Buy or Sell: NCAA ban/regulations on live blogging

It's been a while since I posted on an issue where I could let readers buy or sell. I'm bringing it back tonight.

I'm sure many of you remember back in June when University of Louisville reporter Brian Bennett was evicted from the press box in the fifth inning of Louisville's 20-2 victory for live blogging during the game. More recently the NCAA has adjusted their policy a bit this year to include regulations for live blogging all sports. In all their ridiculosity, here they are:

Fall Sports

Soccer: Five times per half; one at halftime

Field Hockey: Five times per half; one at halftime

Volleyball: Three per Competition; one in between Competitions

Football: Three per quarter; one at halftime

Cross Country: Ten per day/session

Men's Water Polo: Three per quarter; one at the halftime

Winter Sports

Ice Hockey: Three per period - one in between (includes overtime)

Basketball: Five times per half; one at halftime; two times per overtime period

Wrestling: Ten per session

Indoor Track and Field: Ten per day/session

Swimming and Diving: Ten per day/session

Bowling: Ten per day/session

Gymnastics: Ten per session

So besides being a little pissed about the NCAA inhibiting my passion for liveblogging bowling and water polo, I find these new restrictions meticulous,and pointless. I'm definitely selling the NCAA's regulations on liveblogging.

I understand that the NCAA is trying to protect the reserved rights of those that are paying to broadcast these events. Where is the line drawn here? Is the NCAA going to have officials coming around to notify me that I only have one post left for my Wrestling live blog until the session ends? Even with blogger you can blog from your cell phone which poses an interested facet to the problem also.

"It's a real question that we're being deprived our right to report within the first amendment from a public facility. Once a player hits a home run, that's a fact. It's on TV, everybody sees it. They (the NCAA) can't copyright that fact. The blog wasn't a simulcast or a recreation of the game. It was an analysis." - Jon Fleischaker, attorney for The Courier-Journal

So, what about fans in the stands mobile blogging with blackberries and cell phones? What about when I text my dad updates of UND hockey games from the Ralph Engelstad Arena? Where is the line drawn?

I understand the principle behind what the NCAA is trying to do. The NCAA claims ownership rights to any during-the-game information and that it can be distributed only through those outlets to which it has granted rights. They're trying to protect their assets. However, I think that the whole thing is insignificant and fruitless. What is the difference between constricting and inhibiting livebloggers at sporting events to those at home watching the game on ESPN? It's going to be virtually the same thing. And, regardless, how does the NCAA plan to enforce these regulations?

I definitely wouldn't put it past the NCAA to pick a fight with the media and the first amendment on this one because I, of course, can see first hand what happens when the NCAA wants to pick a fight. Also, maybe it's because I'm a blogger (though not a big live blogger), but I am going to sell the NCAA's new regulations on live blogging.

What are your feelings on the issue? Do you agree with me or disagree? Drop comments!

Buy or Sell: Adrian Peterson as the 2nd Best RB in the NFL Right Now

I'm sure all you readers know that I am far from a Vikings fan. However, almost all of my friends are and I've seen quite a bit of Vikings football and I would like to make an announcement: Adrian Peterson is the REAL DEAL!

I was sceptical at first, thinking that the Vikes should have taken a QB (probably Quinn) in the 1st round. I now believe that they made the best pick in the draft in getting a guy with arguably the most talent to come out of the draft since LT.

Before the season he seemed like a solid/safe choice for NFC ROY being as the Vikings still didn't have much of a QB and a weak group of WRs. In 6 short weeks (5 including a bye) he has proved he is THE pick for NFC ROY, not just a probably candidate.

Obviously, being a rookie he has a lot to learn. He's not a great pass catcher yet, and he still has room to work on his blocking. However, I do agree with Complete Sports in saying that, "I think that Adrian Peterson is already the most explosive RB in the NFL with the ball in his hands".

Through 5 games he now has 607 yards rushing, 4 TD, and 6.3 YPC. He's also caught 10 receptions for 175 yards and a receiving TD. Go ahead and throw in 248 yards return yards. Through 5 career games, Adrian Peterson has 1030 total yards. That's mind blowing.

