1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

College basketball 2009-10 running thread No. 1

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Nov 9, 2009.

  1. dreunc1542

    dreunc1542 Active Member

    No, I think 64 is just fine. I'd be fine going down to 48, but no lower. Don't put words in my mouth.
     
  2. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    But to go to 96 will make a bunch of mid-
    But to go to 96 will force a quantity of mid-majors to haul water up a hill in
    a borderline game, then take the worst of it on short rest. It's Big Six
    gangster bullshit.
     
  3. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    Dre, you typed this...

    "But, as I said there, I also believe all major sports should scale back to at least 24 teams."

    I was not putting words in your mouth, I was just trying to get a clarification.
     
  4. Mystery Meat II

    Mystery Meat II Well-Known Member

    Not necessarily. It might make a bunch of weaker mid-majors do it, sure. But it'll also make weaker big schools do it, as well. It's not as though an expansion is going to prompt them to seed UConn and UNC over Butler and Old Dominion. The weakest teams are going to be treated as such.
     
  5. dreunc1542

    dreunc1542 Active Member

    Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear that I meant pro sports should contract to 24 teams overall.
     
  6. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Butler and Old Dome are going to make the field this year, as they should.

    The only way UConn and/or that clown show known as Carolina should be on the premises for any tournament game this year should be as ticket-bearing
    donkeys.
     
  7. Mystery Meat II

    Mystery Meat II Well-Known Member

    Oh, no doubt. My point was more what would happen if they signed off on 96. The bottom seeds would be populated by the weaker conference winners and weaker at-large winners, so it wouldn't hurt your Butlers and ODUs and Gonzagas any. And while adding weaker teams sounds bad on the surface, it also gets you a better 64 for the next stage, because now your No. 1 and 2 teams have to open with better opponents, and your tiny schools don't automatically get fed to the lions.

    But I like college basketball; they can do whatever the hell they want to do to the tournament, and I'm still going to watch.
     
  8. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031003724.html

    Go TERPS
     
  9. dreunc1542

    dreunc1542 Active Member

    A right knee injury for Onuaku at Syracuse. No word yet on the severity, but that could be huge. Also, Georgetown continues to be the hardest team in the country to figure out.
     
  10. kingcreole

    kingcreole Active Member

    Syracuse may have lost its No. 1 seed today. West Virginia should be drooling with the possibility of being a 1.

    Kansas fought off a good game from Texas Tech. Cole Aldrich had 18 rebounds.
     
  11. Blitz

    Blitz Active Member

    Bama's climbed back from doubles-down to lead SC by a point / :20 left

    Winner gets Kentucky
     
  12. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    Bama wins. Nice comeback.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page