|
|
Post by pk9 on Mar 19, 2017 22:17:41 GMT
The bracket is designed to theoretically give the top seeds the easiest path to the championship, but as it is set up right now, the 1 seed would only get the easiest second round game if the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7 all win. I don't know what the stats are, but it seems like this is very rare (0/4 this year). Reseeding would allow the top seed to always play the lowest remaining seed.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by DrKrippen on Mar 19, 2017 23:13:46 GMT
Hell no. It's good just the way it is. The top teams should have to work for it too. Nobody gets a free pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 20, 2017 0:49:38 GMT
The bracket is designed to theoretically give the top seeds the easiest path to the championship, but as it is set up right now, the 1 seed would only get the easiest second round game if the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7 all win. I don't know what the stats are, but it seems like this is very rare (0/4 this year). Reseeding would allow the top seed to always play the lowest remaining seed. Thoughts? No, because reseeding means it's impossible to fill out a 64-team bracket because the matchups would change after each round. The way it is now, you can fill out the entire 64-team bracket before the tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by pk9 on Mar 20, 2017 0:54:31 GMT
The bracket is designed to theoretically give the top seeds the easiest path to the championship, but as it is set up right now, the 1 seed would only get the easiest second round game if the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7 all win. I don't know what the stats are, but it seems like this is very rare (0/4 this year). Reseeding would allow the top seed to always play the lowest remaining seed. Thoughts? No, because reseeding means it's impossible to fill out a 64-team bracket because the matchups would change after each round. The way it is now, you can fill out the entire 64-team bracket before the tournament. Why is this a consideration for the NCAA? |
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Mar 20, 2017 1:51:25 GMT
No, because reseeding means it's impossible to fill out a 64-team bracket because the matchups would change after each round. The way it is now, you can fill out the entire 64-team bracket before the tournament. Why is this a consideration for the NCAA? Most of the people who pay attention to the tournament do it to follow their brackets. Take that away and March Madness would be as popular as the College World Series. |
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Mar 20, 2017 2:16:44 GMT
Why is this a consideration for the NCAA? Most of the people who pay attention to the tournament do it to follow their brackets. Take that away and March Madness would be as popular as the College World Series. time to start a college world series pool! |
|
|
|
Post by pk9 on Mar 20, 2017 4:01:39 GMT
Why is this a consideration for the NCAA? Most of the people who pay attention to the tournament do it to follow their brackets. Take that away and March Madness would be as popular as the College World Series. You can still do a tournament pool with reseeding. It will be a little more complicated but people will adjust. |
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Mar 21, 2017 16:11:43 GMT
Most of the people who pay attention to the tournament do it to follow their brackets. Take that away and March Madness would be as popular as the College World Series. You can still do a tournament pool with reseeding. It will be a little more complicated but people will adjust. just a better job of seeding. |
|
|
|
Post by marsexplorer on Mar 21, 2017 21:33:57 GMT
Maybe they should give the highest seed home court like the NIT does.
|
|
|
|
Post by pk9 on Mar 22, 2017 2:58:06 GMT
The neutral/home court issue doesn't address the problem of teams other than the 1 seed benefiting from upsets.
|
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Mar 22, 2017 4:12:43 GMT
The bracket is designed to theoretically give the top seeds the easiest path to the championship I disagree with your premise. I believe the bracket is set up to give the number 1 seed a path where they don't have to face the second or third best team until the Elite 8. If they are the number 1 seed, they should be able to beat the 8th seed and the 4th seed. There is no reason to cater to Villanova by having them face USC instead of Wisconsin. Especially when, hypothetically speaking, USC was better than the 6 seed, so they would be tougher than the 8 seed. |
|
|
|
Post by pk9 on Mar 22, 2017 23:13:27 GMT
The bracket is designed to theoretically give the top seeds the easiest path to the championship I disagree with your premise. I believe the bracket is set up to give the number 1 seed a path where they don't have to face the second or third best team until the Elite 8. If they are the number 1 seed, they should be able to beat the 8th seed and the 4th seed. But by your logic, if they are the number 1 seed, they should be able to beat the #2 seed and the #3 seed. So why not just schedule the overall #1 to play the overall #2 in the first round, #3 second round, #4 in the third round, etc? They should be able to beat them all. |
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Mar 23, 2017 4:18:31 GMT
"So why not just schedule the overall #1 to play the overall #2 in the first round, #3 second round, #4 in the third round, etc?"
Because like I said - the bracket is designed to keep the 1 safe from the big bad 2s and 3s, not the big bad 8s and 9s. It is not designed to make things any easier than that. This is why 1s beat 8s and 9s 85% of the time, and only beat 2s and 3s 53% of the time.