With all this said, knowing what I know, seeing what I've seen (especially what he did in the 1st half against the Packers and against the Bears on Sunday) I feel pretty confident in saying that I'm buying Adrian Peterson as the 2nd best RB in the NFL right now - only behind LT. Just imagine what the 5-1 Packers would be like if they were starting Adrian Peterson instead of DeShawn Wynn! From what I've seen he can and will continue to carry the ball and the team on his back (assuming Brad Childress gets him the ball).

Are you buying or selling Adrian Peterson as the 2nd best RB in the NFL right now? If not lemme know why.

Buy or Sell: The Big Ten= The New Big Twelve?

There has been a bit of buzz surrounding the topic over the last year or so, especially on the blogosphere. Being the son of two University of Iowa grads and a lifelong Hawkeye fan I feel like chiming in with my thoughts. It really is a pretty interesting idea.

I am totally buying the idea of the Big Ten expanding to 12 teams. It seems to work wonderfully for other conferences. I think since the Big Ten doesn't even have 10 teams (adding Penn St. made it an 11-team conference) why not just add one more? Why make it an 11-team conference if you're not planning on jumping up to 12?

Some people talk about contraction. Some people are fools. On the surface, booting a team from the conference makes sense; after all, this is the Big Ten, and eleven minus one is ... hey! But who would go? So, without anyone to boot why not pick up a team and make it 12?! These days in college sports (especially in NCAA Football) money is huge. What could possibly be bigger money-wise than expanding the Big Ten?

If the Big Ten expanded to 12 teams they could eventually split into 2 6-team divisions and have a conference championship. That would bring in huge revenue and would avoid any co-champions and would make it probably a little more fair being as everyone doesn't play every team in the Big Ten already. Honestly, what TV representative wouldn't want to buy the rights to a game as big as the Big Ten championship?

However not everyone agrees:

"I've not met anybody in coaching that really enjoys it...There's a lot of downside to it, in my opinion." - U. of Iowa Football Coach Kirk Ferentz

The Big Ten has managed, one way or another, to tolerate co-champions when it needs to, and I think the largest fear in nay-sayers is the fear of losing a BCS bid by having a conference championship game.

I, however, am all for it and it makes great sense financially. Now lets quickly examine some potential candidates...The Big Ten has a history of on-field excellence as well as high academic standards for its institutions, so those factors must be weighed heavily when considering which team to add. The third major factor would be the addition of a large media market to the Big Ten stable. All factors considered here's what I think:

Notre Dame

Academically they are the best bet out of the group. They also are probably the most marketable and have the best history and one of the largest fan bases. Notre Dame is a no-brainer as a target for the Big-Ten. The problem is, it is also a no-brainer for Notre Dame to remain independent. They have that lucrative TV contract with NBC which also stands in the way a bit with the new Big Ten Network near birth.

Navy

Academically they are right on par with Notre Dame. They are a little less marketable being in Anapolis, MD, however they have a pretty decent fan base. Plus, the Big Ten would be inheriting the Army vs. Navy game which would be huge. They have had some recent success going to bowl games the last 4 seasons (while winning 2).

Rutgers

There academics are probably a B or B+ in comparison to Navy and Notre Dame. However, the present something that Navy and ND cannot: the addition of the New York/New Jersey media market to the Big Ten stable. Rutgers has more to offer in that regard than any other team. Historically they suck. However, they have had some recent success and are a program who are on the definite rise. However, they are VERY high risk/high reward. If last year was a fluke and this team isn't on the rise like I think they are then the Big Ten just inherits another doormat like Indiana.

Iowa State

They're academics are very good for a state school and they are in the bets location being so purely Midwestern. They would bring some definite positives to the table. The main reason Iowa State would be considered is so they can establish the in-state rivalry which could attract more fans to the Big Ten. If Iowa and Iowa State played late in season, it could possibly have conference championship implications, which would attract more ratings, and potentially more money for the conference. However, they would have to be extracted from the Big 12 and that spot would need to be filled to keep that conference at 12. So, while it sounds nice it would be quite the hassle.

Syracuse

Their program has fallen recently over the years, but their large budget mixed with Big Ten revenue sharing could bring the program back up. Syracuse would not only potentially help the depth of the conference, but also would make the academic record better. Like Rutgers, the Orange would bring in the New York area fan base and introduce them to Big Ten football.

Are you buying or selling the expansion? If you're a buyer who do you like as a joiner?

