hypothetically speaking… :’(
Field of 96 is just about the worst idea in sports ever.
49er1, that’s next season’s projected 96-team field. Should that be the case, the Fire Major thread will already be in place.
The good thing is that all that is crap right now and I’m willing to bet at least half the teams on that won’t be on the real bracket. As for 96 teams…yuck.
Interesting read from Andy Katz on this topic:
[quote=“49er1, post:1, topic:23064”]hypothetically speaking… :’(
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629[/quote]
“Beautiful! Just imagine how 5,249 fans (all us hard cores) will look in it for our home opener. I hope there’s at least 3x that, but we’ll see”.<-----from the football thread
Dude, who s*** in your cornflakes today? Quit being such a Debbie Downer. Things are looking up for us and this University right now. Why all the negativity?
Interesting read from Andy Katz on this topic:
ESPN.com: Smith against expanding tournament to 96[/quote]
If 96 were to occur, the most dramatic effect would be on the conference tournaments and their importance. That's why Smith is taking a college football approach to this matter. Smith is on board with what Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski suggested at the Final Four: There has to be an automatic qualifier for the regular-season champ. If that happens -- along with maintaining the current automatic bid for the tourney champs -- all conferences, from the Big Sky to the Big East, would have the chance to get at least two automatic berths.
Hmmm… Woot…
[quote=“Submarley734, post:6, topic:23064”][quote=“49er1, post:1, topic:23064”]hypothetically speaking… :’(
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629[/quote]
“Beautiful! Just imagine how 5,249 fans (all us hard cores) will look in it for our home opener. I hope there’s at least 3x that, but we’ll see”.<-----from the football thread
Dude, who s*** in your cornflakes today? Quit being such a Debbie Downer. Things are looking up for us and this University right now. Why all the negativity?[/quote]
Why? 1-7. That’s why. But I’ll get over it eventually, so chill. :))
Interesting read from Andy Katz on this topic:
ESPN.com: Smith against expanding tournament to 96[/quote]
If 96 were to occur, the most dramatic effect would be on the conference tournaments and their importance. That's why Smith is taking a college football approach to this matter. Smith is on board with what Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski suggested at the Final Four: There has to be an automatic qualifier for the regular-season champ. If that happens -- along with maintaining the current automatic bid for the tourney champs -- all conferences, from the Big Sky to the Big East, would have the chance to get at least two automatic berths.
Hmmm… Woot…[/quote]
if such a rule were to be put in place… why wouldn’t conferences suggest to their regular season champs, to “rest their players” so that another team from their conference is garunteed a birth. granted it wouldn’t mean much for conferences already getting 2+ members in… but for those 1 bid conferences, this should almost be garunteed to happen. no?
fwiw… i’m against the 96 team proposal.
Interesting read from Andy Katz on this topic:
ESPN.com: Smith against expanding tournament to 96[/quote]
If 96 were to occur, the most dramatic effect would be on the conference tournaments and their importance. That's why Smith is taking a college football approach to this matter. Smith is on board with what Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski suggested at the Final Four: There has to be an automatic qualifier for the regular-season champ. If that happens -- along with maintaining the current automatic bid for the tourney champs -- all conferences, from the Big Sky to the Big East, would have the chance to get at least two automatic berths.
Hmmm… Woot…[/quote]
if such a rule were to be put in place… why wouldn’t conferences suggest to their regular season champs, to “rest their players” so that another team from their conference is garunteed a birth. granted it wouldn’t mean much for conferences already getting 2+ members in… but for those 1 bid conferences, this should almost be garunteed to happen. no?
fwiw… i’m against the 96 team proposal.[/quote]
Maybe they can add if a team wins both, they don’t have to play in the play-in round. That would make it really worth it.
With the talent we have returning, I think talk of us not making a NINETY SIX TEAM tourney is pretty absurd. I know, I know, we are the Niners and ANYTHING can happen. In fact I’m sure now that I posted this, five players will transfer and three more will blow out knees…
If this is how it ends up, then the idea is completely useless.
Because we’ve got a new unproven coach, we’ll be off the radar for any preseason talk.