I'm saying you're trying to solve a problem that isn't a problem. And you want to do that by changing a system that has worked for decades with tremendous fanfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by pk9 on Mar 23, 2017 22:13:43 GMT
Then why is the overall #1 scheduled against the winner of the #66/#67 play in game? Surely if they don't care about the #1 playing the #8 instead of a #13, they wouldn't care about which #16 seed they play?
But they change the system all the time. Originally there were no seeds at all. Then they were placed in brackets by geographic location. It was only after they expanded that teams could play anyone outside their region before the final four.
The point is, they are always looking to make it better.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 26, 2017 17:52:47 GMT
Then why is the overall #1 scheduled against the winner of the #66/#67 play in game? Surely if they don't care about the #1 playing the #8 instead of a #13, they wouldn't care about which #16 seed they play? But they change the system all the time. Originally there were no seeds at all. Then they were placed in brackets by geographic location. It was only after they expanded that teams could play anyone outside their region before the final four. The point is, they are always looking to make it better. No, the NCAA shouldn't consider reseeding. Besides making it impossible to fill out a 64-team bracket before the tournament, reseeding creates 2 major problems:
1. Currently, #2 plays #15 and #7 plays #10 on the same day at the same arena. The winner of the 7/10 game knows that in 2 days they'll play at that same arena against the winner of the 2/15 game. Reseeding means that the winner of the 7/10 game may have to play #3 or #4 or some other seed. But #3, #4, and all other seeds are at some other location. So the winner of the 7/10 game may have to travel to another location for their 2nd-round game.
2. Currently, the 1st round is divided into 2 days. 16 games on Thursday and 16 games on Friday. At the end of Thursday's games, each of the 16 Thursday winners knows that they'll be playing on Saturday at the same arena and knows who they'll be playing. Reseeding means that some teams might not know who or where they'll play their 2nd-round game until the end of Friday's games. So some teams may have to get on a plane on Friday night and travel to another location to play a Saturday morning game.
Not only would the teams have to travel, but any parents, alumni, and fans of the team that went to the game would also have to make last-minute travel and hotel arrangements for the 2nd-round game. Also, if a team played on Thursday and they're reseeded to play a team that played on Friday, does the game get played on Saturday or Sunday?
|
|
|
|
Post by marsexplorer on Mar 26, 2017 18:02:13 GMT
All good points. I am impressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by pk9 on Mar 28, 2017 21:50:24 GMT
1. Currently, #2 plays #15 and #7 plays #10 on the same day at the same arena. The winner of the 7/10 game knows that in 2 days they'll play at that same arena against the winner of the 2/15 game. Reseeding means that the winner of the 7/10 game may have to play #3 or #4 or some other seed. But #3, #4, and all other seeds are at some other location. So the winner of the 7/10 game may have to travel to another location for their 2nd-round game.
2. Currently, the 1st round is divided into 2 days. 16 games on Thursday and 16 games on Friday. At the end of Thursday's games, each of the 16 Thursday winners knows that they'll be playing on Saturday at the same arena and knows who they'll be playing. Reseeding means that some teams might not know who or where they'll play their 2nd-round game until the end of Friday's games. So some teams may have to get on a plane on Friday night and travel to another location to play a Saturday morning game.
Not only would the teams have to travel, but any parents, alumni, and fans of the team that went to the game would also have to make last-minute travel and hotel arrangements for the 2nd-round game. Also, if a team played on Thursday and they're reseeded to play a team that played on Friday, does the game get played on Saturday or Sunday?
Finally, someone brings up this point. I do have a response to this. There is a practical way to do this that has very little effect on the travel: Prior to the institution of the pod system in 2002, each region was divided into 2 sites for the opening games. All 8 teams from each site would end up in the same half of the bracket for the regional, so basically 1-4-5-8-9-12-13-16 are assigned to one site and 2-3-6-7-10-11-14-15 are assigned to the other site. If you go back to that setup, the 8 teams at one site all play on the same day. You can then re-seed the 4 winners for the two second round games. No one has to get on a plane to change arenas. Fans who bought tickets for both days would already have tickets to the weekend doubleheader. If people get confused about the numbering, you can just number each subregional 1-8. Two teams advance out of each one to play in the regional on the second weekend (regions are locked), where they get re-seeded again based on their overall 1-68 ranking. The only drawback is that this system might increase the travel for current 3 and 4 seeds which normally get to "host" a minibracket. (UCLA for example would have had to play the first weekend in Indianapolis instead of Sacramento). But there's a total of eight teams out of 68 that it affects. And you can say it's a reward for the 1 and 2 seeds to get the closest games. |
|
