Go back to 32 teams

[TangoBlue]

Like Florida's cake walk to the Final Four?

UK sure never got a cakewalk. They had to run a gauntlet of great teams!

 

[CatsTopPac]

Like Florida's cake walk to the Final Four?

I guess I don't understand how UConn and UK's path to the NC game (beating 8 of the top 12 teams), has anything to do with UF's path to the FF.

I guess that if I had to pick apart UF's path, I'd say that they won by double digits over every team. They should have gotten the easiest path though, that's what it means to get the #1 overall seed. But even so, I don't think that beating good UCLA team or a streaking Dayton team (who beat both 'Cuse and OSU) is necessarily a cake walk. I would say that WSU last year was more of a cake walk. I think that Dayton was a pretty good team who just didn't have the horses to run with UF, and it showed in the 2nd half.

 

[dcZONAfan]

Like Florida's cake walk to the Final Four?

what does that have to do with anything? Are they not one of the top 12 teams in the country because Dayton upset Syracuse? Because Stanford upset Kansas?

????

 

[Old Lion]

If Kentucky misses one of its 3pters against Michigan or Wisconsin, we aren't having this conversation. He is a decent coach and a ridiculously good recruiter.

This is what I am getting at. Same goes for UConn. They got a phantom foul gift against Saint Joe's to put the game in OT otherwise they were out in the first round.

When top teams play against each other the games come down to coin flips. UK and UConn are not better than these other teams, they are just more fortunate when it was needed.That's why the entire year needs to mean more than just a seed in a tourney. And yes I don't mind teams who have won crappy conferences getting in. There is no guarantee that 1 conference is actually better than another.

 

[dcZONAfan]

This is what I am getting at. Same goes for UConn. They got a phantom foul gift against Saint Joe's to put the game in OT otherwise they were out in the first round.

When top teams play against each other the games come down to coin flips. UK and UConn are not better than these other teams, they are just more fortunate when it was needed.That's why the entire year needs to mean more than just a seed in a tourney. And yes I don't mind teams who have won crappy conferences getting in. There is no guarantee that 1 conference is actually better than another.

that can't be right. If it were, Runeman wouldn't have a leg to stand on with his pick 'em champ-as-all-knowing argument. And we can't have that!

 

[CatsTopPac]

This is what I am getting at. Same goes for UConn. They got a phantom foul gift against Saint Joe's to put the game in OT otherwise they were out in the first round.

When top teams play against each other the games come down to coin flips. UK and UConn are not better than these other teams, they are just more fortunate when it was needed.That's why the entire year needs to mean more than just a seed in a tourney. And yes I don't mind teams who have won crappy conferences getting in. There is no guarantee that 1 conference is actually better than another.

So winning the regular season title doesn't count as much as winning the 3-4 game conference tourney, as to which teams deserve to be in the tourney? Because that sounds a little like what your problem is with not considering the whole season. So your 32 conference champs making the tourney would have looked something like this:

Bracket 1

UF
UCLA
Harvard
Providence
Delaware
Mercer
W Mich
Weber St.


Bracket 2

UVA
UNM
Cal Poly
Tulsa
UL Lafayette
Coastal Car
East Kent
NC Cent


Bracket 3

WSU
'Ville
SF Austin
NMSU
NDSU
American
Albany
Tx So

Bracket 4

ISU
MSU
St Joes
Gonzaga
Milwaukee
Manhattan
Wofford
Mt St Marys

Yeah, you're right, there is no guarantee that the Pac, SEC, B1G, B12, ACC, or AAC are better than the Big Sky, Horizon League, Southland, or Colonial Conference. Seems legit

And so Wisky, AZ, Michigan, etc. should not be awarded a ticket to the dance because of what they accomplished over the entire season, just because they didn't win the title game in their conference tourney???

The whole point of March is that it's a coin flip on who wins. No one wants to see blowouts until the FF. The best teams playing close games and saying "what could have been, if this play/call would have gone our way" is what March is all about. Otherwise, there are only 3-5 teams who are conference champs who have any realistic shot at winning the NC.

 

[Clayton]

Actually Clayton....most of the other top tier teams in the country have "raw NBA players", have had them or are {at least}actively recruiting them.

