Stupid Question About The Ncaa Basketball Tournament

[Jeremy 0]

Wouldn't 64 teams make more sense? I know they expanded from 64 teams to 65 a while back. I guess I kind of expected them to realize how stupid it was by now. There must be a good reason for it.

[Franknbeans 46]

$

[thedanzone 2]

It's the "Play In Game". Not sure about the reasoning other than it gives another crap ass team a chance to play in the tourney.

[brinett9 0]

I already figured the thing was a pathetically stupid sham, and I didn't even know about the 65 team thing at the time.

[golden eagles 0]

If they have one play-in game that always ends up playing the #1 seed in the tournament, whey don't they just go ahead & have 4, one for each region? The winners of the play-in games would play each #1 seed.

[[zombie] 0]

The NCAA Tournament one-upped itself this year. The traditional field of 64 is now one team larger. With the split of the Western Athletic Conference last summer, the formation of the new Mountain West Conference by the former WAC schools, and the addition of the new conference's automatic tournament bid, the NCAA tournament committee decided instead of taking away one of the 34 at-large bids that they would add a play-in game.

 

linky

[Jeremy 0]

' date='Mar 13 2006, 02:09 PM' post='2332348']

linky

 

 

Ah. At least that kind of explains it. But would it be so horrible to have a tournament without Air Force or some other mediocre team that has no shot to win it anyway? One less at large bid wouldn't have made much impact, would it?

[Voltaire 5,203]

Oakland University has now won a tournament game so that's all that matters.

[George Carlin 1]

DUH, ESPN needed a game.

[swandown 0]

Too many mid-major conference winners were getting into the big dance, and the NCAA wanted to save those spots for teams from the major conferences.