I’m ok with that, it makes our run next year that much more exciting. I don’t see how we wouldn’t make a 96 team tourney, even with twice as many small conference teams. We have all the same guys back from last years team, plus a coach focused on building team chemistry and defense, our two weak points last season. Unless Major is the worst game coach ever, we should be on track for a successful run in 2010-2011.
The thought of a 96 team tournament makes me want to throw up.
[quote=“Charlotte2002, post:12, topic:23064”]If this is how it ends up, then the idea is completely useless.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5086532[/quote]
Agreed and the reason why I have been so against this. All it does is stick double the amount of power teams into the dance. If this does go through I really wish they would give all the autobids the first round bye. Not that I expect that to happen though.
If 96 were to occur, the most dramatic effect would be on the conference tournaments and their importance. That's why Smith is taking a college football approach to this matter. Smith is on board with what Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski suggested at the Final Four: There has to be an automatic qualifier for the regular-season champ. If that happens -- along with maintaining the current automatic bid for the tourney champs -- all conferences, from the Big Sky to the Big East, would have the chance to get at least two automatic berths.
If that were to happen, it would be the only win-win to come out of the expansion. Theoretically, if this happens the number of at-large berths could still remain the same as they are with the field of 64.
Current (64 team field + play-in game): 31 automatic berths, 34 at-large berths
Expansion (96 team field): 61 potential automatic berths, 35 at-large berths
Based on the 2010 regular season and conference tournament results, there would have been 46 automatic berths, which would have meant 50 at-large berths.
The main questions to be raised are these in regards to granting the automatic bids to the regular season champ should the NCAA choose to do so:
-
Will the regular season champ even play in the conference tourney? Why would the conference want them to play, and why would the team really want to if they already know they are in the Dance? Will the NCAA mandate that they have to play in their conference tournament to get the regular season automatic berth?
-
Will conferences change their tiebreaker procedures for the regular season champion determination? It’s one thing to break a tie for seeding purposes, but it’s a whole different animal when it’s for a trip to the NCAA Tournament.
Good idea right there. Knowing the NCAA and the BCS schools, they wouldn’t want or like it, but it’s something that should happen if a team basically claims both of a conference’s berth. This would also answer the question I posed above about the regular season winners even playing in the conference tourney. Gotta give them a carrot.
[quote=“Submarley734, post:6, topic:23064”][quote=“49er1, post:1, topic:23064”]hypothetically speaking… :’(
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629[/quote]
[b]“Beautiful! Just imagine how 5,249 fans (all us hard cores) will look in it for our home opener. I hope there’s at least 3x that, but we’ll see”.<-----from the football thread
[/b]
Dude, who s*** in your cornflakes today? Quit being such a Debbie Downer. Things are looking up for us and this University right now. Why all the negativity?[/quote]i noticed that post too. 49er1 does have a tendency to only only post negative things about us. sort of like telling us we’re not worthy. i’m used to it.
[quote=“49er1, post:8, topic:23064”][quote=“Submarley734, post:6, topic:23064”][quote=“49er1, post:1, topic:23064”]hypothetically speaking… :’(
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629[/quote]
“Beautiful! Just imagine how 5,249 fans (all us hard cores) will look in it for our home opener. I hope there’s at least 3x that, but we’ll see”.<-----from the football thread
Dude, who s*** in your cornflakes today? Quit being such a Debbie Downer. Things are looking up for us and this University right now. Why all the negativity?[/quote]
Why? 1-7. That’s why. But I’ll get over it eventually, so chill. :))[/quote]
I have no idea what our averages will be, but I will bet my life that the home opener will be a packed house. We will have at least 5,000 students there (I am actually thinking a lot more than that) and we will have a solid turn out of alumni. I doubt there will be an open seat in the house that day and it will prove to be a hot ticket around town.
The best idea I’ve heard is to expand to 68 teams with 4 play in games and have 2 double headers, one in the east and one in the west. This would allow 3 additional teams into the tounrney and not make the play in game so lonely.
Most projections this far out our meaningless but fun to talk about I know.