The coaches and fans at most any mid-major school would love to have these "raw NBA players" and would more actively recruit them......if they thought there was an iota of a chance to land one for their school.

Um...duh. Kentucky can put 5 raw NBA players on the floor while other teams are putting 1-2 raw NBA players on the floor. This matters. Its the reason why Kentucky succeeds even in an off year where there young guys can't operate at the end of games but still find themselves making 3pt shots on essentially broken plays. Its because the players are GOOD. Its not because Calipari is a significantly better coach than a lot of the ones he has been playing.

Its like UCONN in women's basketball except that there are many more male talents in the country than female talents. If you got rid of 1 and done, Calipari would falter a little bit because you wouldn't be able to reload every year and other teams would have similar rosters.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Um...duh. Kentucky can put 5 raw NBA players on the floor while other teams are putting 1-2 raw NBA players on the floor. This matters. Its the reason why Kentucky succeeds even in an off year where there young guys can't operate at the end of games but still find themselves making 3pt shots on essentially broken plays. Its because the players are GOOD. Its not because Calipari is a significantly better coach than a lot of the ones he has been playing.

Its like UCONN in women's basketball except that there are many more male talents in the country than female talents. If you got rid of 1 and done, Calipari would falter a little bit because you wouldn't be able to reload every year and other teams would have similar rosters.

Your definition of "raw" is a little misleading. It's not like all 5 players are going to leave this year and contribute in the NBA next year. So what you are really saying is that all 5 players will eventually contribute in the NBA. And that's not out of the ordinary for CBB teams. there have been more than a few teams that have had such teams. AZ in 2001 and 2003, and probably AZ this year or next year as well. I can tell you that NJ, AG, BA, Zeus, RHJ, from this year will all go pro, and Stanley Johnson next year, with the high probability that Craig Victor will also.

There are numerous teams with "raw" NBA talent on their squads.

 

[Steelboy84]

]I think he is an above average coaching mind and far and away the best recruiter in the game. That probably averages out to great coach in most minds but basketball is about the players more so than any other sport. I'm not trying to hate on Calipari but when someone makes a post like "I never thought Callipari would win 5 years ago" like his success is surprising...come on. Get real. You're playing raw NBA players vs teams with college players. In football, pitting raw NFL players against even the best college team would be a joke. In basketball, we praise the coach.

I'll put Roy Williams in that conversation.

 

[Clayton]

So what you are really saying is that all 5 players will eventually contribute in the NBA. And that's not out of the ordinary for CBB teams

You're probably talking about less than a dozen teams in the past decade having 4-6 NBA players on their roster. If you want to revisit this 2 years from now, you'll see your Arizona team isn't one of them (although I do like Gordon)

 

[CatsTopPac]

Well first of all, if you are saying that less than a dozen teams in the past decade, then you are basically saying that 1 per year does. So again, it's not that uncommon (enough to point to UK as being significant).

Second of all, I think that within 5 years, AZ will have had 4-6 players out of AG, NJ, RHJ, BA, Zeus, Stanley Johnson, and Craig Victor in the NBA. Hell, last year two players from AZ were drafted, and one has already been on a NBA roster. So even last year, out of Solomon Hill, Grant Jerrett, NJ, BA, Zeus, chances are that at least 4 out of those 5 will be on NBA roaster (considering that Solo already is, Grant Jerrett is looking good, and AG is almost a lock) Out of Brandon Ashley, Nick Johnson, and Zeus, I have to believe that one of those guys gets on a roster. That will be four from last year alone.

 

[antone112]

OPs suggestion would mean that a 7 and 8 seed would still be in the tourny. These "undeserving" teams would still be there. I love the last week of the tournament, lots of whining about how certain teams shouldn't be playing still. And mostly by fans of teams who most thought would be playing.

 

[CatsTopPac]

OPs suggestion would mean that a 7 and 8 seed would still be in the tourny. These "undeserving" teams would still be there. I love the last week of the tournament, lots of whining about how certain teams shouldn't be playing still. And mostly by fans of teams who most thought would be playing.

That's what I thought too. But now I think he's saying that only tourney conference champs should be in (since there are 32 conferences). I'm not sure though, he hasn't really spelled out how he thinks the field should look, just that UConn and UK shouldn't be there, it should be 32 teams, and that he doesn't have a problem with conference champs from non-major conferences playing, since there is no guarantee that any some conferences is better than any others.

