Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe..

To me that thrill is what makes the tournament.

Some 3k school gets to play in the regional. Priceless.
And when there is a "Cinderella" how cool, is that?

Think about it, it doesn't happen in football.

And how boring are the BCS playoffs? *which are a fraud)

I appreciate your thoughts.

be well.
hope you and yours had a great day.




"dd" <dieseldick.DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:piri1399d5kfjqn4sofp8iqjj9q8k3b67h@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 16:56:27 -0400, "robw" <noddy093.DeleteThis@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I respectfully disagree.
> >For me ( and I stress that, "for me") double elimination would kill the
> >tournament. It's the "one or done" that makes it exciting. It's not the
> >"Little League World Series." It's March Maddness.
> >
> >Your point 1. Only conference champs make the tournament?
> >
> >Only one team from the ACC, Big East, etc. make it?
> >You're telling me that the Ivy League champ had more reason to be there
than
> >Duke, Memphis or Louisville, etc?
> >
> >2. It already happens. Once again, the Ivy league champ is going to get a
> >higher seed than the ACC? Don't think so.
> >
> >3. Again, there are non-champion teams in the ACC, Big East etc, that are
> >superior to the champs of many conferences.
> >
> >4. The NIT is the FNC of college post season tournaments.
> >
> >With all respect, once again, the beauty of the NCAA Basketball
tournament
> >(for me and many many others) is the "wild card" aspect.
> >Yes, this year everything went "according to plan" (you had a Final Four
of
> >two 1's and two 2's)
> >But you're taking the fun away from a small school that gets in and pulls
at
> >least one upset. The spirit at those campuses, for at least another week,
is
> >electric. To me, it's what makes the tournanament fun. Remember George
Mason
> >last year? Gonzaga? With your system those teams would have either not
been
> >there, or gotten an impossible match-up in game one.
> >
> >be well.
> >hope you and yours had a great day.
> >
> >robw
>
>
> sorry, but it's a poor tradeoff....a handful of homers get a big
> thrill for a game or two but with no chance of actually taking the top
> prize, at the expense of everyone else having to witness a great deal
> of predominately predictable basketball.
>
> I would rather see the overall level of play elevated over the same
> number of games, or even fewer if need be, and at the same time
> improve greatly the chances of actually determining the best team in
> the country in the process.
>
>
>
> >
> >"Ar Q" <ArthurQ283.DeleteThis@hottmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:C_0Sh.135525$_73.17027@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> <i_tell_it_like_it_is_7.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1175974083.952918.183980@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Yeah, it is just a shambles the way it is now. Just another weekend
> >> > of basketball so the fat cats at the NCAA can increase their already
> >> > overly large largess!
> >> >
> >> > There are seldom any 'upsets' on the 1st weekend anyway...unless you
> >> > call the occasional 'seed 5 beating seed 4' an 'upset'......barf!
> >> >
> >>
> >> I think 16 teams double elimination tournament is a great idea. Also, I
> >> recommend some extra steps:
> >>
> >> 1. All conference champions, and only them participate the tournament.
> >> 2. Using RPI ratings, the best eight conferences are automatically
> >qualified
> >> and their champions are seeded 1-8.
> >> 3. Other conference champions participate the qualify round(s) and
eight
> >> schools will advance to the tournament and seeded 9-16.
> >> 4. Conferences could decide to send either regular season champion,
> >> post-season tournament champion or the winner of one additional game
> >between
> >> the two to the NCAA tournament.
> >> 5. NIT will certainly be packed with lots of good teams from power
> >> conferences.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On Apr 8, 4:56 pm, "robw" <noddy... RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
> I respectfully disagree.
> For me ( and I stress that, "for me") double elimination would kill the
> tournament. It's the "one or done" that makes it exciting. It's not the
> "Little League World Series." It's March Maddness.
>
> Your point 1. Only conference champs make the tournament?

yes...please let us get rid of the clutter.....

>
> Only one team from the ACC, Big East, etc. make it?

yes

> You're telling me that the Ivy League champ had more reason to be there than
> Duke, Memphis or Louisville, etc?

yes..it IS a conference, after all...

>
> 2. It already happens. Once again, the Ivy league champ is going to get a
> higher seed than the ACC? Don't think so.

maybe not a higher seed, but only ONE team from the ACC, Big East,
SEC, etc.

