The No. 1 overall seed in the NCAA Tournament will now get to choose the...

Donate To GopherHole
Unregistered User

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
14,751
Reaction score
4,926
Points
113
...location of its first and second round games

[Sorry about the title. Character limit]

Even though the NCAA Tournament is eight months away, we've got a hefty update on some upcoming changes.
One twist coming next season: The No. 1 overall seed will be able to choose the location of its first two games of the tournament. So if that team is Duke, or Kentucky, or Kansas, or whichever school gets put atop the 1-68 seed list, that program will get to pick where it plays its first and second-round games.
"Preferences would be communicated by teams in contention for the overall No. 1 seed far in advance of Selection Sunday in a process to be determined," the NCAA said in a statement.

Clicky
 

I like this change, though the committee, has pretty much been doing this on its own by protecting top seeds.

Now they need to mandate that major conference teams go on the road and play smaller schools at least once per season. It would be great for the game, but it will never happen because most major conference coaches are pu**ies and don't play true road games unless they're forced to. Anything that produces more games on true home courts, and makes things more equal for the smaller schools, I'd be all for it.

Also, needs to be some kind of penalty for teams that willingly schedule non-Division I opponents. There are 351 Division I teams. It shouldn't be necessary for any school (large or small) to play a non-Division I opponent unless it's part of a bracketed tournament (i.e Chaminade in Maui Invitational, Alaska-Anchorage in Great Alaska Shootout, etc.).
 

SelectionSunday said:
I like this change, though the committee, has pretty much been doing this on its own by protecting top seeds.

Now they need to mandate that major conference teams go on the road and play smaller schools at least once per season. It would be great for the game, but it will never happen because most major conference coaches are pu**ies and don't play true road games unless they're forced to. Anything that produces more games on true home courts, and makes things more equal for the smaller schools, I'd be all for it.

Also, needs to be some kind of penalty for teams that willingly schedule non-Division I opponents. There are 351 Division I teams. It shouldn't be necessary for any school (large or small) to play a non-Division I opponent unless it's part of a bracketed tournament (i.e Chaminade in Maui Invitational, Alaska-Anchorage in Great Alaska Shootout, etc.).
Click to expand...

Isn't it enough of a penalty that the game doesn't count for squat as part of their overall record? Teams that are playing 4 games in an exempt tourney can afford to burn one of their other 27 games on a non-D1 school and still be at 30 games.
 

Ope3 said:
Isn't it enough of a penalty that the game doesn't count for squat as part of their overall record? Teams that are playing 4 games in an exempt tourney can afford to burn one of their other 27 games on a non-D1 school and still be at 30 games.
Click to expand...

The idea, in theory, would be to play all DI opponents, so that no one plays any games that count for squat. Shouldn't be necessary with 351 teams.

As much as I've complained over the years about Gophers' home schedules, even when they play a traditionally shi**y DI team/program at least there's a chance something good could come out of it at the end of the season. ... the opponent being much better than anticipated and/or they become a "win vs. a team in the field" if they earn their conference's auto bid. It's not much, but it's something. It counts. Non-DI games are basically additional exhibition games. They don't matter at all.
 

One could argue you are better off playing a game that doesn't count than play a team that is over 300 in the RPI. Also could make sense late in the season if you have a "bye" in the conference slate, just to stay sharp.

As a consumer, I would also prefer to see a game that matters, although I would likely have been more intrigued last year in a Gopher/St Thomas game than say Chicago State.
 


Ope3 said:
One could argue you are better off playing a game that doesn't count than play a team that is over 300 in the RPI. Also could make sense late in the season if you have a "bye" in the conference slate, just to stay sharp.

As a consumer, I would also prefer to see a game that matters, although I would likely have been more intrigued last year in a Gopher/St Thomas game than say Chicago State.
Click to expand...

Fair points. I'm speaking more from the consumer angle of it. I'd rather watch the Gophers play a DI "RPI killer" than a St. Thomas, even though the Tommies are my alma mater.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Fair points. I'm speaking more from the consumer angle of it. I'd rather watch the Gophers play a DI "RPI killer" than a St. Thomas, even though the Tommies are my alma mater.
Click to expand...

Tommies are also MIAC Post-Season Runner-Up to the Oles. Kind of redeemed themselves by winning the D3 title.
 

I'd rather see the Gophers play an Ivy League team or one of the service academies than play a non-D1 school. Playing Harvard with Simani would have been fun.
 

Ope3 said:
One could argue you are better off playing a game that doesn't count than play a team that is over 300 in the RPI. Also could make sense late in the season if you have a "bye" in the conference slate, just to stay sharp.

As a consumer, I would also prefer to see a game that matters, although I would likely have been more intrigued last year in a Gopher/St Thomas game than say Chicago State.
Click to expand...

St. Thomas? Come on. They are a division III school that lost to Concordia-St. Paul last year...and CSP was 13-16. I would have loved to see the Gophers play Augustana last year...although it might not have been a result we would have wanted.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom