Comments about ‘Mike Sorensen: NCAA tournament is great but needs some tweaks’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, March 30 2014 8:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
American Fork, UT

Nah, it's fine the way it is. There was hockey and golf to watch this weekend.

Y Grad / Y Dad
Richland, WA

Two more observations.

For some of us, there are really only two seasons: football, and waiting for football.

And Mike, sorry dude, but you ruined your Ute homerism credentials with your BYU comment. You had the shot, and you didn't take it.

Orem, UT

I agree with the article. Although I must say there were some awfully good games this year. I don't feel the WCC deserved more than two teams this year and neither did the Mountain West. So they were on par. Utah showed what two conferences they didn't belong in, WCC and PAC 12. Had the shot and had to take it.

Dwayne Nielson
Alpine, UT

Here is another idea for changes to the tournament.

There are some conferences with automatic bids that have really really bad teams. In fact, their whole conference won/loss percentage is below 40% even though many of the teams get most of their victories from non D-1 teams in non conference play.

I suggest the NCAA only allow into the tournament team champions from conferences that have a winning percentage of at least 42% and each team can only count 2 wins from non D-1 Schools. An exception could be made if a champion from a non qualifying conference has an RPI of 68 or higher.

This would probably free up 4 more spots for the tournament.

Holladay, UT

The only tweak worth considering , is expanding the tournment from 68 to 96 and doing away with the nit, or expanding to 128 teams and doing away with the nit and the cit.

It had been a 128 team tourney then all of utahs teams except suu would have been in the tournament. How great would that have been?

All conference winners,
all conference tournament winners,
and basically all teams with atleast decent winning record.

and no silly play-in games.

Just one big march madness tournament.

The tournament of all tournaments.

That would truly be big.


"This year, BYU was the only team outside one of the major conferences to get into the tournament as an at-large team."

What exactly are you constituting as a "major conference", and what are you considering "at-large"? San Diego State lost their tournament final, so they were an at-large team. Are we considering the gutted Big East and the Atlantic 10 major conferences? When I hear "major conference," I don't consider the ones that just happen to be currently proficient in a particular sport in that category, I consider the ones generating major revenue (i.e. football, big tv money). These ones aren't.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments