Page 1 of 1
Falcons mentioned in Wall Street Journal
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:15 pm
by USGFreddie05-06
In today's Wall Street Journal, there was an article advocating for the NCAA basketball tourney to have 96 teams.
Look to the sidebar to see where the falcons would land if 31 additional teams were added based on last year's NIT. Hint: Still not good
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 15448.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Falcons mentioned in Wall Street Journal
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:12 pm
by h2oville rocket
USGFreddie05-06 wrote:In today's Wall Street Journal, there was an article advocating for the NCAA basketball tourney to have 96 teams.
Look to the sidebar to see where the falcons would land if 31 additional teams were added based on last year's NIT. Hint: Still not good
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 15448.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If Sagarin ratings were used to select NCAA Tournament teams, and if the NCAA decided to go with 306 teams, UT would be in!
Re: Falcons mentioned in Wall Street Journal
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:46 pm
by It's the Journey...
The only expansion or changes I would want for the NCAA tournament would be 68 teams. If 1 play-in game is good for the tournament why not 4? I would also like to see a consistent formula used (God that sounds BCSish) that gives ALL 334 Division I teams on equal footing.
I see this talk of expanding to 96 as a smoke screen to kill off the CBI and NIT. If the NCAA takes that many "good" teams who will come and watch the other two tournaments?
So I would HATE to see the NCAA tournament go with more than 68 teams.
Re: Falcons mentioned in Wall Street Journal
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:21 pm
by BGFalconfromCincy
It's the Journey... wrote:The only expansion or changes I would want for the NCAA tournament would be 68 teams. If 1 play-in game is good for the tournament why not 4? I would also like to see a consistent formula used (God that sounds BCSish) that gives ALL 334 Division I teams on equal footing.
I see this talk of expanding to 96 as a smoke screen to kill off the CBI and NIT. If the NCAA takes that many "good" teams who will come and watch the other two tournaments?
So I would HATE to see the NCAA tournament go with more than 68 teams.
I think part of the plan to expand to 96 includes getting rid of the NIT, since the NCAA owns it.
Still dumb either way, its fine the way it is, only change I would make is what you said about 4 play-in games
Re: Falcons mentioned in Wall Street Journal
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:13 am
by Falconfever
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the NCAA acquired the NIT a few years ago. So . . .
Re: Falcons mentioned in Wall Street Journal
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:10 pm
by BGFalconfromCincy
Falconfever wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the NCAA acquired the NIT a few years ago. So . . .
The NCAA does own the NIT, thats why they would get rid of the NIT if they expanded to 96
Re: Falcons mentioned in Wall Street Journal
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:49 pm
by h2oville rocket
Who owns the NIT- isn't it the NCAA?
Re: Falcons mentioned in Wall Street Journal
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:14 am
by Peregrinner
h2oville rocket wrote:Who owns the NIT- isn't it the NCAA?
Nope. It's the NCAA. Understandable mistake.