>
> 3. Again, there are non-champion teams in the ACC, Big East etc, that are
> superior to the champs of many conferences.
>
> 4. The NIT is the FNC of college post season tournaments.
>
> With all respect, once again, the beauty of the NCAA Basketball tournament
> (for me and many many others) is the "wild card" aspect.
> Yes, this year everything went "according to plan" (you had a Final Four of
> two 1's and two 2's)
> But you're taking the fun away from a small school that gets in and pulls at
> least one upset. The spirit at those campuses, for at least another week, is
> electric. To me, it's what makes the tournanament fun. Remember George Mason
> last year? Gonzaga? With your system those teams would have either not been
> there, or gotten an impossible match-up in game one.
>
> be well.
> hope you and yours had a great day.

yeah...and i hope you smoked pot and bugs and worms are crawlin' out
of your ears, your bitches' ears and your kids too, if you gottem

>
> robw
>
> "Ar Q" <ArthurQ... RemoveThis @hottmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:C_0Sh.135525$_73.17027@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> > <i_tell_it_like_it_i... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1175974083.952918.183980@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > > Yeah, it is just a shambles the way it is now. Just another weekend
> > > of basketball so the fat cats at the NCAA can increase their already
> > > overly large largess!
>
> > > There are seldom any 'upsets' on the 1st weekend anyway...unless you
> > > call the occasional 'seed 5 beating seed 4' an 'upset'......barf!
>
> > I think 16 teams double elimination tournament is a great idea. Also, I
> > recommend some extra steps:
>
> > 1. All conference champions, and only them participate the tournament.
> > 2. Using RPI ratings, the best eight conferences are automatically
> qualified
> > and their champions are seeded 1-8.
> > 3. Other conference champions participate the qualify round(s) and eight
> > schools will advance to the tournament and seeded 9-16.
> > 4. Conferences could decide to send either regular season champion,
> > post-season tournament champion or the winner of one additional game
> between
> > the two to the NCAA tournament.
> > 5. NIT will certainly be packed with lots of good teams from power
> > conferences.
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

In article <slrnf1gqr4.4ac.djbSPAMSUCKS.RemoveThis@gomer.donniebarnes.com>,
Donnie Barnes <djbSPAMSUCKS.RemoveThis@donniebarnes.com> wrote:
>
> I promise you, taking the top 32 teams and playing 62 games between them
> would draw a lot higher RATINGS (which is what they are after, not total
> number of different individuals for the tournament) than 64 games with 65
> different teams do.
>
Despite your promise, I don't see the logic of this position. I know you
think that the ratings are "diluted" by having more teams, but I don't
see any evidence for this. Remember that not all the "extra" 32 teams
are necessarily small schools with a small fan base. Looking at the
bottom 32 seeds in any given year always shows a number of traditional
powerhouses, at least as far as fan base numbers go.

Also, if I'm an advertiser, I'm definitely more interested in reaching a
greater number of *different* viewers rather than just having a higher
rating.

-- jsh
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

<i_tell_it_like_it_is_7.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote

> Yeah, it is just a shambles the way it is now. Just another weekend
> of basketball so the fat cats at the NCAA can increase their already
> overly large largess!
>
> There are seldom any 'upsets' on the 1st weekend anyway...unless you
> call the occasional 'seed 5 beating seed 4' an 'upset'......barf!

Stinkiest bait in a while.

--Tedward
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On 7 Apr 2007 12:28:04 -0700, i_tell_it_like_it_is_7.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:

>Yeah, it is just a shambles the way it is now. Just another weekend
>of basketball so the fat cats at the NCAA can increase their already
>overly large largess!
>
>There are seldom any 'upsets' on the 1st weekend anyway...unless you
>call the occasional 'seed 5 beating seed 4' an 'upset'......barf!

Can you say 12 vs. 5? One of the most consistent upsets every year.
Can you say NC State? Villanova? Marquette? All NCAA champions who
wouldn't have made the tourney under your system. The field should
(and will) be expanded to 68 with each bracket having a 'play-in'
game.

WB Yeats
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On 2007-04-09, jsh <hughes DeleteThis @uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Also, if I'm an advertiser, I'm definitely more interested in reaching a
> greater number of *different* viewers rather than just having a higher
> rating.

A higher rating *is* a greater number of different viewers -- unless you
are assuming all advertisers run ads on all games.

