The two-tier tournament sounds ok to address low-loss teams without a conference tournament, or even with a tournament for mid-majors with low losses that are now denied access unless they win the conference tournament. The question of the NCAA’s motivation has been raised and I wonder if the NCAA would support a second play-in tournament without additional revenue. Can a second play-in tournament support its self?
While once in a while there is a good 1 vs 16, I have thought for awhile that they ought to at least go to 80 and have 13s vs 20, etc. The extra 16 would not be more bottom of the barrel teams. Once you had that first round of “play in” games, what we now think of as the first round would be more competitive.
I am not opposed to going to 96. I remember when they went to 48!
Auburn and KY should be excited, maybe they won’t lose their first game.
This isn’t a two-tier tournament, Tom. It’s actually kind of a return to what the Dance was before it went to the field of 64. Pre-64, there were always teams with byes. When US Reed hit the shot to beat Louisville in '81, we had played Thursday afternoon; Louisville had the bye.
Get this: in 1968, there were 7 teams in the East, 6 in the Mideast, 5 in the Midwest and 5 in the West. And teams were assigned geographically; not any of this putting Georgetown in the West stuff. So in the Midwest that year, SWC champ TCU and Big 8 champ Kansas State both got first round byes and played in the second round. Houston, which didn’t get a bye, won the regional and lost to UCLA in the FF.
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.