National Championship, then the next 34 best teams also getting a chance.

No one is arguing Georgetown wouldn't go undefeated in the SWAC, it's ridiculous to do so.

However, to just pretend like those conferences exist is unfair. The tournament gives plenty of spots for the big boy conferences. It's not like the SWAC and MEAC are taking up 3 or 4 bids to the Dance. They get 1. The ACC and Big East (deservedly) get 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or what ever.

I just find it hard to believe that anyone who is a college basketball fan would want to eliminate what makes the early part of the month of March (from the beginning of Championship Week until the Sweet 16 , at least) so special.

This is the best post refuting my point so far IMO.

I understand what you're saying and I get that it adds to the excitement of the whole "Championship Week." Two teams from the Atlantic Sun Conference, however, would play each other just as hard if there was only the Conference Championship on the line. And believe me, I watch a ton of college basketball.

Sure, changing this around would mean that certain teams at the beginning of the year would have no chance to win it all, but can't we say the same thing about college football? Auburn didn't lose a freaking game a few years ago and they didn't win the title -- life is not fair.

As for upsets and drama, if the 65 best RPI teams made it, there would be just as much drama if not more, IMO. All those games where Duke beats Delaware state 105-43 would essentially disappear and be replaced by a team like Duke having to play Virginia Tech or something in the opening round. There would be no "passes" no "gimmie games." The team cutting down the nets could truly say they earned it because they won a tournament featuring the 65 best teams.

[YardBirds13]

This is the best post refuting my point so far IMO.

I understand what you're saying and I get that it adds to the excitement of the whole "Championship Week." Two teams from the Atlantic Sun Conference, however, would play each other just as hard if there was only the Conference Championship on the line. And believe me, I watch a ton of college basketball.

Sure, changing this around would mean that certain teams at the beginning of the year would have no chance to win it all, but can't we say the same thing about college football? Auburn didn't lose a freaking game a few years ago and they didn't win the title -- life is not fair.

As for upsets and drama, if the 65 best RPI teams made it, there would be just as much drama if not more, IMO. All those games where Duke beats Delaware state 105-43 would essentially disappear and be replaced by a team like Duke having to play Virginia Tech or something in the opening round. There would be no "passes" no "gimmie games." The team cutting down the nets could truly say they earned it because they won a tournament featuring the 65 best teams.

Well, lets not compare anything to 1-A College Football, which has the worst (excuse me, non existent) post-season in the history of anything. I can't even get into 1-A Football because of how disgustingly unfair the post-season system is.

And sure, would it be tougher for Duke to face Virginia Tech in the first round? Of course, but what about Belmont last year? Winthrop against Tennessee a few years ago?

The great thing about the first round is there is 4 games going on at once, so if there is a blow-out CBS usually switches you over to a closer game going on (or, if you have the DirecTV package, you switch yourself). I just think there is nothing better than watching VCU beat Duke, or when George Mason made it to the Final 4. THAT is what March Madness is about. Its why college basketball does and always will have the best post-season.

Sure, would a best of 7 series format like the NBA determine more of a true champion? Yes. It would. And it would eliminate the magic that is the NCAA Tournament. Give me the NCAA Tournament over the NBA Playoffs 999.9999 times out of 1,000. Actually, screw it. Give it to me all 1,000. And I am a pretty big NBA fan.

And any team cutting down the nets in early April has more than earned it if you ask me. They are still playing good teams. Sure, maybe they'll get an easier game tossed in here and there, but they still have to win 6 games like everyone else. And you aren't getting too many easy match-ups once you are into the Sweet 16. You think Maryland didn't feel like they earned their National Title in '02 because they played Siena in the first round?