Besides, repetition is something they are going for with ads. Ever
notice how some ads start out with a 30-second version, move to a 20-
second version, and then shift to a 15-second or even a 10-second
version? They are relying on the repetition but cutting down the later
runs as they assume you have already seen it.

--

Getting old is tough. It's frustrating when you know all the
answers and nobody bothers to ask the questions. -- unknown
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

In article <slrnf1klvf.s0f.constance.RemoveThis@bill.heins.net>,
Constance Reeder <constance.RemoveThis@duxmail.com> wrote:

> On 2007-04-09, jsh <hughes.RemoveThis@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > Also, if I'm an advertiser, I'm definitely more interested in reaching a
> > greater number of *different* viewers rather than just having a higher
> > rating.
>
> A higher rating *is* a greater number of different viewers -- unless you
> are assuming all advertisers run ads on all games.
>
> Besides, repetition is something they are going for with ads. Ever
> notice how some ads start out with a 30-second version, move to a 20-
> second version, and then shift to a 15-second or even a 10-second
> version? They are relying on the repetition but cutting down the later
> runs as they assume you have already seen it.

To hopefully clarify:

First off, I'm not convinced ratings would be better with a 32 team
field.

Secondly, although it may not have been obvious, I was referring to the
overall ratings for the whole tournament.

Not for a moment denying advertising's widespread (over)use of
repetition, I still think most advertisers would sacrifice a bit on the
total number of viewers over a fixed period if they knew they had
reached a greater number of different people overall.
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On Mon, 09 Apr, jsh wrote:
> Despite your promise, I don't see the logic of this position. I know you
> think that the ratings are "diluted" by having more teams, but I don't
> see any evidence for this. Remember that not all the "extra" 32 teams
> are necessarily small schools with a small fan base. Looking at the
> bottom 32 seeds in any given year always shows a number of traditional
> powerhouses, at least as far as fan base numbers go.
>
> Also, if I'm an advertiser, I'm definitely more interested in reaching a
> greater number of *different* viewers rather than just having a higher
> rating.

Ratings take the amount of individuals into the equation, I admit. So more
individuals does count. My point here is that while there are good teams
in that second 32, there are more bad than good *and* of the good they
probably aren't on an "up" year. Which means fewer fans paying attention
anyway.

Just seems like when you start with "only" 32 teams and do it double
elimination, your percentage of "good games" (by that I mean games against
two more elite teams that are both having pretty good years) is going to go
way up, which can't help but translate to higher ratings than all the 4-13
and worse mathchups would.


--Donnie

--
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

"Donnie Barnes" <djbSPAMSUCKS.DeleteThis@donniebarnes.com> wrote

> > Despite your promise, I don't see the logic of this position. I know you
> > think that the ratings are "diluted" by having more teams, but I don't
> > see any evidence for this. Remember that not all the "extra" 32 teams
> > are necessarily small schools with a small fan base. Looking at the
> > bottom 32 seeds in any given year always shows a number of traditional
> > powerhouses, at least as far as fan base numbers go.
> >
> > Also, if I'm an advertiser, I'm definitely more interested in reaching a
> > greater number of *different* viewers rather than just having a higher
> > rating.
>
> Ratings take the amount of individuals into the equation, I admit. So more
> individuals does count. My point here is that while there are good teams
> in that second 32, there are more bad than good *and* of the good they
> probably aren't on an "up" year. Which means fewer fans paying attention
> anyway.
>
> Just seems like when you start with "only" 32 teams and do it double
> elimination, your percentage of "good games" (by that I mean games against
> two more elite teams that are both having pretty good years) is going to go
> way up, which can't help but translate to higher ratings than all the 4-13
> and worse mathchups would.

Not when the 13 is giving the 4 all it can handle.
Plus you've got alums of about 16 schools who would
not otherwise care much about the tournament.

What will never happen is not giving every conference
a bid. Ergo too many teams are left out. A couple
of tournament upsets and that could include the top
teams in the country.

--Tedward
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

In article <slrnf1l5ii.61m.djbSPAMSUCKS RemoveThis @gomer.donniebarnes.com>,
Donnie Barnes <djbSPAMSUCKS RemoveThis @donniebarnes.com> wrote:
>
> Just seems like when you start with "only" 32 teams and do it double
> elimination, your percentage of "good games" (by that I mean games against
> two more elite teams that are both having pretty good years) is going to go
> way up, which can't help but translate to higher ratings than all the 4-13
> and worse mathchups would.
>
Ratings aside, I still don't really like the idea. Sometimes a "good
game" is in the eye of the beholder (to some degree anyway). No matter
how good (objectively) a game is, I'm not going to get the same thrill
watching it as I would if I have some strong emotional tie-in with at
least one of the teams playing. You'd be denying that experience for
quite a few people by reducing the field by half.

