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

    • Matt Chapman to Giants 3 years 54 million.  Opt out after each season.  
    • Mountcastle was 10th in the AL in OPS in the 2nd half. That was post vertigo. With the WALL as a RHH. Only Ohtani, Casas, Seager, Tucker, Diaz, Witt, Rodriguez, Bregman, and Devers, had a higher 2nd half OPS. Pretty good company. 
    • On Draftkings, Kjerstad is the 9th favorite for AL ROY at +2200 Cowser is the 14th favorite for AL ROY at +3500
    • Funny, because I would say waiving other CF AAAA depth would mean that there is no reason to keep another backup CF around because McKenna is that guy. I also think Daniel Johnson must look good enough in camp to get rid of Burdick/Hilliard. It’s also interesting that we’ve only lost 4 players off waivers this offseason. Two of those were CF options. I don’t think the world of McKenna, but he’s a good bench option as being RH to a LH Mullins. 
    • I’ve arrived in Sarasota and will wear my Eddie Murray shirt to tomorrow’s game! Will save the Jones Jersey for Monday. So excited to be here!
    • LABR's AL only room tonight guessed confidence Ryan O'Hearn's playing time is secure over these two. An authentic Lowenstein is useful and the young DH/OF guys would be challenged early to outplay it. But if you feel like it was lightning in a bottle and even Mountcastle as a 1st round pick you happen to have but don't really like is someone you want to invest more in, then.... Only O'Hearn really stands in the way of 1B Mountcastle, DH Kjerstad (or Cowser) playing near enough to everyday.     Mountcastle should be getting towards those 10000 hours of practice to be really good at 1B defense, right? I wouldn't be shocked if a couple years back Elias could send mischievous texts to the Padres like, "we know you have to cut Jorge Mateo, and we're just waiting", and now the circle completes and Colorado or Chicago get to say "we know you have to cut Ryan O'Hearn and Ramon Urias, and we're just waiting (and no they can't be small pieces in your Dylan Cease bid)." Before Santander departs, the path is really more through the first basemen.    DL Hall being in the first big deal Elias actually closed hints to me Mountcastle could be next.    Mountcastle trade value in this slow market is constrained by JD Martinez or Brandon Belt hanging around wondering if they'll get jobs.     Belt may end up playing for less than the 1/4 Mountcastle will command in Arb1 this year.    Carlos Santana made it to ~$5M, a number Arb2 Mountcastle probably blows past for 2025 with a decent season. An early Mountcastle trade and O'Hearn fade could open a path for 1B Santander, RF Cowser, DH Kjerstad even (or however those 3 best defend those positions, probably something different every day based on the arms, bats, ballpark and weather that day. I still have hopes Mountcastle becomes a more significant contributor, but while we wait out Mayo and Basallo, Elias' most "My Guys" lineup in early 2024 might be like: SS Gunnar, C Adley, 1B Santander, LF Hays, DH Kjerstad, CF Mullins, 3B Westburg, RF Cowser, 2B Holliday
    • Surpised they still haven't started Westburg at 2B once yet this spring training after 8 games. He projects as the starting 2nd basemen on opening day.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...