Kansas Crimson

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 4:49 pm Oh gq, cool, I remember you

Yeah, I made what is still most likely the best post of all time on all iterations of these boards it’s my page by page recap of the tuby thread

Mine was leading the douche draft of 09.

Wiscys was the boycott thread.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 8:56 pm Mine was leading the douche draft of 09.

Wiscys was the boycott thread.

Your one shining moment thing was great

jfc

… The NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee acknowledged its members talked about expanding the NCAA tournament in its three-day meeting this week, but the organization also said expanding the field is "not imminent."
"The committee must be good stewards for the Division I Men's Basketball Championship," said Dan Gavitt, NCAA senior vice president of basketball. "They are committed to doing their due diligence looking at a few different models to make an informed decision that's in the best interests of the championship, and that may very well include deciding against expansion."

"The committee and staff will continue studying options and gathering feedback from various constituents," Gavitt added. "Whether the tournament expands or not remains to be seen."…

(per espn)

please no

The tournament is already such a terrible way to determine a champion. I just don’t really care if they add another round’s worth of games.

But, then what about the NIT?

might be on the road to 96 teams

blech, no thank you

Genuine question, why the strong aversion to 96 teams? For me, 68 is already absurd and any further expansion just doesn't really matter.

diluted product, diluted champion, devaluation of the regular season body of work.

64 is great...if anything should go down. Not up.

at least for me, i’m already not watching the play-in games

KUTradition wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2023 7:34 pm at least for me, i’m already not watching the play-in games

^^^

I almost posted the same thing hours ago.

Please to stop channeling me Trad!

(Said in the voice of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon.)

ChicagoHawk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2023 6:22 pm Genuine question, why the strong aversion to 96 teams? For me, 68 is already absurd and any further expansion just doesn't really matter.

First round is still really, really fun.

I don't think it would be with 96 teams. And making the tournament would be such a low bar to the point that it's meaningless. Like a participation trophy

A postseason tournament that already has major flaws determining the best team shouldn’t do that even more.

I agree. I feel the Tournament doesn't need any more gimmicks. I am extremely confident that if the tournament expanded to however many teams but not all teams, there will still be controversy over who makes it and who doesn't.

These opinions about gimmicks and its reason for existing are cute.

64 teams was perfectly packaged. It’s just a matter of time before capitalism creates lunacy.

All fair perspectives. Directionally, I do agree that 68 is better than 96. My feeling is just that any further expansion of a tournament with a stupid format and too many teams already doesn’t really move me.

Mjl wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2023 10:41 pm First round is still really, really fun.

I don't think it would be with 96 teams. And making the tournament would be such a low bar to the point that it's meaningless. Like a participation trophy

This is interesting, though. With 96, wouldn’t they just have a 32 game play-in round that would precede the standard round of 64? Not saying that invalidates your point, just think very little would change outside of a big play-in round expansion.

In my ideal world, the tournament is a big exhibition event for everyone outside of the top 8-12 teams, who would instead play a series-based or double elimination tournament.

as is, maybe have the 2 finalists play a best 2 outta 3 for the championship? I do like your elimination tourney idea.

ramjet wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 6:24 pm as is, maybe have the 2 finalists play a best 2 outta 3 for the championship? I do like your elimination tourney idea.

I'm torn. Any changes along these lines would obviously be favorable to my rooting interests.

But the lunacy - yes, the madness - is sort of college basketball's thing!

I personally feel that going away from single-elimination would be a much bigger change to the spirit of the sport than, say, belatedly (and partially) legitimizing the payment of players.

:/

Kiffin prefaced his comments by saying he's happy that players can get paid but said the unintended consequence of NIL is a "pay-for-play" system where players follow the money and the teams with the deepest pockets get the best talent.

"We've got professional sports," except with no salary cap or luxury tax, and the result is myriad "issues" for coaches.


https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... l-disaster

Called this over 3 years ago:

viewtopic.php?p=113842#p113842