Open NCAA Tournament Day 1 Thread

by David A. Arnott on Mar 18, 2010 1:16 PM EDT Comment 8 comments

Sorry this is a touch late. If anyone cares, here's my bracket.

Wait... Villanova's losing!?!?!?!?

0 recs | Comment 8 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'm sure Villanova

will turn it around and get in control of things. At least I certainly hope so, because them losing would completely destroy my bracket; I have them in the Final Four.

David, I think you have one of the most interesting brackets I’ve seen, especially your Final Four picks.

My Final Four includes: Kansas, Kentucky, Villanova, Syracuse (although on some secondary brackets, I have Kansas State instead). I have Kansas winning it all.

I have Duke and Maryland as the only ACC teams winning their first game.

My main first round upsets include: Sienna, Cornell, Minnesota, San Diego State, and possibly St. Mary’s winning their first game.

With the Heels in the NIT, this has been the first year I’ve actually filled out an NIT bracket, and I must say, doing so is somewhat hilarious.

Also, anyone else against the CBI and the CIT? Both tournaments are two years old or so, and to be frank, I don’t think more post season tournaments are necessary. Likewise, I do not support the motion to expand the NCAA 65 field.

by Roger, Roger on Mar 18, 2010 1:48 PM EDT reply actions

We are in near total DISagreement

Also, anyone else against the CBI and the CIT? Both tournaments are two years old or so, and to be frank, I don’t think more post season tournaments are necessary. Likewise, I do not support the motion to expand the NCAA 65 field.

I like having the extra post season tourneys. It gives teams like my alma-mater App St. (which destroyed Harvard last night in the CIT) something to play for if they come up short in their conference tourney. I can understand not watching them, but why would anybody be “against” them?

As far as expanding the field. I would like to see them add 7 games to the opening round (or play-in) games. But instead of making small conference champs play to see who is a 16 and play Duke — Minnesota, Utah St, Florida, Missouri, etc. could play Va Tech, Illinois, Miss St, Ole Miss, etc. to see who’s bubble gets burst. You know, a real play off?

by dudemanhey on Mar 18, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Well,

I will concede; perhaps “against” is not exactly the word I should have used. I acknowledge that these new post season tournaments do provide further opportunities for players of (often times) smaller schools, and it certainly gives fans the opportunity to watch and cheer their team in further games.

My thoughts on this whole issue rests with the concept of tournament, post-season play, and exclusivity. The NCAA Tournament is a goal that teams work hard every season to reach. It is both a goal, reward, and honor to reach the tournament. In order for it to be as such, certain teams have to be excluded; obviously, it’s both logistically impossible and impractical to include all D1 teams in the tournament. I find the current size of the field to be perfectly fine, although I guess if they wanted to include three more play-in games, I would be ok with that. Basically, I view the NCAA as a ‘championship tournament,’ and in order for it be that way, exclusivity is necessary.

-Whatever happens with the actual size of the field, conference auto-bids are important, and should remain in place.

On to the NIT—Unlike others out there, I have no qualms with this tournament, and I think it’s a shame that it’s often viewed as a ’loser’s tournament.’ Currently, I think the NIT does a good job of allowing teams to play who were on the bubble and missed the NCAA, along with other schools. It’s also important to note that the NIT is older than the NCAA, despite losing its spotlight to it. And weather people like it or not, any extended tournament involves a lot of work and various teams to play.

The addition of two new tournaments, to me, in a way dilutes the exclusivity of a tournament/championship. Evidently, the CBI and the CIT are essentially created by two organizations to drum up some cash, and aren’t really associated with the NCAA. In an ideal world, every team should have about the same equal chance of making it into the NCAA, but obviously, that’s an unrealistic expectation. In that sense, these two new tournaments do give these certain schools post-season play.

and I haven’t even mentioned the NAIA lol.

For my word, I think App State should have been in the NIT.

by Roger, Roger on Mar 18, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions