I can deal with 68. But the play in games should be between the last 8 teams to get in, not automatic qualifiers. They could play for the 12 seed or something like that.wilson wrote:I can totally deal with 68 teams. A wacky number, but no wackier than 65, and waaay better than 96.CameronBornAndBred wrote:Now they only want to expand to 68 teams, which would still leave the holes playing in the NIT.![]()
Also, CBS and Turner will show all of next year's games live.
http://crazietalk.net/blog1.php/2010/04 ... d-of-money
NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...
Moderator: CameronBornAndBred
- Jesus_hurley
- Graduate Student at PWing school
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: September 12th, 2009, 8:35 pm
- Location: Durham NC
Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...
Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...
I disagree. As it is, the last few automatic qualifiers have virtually nil chance to win a game in the tournament. Participants in the last several play-in games have said themselves that they really enjoyed participating in it, because they got the stage to themselves and had a chance not just to participate in the proceedings, but to actually notch a win. I think this format will work just fine.Jesus_hurley wrote:I can deal with 68. But the play in games should be between the last 8 teams to get in, not automatic qualifiers. They could play for the 12 seed or something like that.wilson wrote:I can totally deal with 68 teams. A wacky number, but no wackier than 65, and waaay better than 96.CameronBornAndBred wrote:Now they only want to expand to 68 teams, which would still leave the holes playing in the NIT.![]()
Also, CBS and Turner will show all of next year's games live.
http://crazietalk.net/blog1.php/2010/04 ... d-of-money
![Image](http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/film_images/cast_away_movie_Wilson_football.jpg)