I will admit though that I have a biased opinion on this subject. Given the fact that I am a Jayhawks fan and going to this format would almost certianly result in a greater number of final four banner hanging in the Phog. Like this year, there would be no doubt in my mind KU would make the final four if it was double elimination. No way they would get beat twice, in a four team tournament. But once, that can happen to even the best of them.


Now that I actually think about it, it would get kind of boring have some combo of UNC, Duke, UCLA, Kansas, UConn, Kentucky, or what ever team built a dominate program that season in the final four every year. Diversity does make for an interesting tournament, so does the potential for a mid major to win it all.

 

-----signature-----

I agree..

but even with the current setup, you have to admit that the chances of a mid-major (or worse team) getting hot at the right time for 6 games in a row over 3 weekends in 3 different locations and catch 6 different 'better' teams on off nights. While the tournament is set up to eliminate the better teams with one loss, it sure does not help the lower seeded teams win. If that makes sense. Its a negative to the handful of teams each year that can win it all, but not really all that positive to the lower seeds...


oh, and M-I-Z!

 

-----signature-----

I do not know if you can call the setup negitive for the little guy, because in a double elimination they would have to catch those bigger guys on an off day twice in a weekend and twice as much for the tournament. But I will agree the chances for a mid major to actually win it all are very slim, as it should be honestly. Cornell winning the national title would be a nice story, but are they really the best team in the nation? I think the tournament gives mid majors about as good a chance as they can have.


This was a very interesting idea about copying the baseball format, but another problem with this system is that baseball uses a double header for a team that win the loser bracket playing the team that won the winners bracket. Basketball can not realistically do a double header like that. So we would have to expand it out a extra day to five days, which I do not see happening. That would leave two days rest before starting another five day tournament. So I have to conceed the arguement, the current format is probally the best we can get in the time span we are given.


A second arguement has to do with the tournament size. I think they should let 68 teams in the the tournament, and then make all the 12 seeds play each other on tuesday's opening round game. This would basically be the last four in playing the first four out. Winners get into the tournament as a 12 seed. I am tired of watching AQ teams in the play in game. They won their tournament they do not, and should not, have to play their way into the tournament. Would also end the who got snubbed arguement.

 

-----signature-----

Can add St. Mary's over Villanova to the upset train. Not surprised by this, Villanova was lucky to survive the first round game.

 

-----signature-----

Looks like Kansas can be added to the list of big dogs to fall during the first weekend. I had a feeling this would happen when I saw UNI was going to be our second day opponet.

 

-----signature-----