 

[dcZONAfan]

That's what I thought too. But now I think he's saying that only tourney conference champs should be in (since there are 32 conferences). I'm not sure though, he hasn't really spelled out how he thinks the field should look, just that UConn and UK shouldn't be there, it should be 32 teams, and that he doesn't have a problem with conference champs from non-major conferences playing, since there is no guarantee that any some conferences is better than any others.

The OP has to be saying only conference champs are in, otherwise none of the mid-major programs would have a reason for playing basketball. How would THAT make any sense??

 

[Old Lion]

The OP has to be saying only conference champs are in, otherwise none of the mid-major programs would have a reason for playing basketball. How would THAT make any sense??

Actually I don't believe in conference tournaments either. Who ever wins the regular season wins the conference. No tourney necessary, otherwise you end up with the same problem.


So many of those teams mentioned would be in, but a team like UK who was 8th in their conference or something ridiculous would not. Teams with losing records like Cal poly would not either. Teams like Zona and Wisconsin would be because they had the best conference records

 

[CatsTopPac]

The OP has to be saying only conference champs are in, otherwise none of the mid-major programs would have a reason for playing basketball. How would THAT make any sense??

That's kind of what I thought, but it's just so crazy of an idea that I have a difficult time entertaining it. I mean, I listed the 32 teams and put them into 4 brackets of 8 teams, and look at them. That would be the shittiest tourney ever!!! Both teams playing for the NC, 3 out of the 4 FF teams, 6 of the Elite 8 teams, and 10 of the Sweet 16 teams.......... ALL GONE!!!

What you have left are basically Florida, MSU, UCLA, 'Ville, ISU, UVA, and then 26 other teams who didn't even make it out of the first weekend. All of them playing for the NC. Jesus what shitty competition!!!

Is that really what he's suggesting????

 

[douggie]

Actually I don't believe in conference tournaments either. Who ever wins the regular season wins the conference. No tourney necessary, otherwise you end up with the same problem.


So many of those teams mentioned would be in, but a team like UK who was 8th in their conference or something ridiculous would not. Teams with losing records like Cal poly would not either. Teams like Zona and Wisconsin would be because they had the best conference records

No home and away and round robin schedule has made this impossible in the mega-conferences. There is never a true "regular season champion" because they don't play everyone within their own conference home and away. Thus you would have a biased champion in every conference unless you had a maximum of ten or twelve teams in a conference. That won't ever happen again.

 

[CatsTopPac]

No home and away and round robin schedule has made this impossible in the mega-conferences. There is never a true "regular season champion" because they don't play everyone within their own conference home and away. Thus you would have a biased champion in every conference unless you had a maximum of ten or twelve teams in a conference. That won't ever happen again.

It can only happen in 10-team conferences. The Pac 10 did it until a couple years ago, and the Big 12 is the only one who still does (and they just went to doing it, when they went down to 10). Personally, I like the 10-team conferences, but yeah, that's not going to happen on a large scale (unfortunately).

 

[CatsTopPac]

So many of those teams mentioned would be in, but a team like UK who was 8th in their conference or something ridiculous would not.

Oh and by the way, UK was 2nd in the SEC and UConn was 3rd in the AAC. Sooo......

 

[NDHoosier101]

I liked the NCAA tourney better when only the elite teams who won conferences played for the most part. Letting in 68 teams is ridiculous.

Now we have 2 of least deserving teams playing for the championship. CT got a gift when Niang got hurt and would not be playing in the championship if that did not happen. KY would not even be in the field of 32. They won a few games at the end of the year and snuck in.

The championship should be about who played best throughout the year. KY was terrible at time and now they got hot winning a few games at the end of the year mostly with last second shots and they get to play for the title.

Imagine if Tennessee and Dayton made it. Both of those teams barely made the field of 68 nevermind 32. Both made a serious run.

I am not saying you don't want to give some teams that were not perfect during the year a chance, but it has just gotten ridiculous.

Getting hot is what one and done playoff systems are all about, changing the number of teams getting in isn't going to do anything about that. I guess they could adopt the NBA playoff tree, but that would ruin March Madness.