And I can't help but wonder if you're feelings on this aren't largely
shaped by the fact that you will almost always see your favorite team
playing in this new-style tournament. How about a little compassion for
fans of the second-tier teams?

OTOH, if you ask me whether a double elimination tournament with the top
32 teams might be a more accurate way to determine the year's best team,
I'd probably say yes.

-- jsh
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On Mon, 09 Apr, jsh wrote:
> Ratings aside, I still don't really like the idea. Sometimes a "good
> game" is in the eye of the beholder (to some degree anyway). No matter
> how good (objectively) a game is, I'm not going to get the same thrill
> watching it as I would if I have some strong emotional tie-in with at
> least one of the teams playing. You'd be denying that experience for
> quite a few people by reducing the field by half.

Only for the first round.

> And I can't help but wonder if you're feelings on this aren't largely
> shaped by the fact that you will almost always see your favorite team
> playing in this new-style tournament. How about a little compassion for
> fans of the second-tier teams?

Why? Why not a little compassion for the 270 or whatever that get left
out *still*? The bottom 32 rarely have a chance at winning. All they can
do is upset someone who *did* have a chance only to ultimately be taken out
anyway.

> OTOH, if you ask me whether a double elimination tournament with the top
> 32 teams might be a more accurate way to determine the year's best team,
> I'd probably say yes.

So what you're saying is you don't care that we don't use the best way to
determine who the best team is and yet we still call them the National
Champion. Got it.


--Donnie

--
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

In article <slrnf1lsrb.9b2.djbSPAMSUCKS.RemoveThis@gomer.donniebarnes.com>,
Donnie Barnes <djbSPAMSUCKS.RemoveThis@donniebarnes.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Apr, jsh wrote:
> > Ratings aside, I still don't really like the idea. Sometimes a "good
> > game" is in the eye of the beholder (to some degree anyway). No matter
> > how good (objectively) a game is, I'm not going to get the same thrill
> > watching it as I would if I have some strong emotional tie-in with at
> > least one of the teams playing. You'd be denying that experience for
> > quite a few people by reducing the field by half.
>
> Only for the first round.
>
So none of the bottom 32 have ever made it to the second round?

> > And I can't help but wonder if you're feelings on this aren't largely
> > shaped by the fact that you will almost always see your favorite team
> > playing in this new-style tournament. How about a little compassion for
> > fans of the second-tier teams?
>
> Why? Why not a little compassion for the 270 or whatever that get left
> out *still*? The bottom 32 rarely have a chance at winning. All they can
> do is upset someone who *did* have a chance only to ultimately be taken out
> anyway.
>
So why bother with 32? Why not just 16? Or 8? That would have covered
the Final Four this year. And what's wrong with having a 12 upset a 5?
You seem to want to ignore what helps to make the tournament exciting in
favor of a clinical march to a (mythical) undisputed champion.

> > OTOH, if you ask me whether a double elimination tournament with the top
> > 32 teams might be a more accurate way to determine the year's best team,
> > I'd probably say yes.
>
> So what you're saying is you don't care that we don't use the best way to
> determine who the best team is and yet we still call them the National
> Champion. Got it.
>
I never said I didn't care. I said I prefer a field of 64 over a field
of 32. And I'm not claiming a 32 team double elimination is the best way
to determine the best team; you are. I said I think it might be more
accurate than the current method (and there are other strategies that
might be better still), but that the current method produces a better
tournament.

Do you really think a field of 32 would end the controversy over who's
really the best team? Dream on. You think people will agree to who the
32 should be? You think officiating will all of a sudden stop being a
factor?

If I weren't so emoticon averse I might have stuck a smiley face after
my comment about compassion for the second tier. Nonetheless, the
reality is that the tournament has a much wider appeal for being more
inclusive.

And I'm still interested in some introspection on your part regarding my
question about whether or not you would feel the same about this 32 team
scheme if your home team weren't virtually guaranteed an appearance each
year.

-- jsh
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe..