Click here for an easy and free way to help feed the hungry at The Hunger Site! Non-profit ad by Voyager
VoyForums
Oklahoma Disaster Relief










American Red Cross
Together, we can save a life


See Kare11.com's page for more ways to contribute.

VoyForums Notice -- Quick Contributions:
Donate $10 to the Red Cross: Text the word REDCROSS to 90999
Donate $10 to the Salvation Army: Text the word STORM to 80888
* The charge will appear on your cellphone bill.

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:40:23 03/15/12 Thu
Author: charles arey
Author Host/IP: 184.36.57.49
Subject: NCAA basketball tournament question

I used to follow college basketball even more closely than football but have sort of gotten away from it over the last 20 years, so I don't understand the following: why did South Florida and California have to play a preliminary game to get the #12 seed in their region? I understand why they have the four preliminary games (because they want 68 teams in the tournament instead of 64) but I do not understand why those games do not all feed into the #16 seeds. So if South Florida goes on to win the tournament they would have had to play one more game than would #13 Ohio, #14 Belmont, or #15 Detroit. This seems to penalize the higher-seeded teams.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Re: NCAA basketball tournament question -- No name, 13:10:52 03/15/12 Thu (69.138.152.250)

>I used to follow college basketball even more closely
>than football but have sort of gotten away from it
>over the last 20 years, so I don't understand the
>following: why did South Florida and California have
>to play a preliminary game to get the #12 seed in
>their region? I understand why they have the four
>preliminary games (because they want 68 teams in the
>tournament instead of 64) but I do not understand why
>those games do not all feed into the #16 seeds. So if
>South Florida goes on to win the tournament they would
>have had to play one more game than would #13 Ohio,
>#14 Belmont, or #15 Detroit. This seems to penalize
>the higher-seeded teams.

The "First Four" is played between the four lowest automatic bid teams and the four lowest at large selections. Because Cal and USF play in higher quality leagues, they got seeded higher in the overall tournament than automatic bid teams from weaker leagues.

Basically, they're not all playing for 16 seeds because the last four at large teams in often rank ahead of several automatic bid teams.

[ Edit | View ]
[> [> thanks for clarifying (n/t) -- charles arey, 19:43:16 03/15/12 Thu (74.60.209.109)

_

[ Edit | View ]

[> Some Talks About Going To 132 Team Field -- David S., 14:56:20 03/17/12 Sat (173.218.171.160)

>I used to follow college basketball even more closely
>than football but have sort of gotten away from it
>over the last 20 years, so I don't understand the
>following: why did South Florida and California have
>to play a preliminary game to get the #12 seed in
>their region? I understand why they have the four
>preliminary games (because they want 68 teams in the
>tournament instead of 64) but I do not understand why
>those games do not all feed into the #16 seeds. So if
>South Florida goes on to win the tournament they would
>have had to play one more game than would #13 Ohio,
>#14 Belmont, or #15 Detroit. This seems to penalize
>the higher-seeded teams.


This would give everybody the equal amount of time to playing time, plus no more controversy on who should be in the field and who should not. This could lead to some changes with the NCAA of force reclassifications again in the future by having some of the large schools be reclassified to D-1. I know my school have grown to 10,000 in less than 10 years, and still growing fast. It could help the FCS level that needs schools badly in areas, and to help relieve some bloatness in D-2 with all the NAIA and NJCAA schools making the jump. It is just my opinion, but it would be nice as well to bring back some rivilry games that have been lost with the reclssifications that took place.

[ Edit | View ]
[> [> Re: Some Talks About Going To 132 Team Field -- No name, 14:37:19 03/19/12 Mon (38.112.157.6)

>>I used to follow college basketball even more closely
>>than football but have sort of gotten away from it
>>over the last 20 years, so I don't understand the
>>following: why did South Florida and California have
>>to play a preliminary game to get the #12 seed in
>>their region? I understand why they have the four
>>preliminary games (because they want 68 teams in the
>>tournament instead of 64) but I do not understand why
>>those games do not all feed into the #16 seeds. So if
>>South Florida goes on to win the tournament they would
>>have had to play one more game than would #13 Ohio,
>>#14 Belmont, or #15 Detroit. This seems to penalize
>>the higher-seeded teams.
>
>
>This would give everybody the equal amount of time to
>playing time, plus no more controversy on who should
>be in the field and who should not. This could lead to
>some changes with the NCAA of force reclassifications
>again in the future by having some of the large
>schools be reclassified to D-1. I know my school have
>grown to 10,000 in less than 10 years, and still
>growing fast. It could help the FCS level that needs
>schools badly in areas, and to help relieve some
>bloatness in D-2 with all the NAIA and NJCAA schools
>making the jump. It is just my opinion, but it would
>be nice as well to bring back some rivilry games that
>have been lost with the reclssifications that took
>place.

I'd like to see D-2 eliminated. Just go back to a two-division structure with Divisions I and III. That would make everything easier, I think.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Except That... -- DFW HOYA, 21:18:32 03/20/12 Tue (76.186.226.187)

>I'd like to see D-2 eliminated. Just go back to a
>two-division structure with Divisions I and III. That
>would make everything easier, I think.

Except that the original structure lumped II and III as one division.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Re: Except That... -- Danny, 16:04:01 03/22/12 Thu (38.112.157.6)

>>I'd like to see D-2 eliminated. Just go back to a
>>two-division structure with Divisions I and III. That
>>would make everything easier, I think.
>
>Except that the original structure lumped II and III
>as one division.
Well that's just semantics, really, and likely if you did that, a bunch of schools would move up and a bunch more would move down.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Except That... -- David S., 23:22:44 04/10/12 Tue (173.218.171.160)

>>>I'd like to see D-2 eliminated. Just go back to a
>>>two-division structure with Divisions I and III. That
>>>would make everything easier, I think.
>>
>>Except that the original structure lumped II and III
>>as one division.
>Well that's just semantics, really, and likely if you
>did that, a bunch of schools would move up and a bunch
>more would move down.



There are a lot of schools that have grown so big that they outgrew D-2. Those schools that are public that have more than 10,000 student body should move to D-1.

[ Edit | View ]

[> And why is Louisville wearing orange uniforms??? -- charles arey, 20:47:33 03/24/12 Sat (74.60.209.109)

???????

[ Edit | View ]
[> [> Re: And why is Louisville wearing orange uniforms??? -- Rick Lay, 23:13:36 03/24/12 Sat (153.90.84.75)

>???????

I'm told they are suppose to be "neon/florescent red"

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: And why is Louisville wearing orange uniforms??? -- Milwaukee T, 21:12:41 03/26/12 Mon (174.103.183.1)

They are a florescent red. The kind that you will find on fishing gear. It doesn't look like it on television with the way the light shows on it, but in person it looks like an amzingly bright red. It actually looks pretty cool in person, but you'll go blind looking at it too long.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.