Jump to content

Jim Delany says tournament expansion is "probable"


PrivateO

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What is the real reason we don't watch the NIT?

Because UNC's in it! Right?

Right?

Sigh.

If the other 32 teams from the NIT were in the tourney, let's be real...people would watch. I...just don't like seeing a great thing get tampered with. It isn't broke. In fact, it's the least broken thing in sports, IMO.

The only thing I'd change is that I would love to have four "12-seed play-ins", but that's just me...and really, nobody agrees with me. :laughlol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 344 Division 1 Basketball teams. The smaller conference tourneys will still have the same drama, but now the regular season champs will be rewarded for a great regular season.

I don't know, i think this is great for everyone.

North Carolina has a 1 seed this year...In their first game, instead of playing of Morgan St, they play the winner of Illinois and UCONN...Fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the teams aren't any good? Because they couldn't crack the top half of their conference? Because nobody cares if UNC can beat Dayton?

YOu'd care if they were playing in the NCAA tourney, that's the point...Do you care if Northern Iowa can beat UNLV in December? Of course not, but you do in March, and you'd care about any game in the Tourney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the teams aren't any good? Because they couldn't crack the top half of their conference? Because nobody cares if UNC can beat Dayton?

Because there is no chance of a National Championship.

Who cares? It is going to be 1 more game some teams are going to have to play. More teams will have to have "play-in" games, and it gives the higher seeded teams more of an advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOu'd care if they were playing in the NCAA tourney, that's the point...Do you care if Northern Iowa can beat UNLV in December? Of course not, but you do in March, and you'd care about any game in the Tourney.
Because there is no chance of a National Championship.

Who cares? It is going to be 1 more game some teams are going to have to play. More teams will have to have "play-in" games, and it gives the higher seeded teams more of an advantage.

I don't know...to me, the excitement of potential upsets lies in their low frequency. Adding a bunch of cruddy teams that don't deserve to be in contention just dilutes the overall quality of play, and it makes each game less meaningful IMO. It's funny to me how people whine about the bowl system being so silly because crappy teams get to go to post season play, yet we want to add all of the crappy teams to an essentially perfect post season tournament. It's just beyond me why anyone would want to change anything significant about the tournament...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know...to me, the excitement of potential upsets lies in their low frequency. Adding a bunch of cruddy teams that don't deserve to be in contention just dilutes the overall quality of play, and it makes each game less meaningful IMO. It's funny to me how people whine about the bowl system being so silly because crappy teams get to go to post season play, yet we want to add all of the crappy teams to an essentially perfect post season tournament. It's just beyond me why anyone would want to change anything significant about the tournament...

Again, it comes back to playing for the National Championship.

These football teams are not playing for a NC, so their games don't matter. Even the BCS games don't matter unless it is for the NC, IMO.

There still will be upsets. And this will give more ammo for the mid major teams to be able to go further in the tournament and spark more debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know...to me, the excitement of potential upsets lies in their low frequency. Adding a bunch of cruddy teams that don't deserve to be in contention just dilutes the overall quality of play, and it makes each game less meaningful IMO. It's funny to me how people whine about the bowl system being so silly because crappy teams get to go to post season play, yet we want to add all of the crappy teams to an essentially perfect post season tournament. It's just beyond me why anyone would want to change anything significant about the tournament...
Was it diluted when they went from 32 to 64? Why is 64 the magic number but 96 can't be? You do know that 96 teams represents a smaller percentage of all D1 teams now than 64 teams did when they last expanded, right?

I'm neither for or against expansion, but I guarantee one thing: If they expand it, the tournament will still be just as great in every aspect. People will get all righteously indignant the first year and be against just because they are stubborn, but it will be every bit as exciting, and by year two or three, it will seem like it was always 96 teams, just like it now seems like it was always 64 teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it diluted when they went from 32 to 64? Why is 64 the magic number but 96 can't be? You do know that 96 teams represents a smaller percentage of all D1 teams now than 64 teams did when they last expanded, right?

I'm neither for or against expansion, but I guarantee one thing: If they expand it, the tournament will still be just as great in every aspect. People will get all righteously indignant the first year and be against just because they are stubborn, but it will be every bit as exciting, and by year two or three, it will seem like it was always 96 teams, just like it now seems like it was always 64 teams.

Well said Mack! I could not possibly agree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Mack! I could not possibly agree more.
Actually, I just checked and I'm not sure that 96/D1 now > 64 / D1_1985. I had definitely heard sports radio or tv people say that before, though, but I guess they were wrong.

Rest of my point remains, though. I think a 96-team tournament, while different at first, would eventually be every bit as great and nostalgic as the 64-team tournament is. I strongly prefer the first couple rounds to the end of the tournament (unless the Terps are in it) anyway, so adding essentially a bigger first round would just make the first weekend that much more fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Yeah, I agree something like this might happen some day, but only if the union comes around to believing MLB is on shaky financial footing -- if and when that ever happens. I don't like the idea of voiding a players' contract then and there, but perhaps performing below a certain level would trigger some contract years in the future to automatically become option years.  Something along those lines. It's hard to imagine deals like this today, except possibly here and there for players who are known to be very inconsistent.  As long as baseball is considered financially healthy I'm sure the union would push back strongly against deals like this, especially in large numbers.
    • Thank you. I knew there was something bogus about that post. I saw Cal play SS. And Gunnar is no Cal at SS. Not even close. And this is coming from a big fan of Gunnar. I would like to see him play a traditional power position. Call me old fashioned. He’s hurting the team at SS. 
    • Interesting.  We live in a data obsessed world now but it's not the answer to everything.  There should be a mix.  
    • Tobias Myers for the brewers tonight: 6 innings 4H -1ER 1BB 11 Ks. not bad at all!
    • I doubt solid MLB pitchers can be acquired just by trading position players the vast majority of the time.  Look at how we acquired Bradish and Povich -- by trading solid (at the time anyway) MLB level pitchers.  In those trades we were on the other end, but we forced teams to trade good young pitchers for Bundy and Lopez respectively.  Now we did acquire McDermott and Seth Johnson by trading Trey Mancini.  So it does happen that pitching can sometimes be acquired trading only a position player, but Mancini had had a strong major league career to that point.  My point is I don't think you can expect to acquire pitching only by trading position players -- but if you can it may need to be a strong veteran that is not easy to part with. Perhaps we could acquire Tarik Skubal for just Jackson Holliday -- or Holliday plus one or two other strong position prospects.  But that would be a whole other level of a blockbuster trade. Also, I'm not sure how we can say the system is bereft of homegrown minor league pitching talent and then complain that we traded Baumeister and Chace -- two homegrown minor league pitchers that everyone here seems to agree are talented.  We can criticize the trade, but clearly there was and probably still are some desirable arms in the system that we'd rather not trade.  No, none of the ones Elias drafted have made it to the bigs yet, but maybe those two would have been among the first.    
    • Seth Johnson on the Phillies' "philosophy": Orioles are data driven, Phillies are more "old school". I don't get much out of this but it's a data point. https://www.nbcsportsphiladelphia.com/mlb/philadelphia-phillies/seth-johnson-mlb-debut-phillies-orioles-trade/613582/ “I think the big thing is that Baltimore is very data-based,” he said. “Here’s a nice blend of the numbers and baseball strategy. Kind of old school. And I’ve been really enjoying it so far. For me, it’s kind of simplified everything. Concentrating on basic concepts like moving the fastball around. Not worrying about pitch shapes all the time. Just going out here and trying to pitch.”
    • If we have room, why wouldn't we add Pham and Van Loon just to have available depth in AAA (whether or not they are at risk of being taken)? 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...