Buy or Sell: The MLB All-Star Game Deciding Home-Field Advantage in the World Series

So after the 7-7 tie in Miller Park in 2002 MLB and Commish Bud Selig needed to do something to make sure that the game didn't become irrelevant. It needed to be steered clear of sliding down the road that the NBA All-Star Game crossed years ago. It needed to count. I want to look at the decision to make it count for home-field advantage in the World Series.

Truly, I don't mind the rule all that much. In my opinion it's a hell of a lot better than alternating leagues like they used to decide home-field advantage. However, for the game to count I think there were a few other essential changes that were missed by the commish.

I agree with Complete Sports halfheartedly on the issue. I do agree that it has to be one or the other here...either it counts or you have fan voting. It doesn't seem right to have it count if the fans are going to vote in their favorite but second-tier players from big market teams over the guys who truly deserve it. I want the game to be about the fans but if it means home-field advantage on the line I don't think the two should coexist. Put the votes in the hands of the players, managers, and team-assigned beat writers.

But to make an issue of that then why not pick at the rule of having at least 1 player from all 30 teams? It leaves rosters compromised in terms of having the best players on the field just as the fan vote does in a sense.

Look, you could sit here and butt heads on the issue all day. It really is a Catch-22. For now I'm buying the All-Star Game Counting. No method is perfect. Even to give it to the team with the best record is a bit flawed because it is still a very small percentage of interleague games played.

Nothing is perfect here and I think that the rule is less of an attempt at fairness as it is an apology for the tie in 2002. I'm fine with the rule right now just because I don't think any other alternatives -other than just making sure the best players start and play- are any better. I just feel like while it makes it more fun to watch it is just too much responsibility in the hands of the fans in this current format.

What do you think? Do you have any possible solutions? Enjoy the game tomorrow and go NL!

Buy or Sell: Recruiting Kids Not Even in High School Yet.

This buy or sell is relatively simple. Is recruiting a kid who is an eighth grader OK? I'm going to tell you what I think and then you tell me what you think. I'm going to examine it from both angles. Buy or sell....here we go.

For the second straight year, USC basketball coach Tim Floyd has received a verbal commitment from an eighth-grader. Ryan Boatwright, a speedy 5-foot-10, 145-pound rising freshman point guard from Illinois who has yet to make a decision on where he's headed for high school, accepted Floyd's scholarship offer while at USC's camp this past weekend. Last year it was 14-year-old Dwayne Polee Jr., a 6-foot-6 forward who had yet to play his first high school game at Westchester High (Calif.).

Ok, so I don't have any idea what kind of game this kid has at age 14 but I know it's better than mine and we'll leave it at that. Regardless of how talented a kid like that is is 14 just too young? For starters this kid doesn't even know where he's going to high school. I mean isn't that a little ridiculous? Maybe there should be some kind of a rule set in place to ensure that a kid is at least in High School before he is being recruited to play in college. I mean really, at 14 this kid doesn't know a thing about college or what he really wants. I know I didn't even really think much about that kind of stuff when I was in 8th grade. Of course he is going to accept an offer verbally! He is a young and impressionable kid who knows no different. A scholarship offer from a top school before he even sets foot in a high school hallway puts an enormous amount of pressure on a kid both on the court and off of it.

While it might be a lot of pressure on the kid I am going to take a more liberal stance on the issue. I'm buying it. It is ridiculous that a scholarship offer has been made and accepted by another 14 yr old, however I think this is what the recruiting world is going to come to. Tim Floyd is just ahead of the curve here.

Getting a kid to commit that young is a little bit genius too. While it seems crazy think about this. The press release is made and so now everybody knows that this kid is going to USC and only 14 yada yada yada. So this obviously catches the eye of a lot of players that might be anywhere from 14-18 and could help sway them towards USC. Also if this kid is good enough to be entertaining offers from USC at age 14 he must be on a pretty good AAU team of some sort and will probably go to a basketball powerhouse of a high school. Now, his teammates know he's going. He talks to them and encourages them to come and pretty soon you have a bunch of top talent and blue-chip prospects with about 3 or 4 years of HS left all dying to go to USC.

It also provides a bit of job security for Tim Floyd; which is why it is so genius. Let's say he struggles in '08 or '09. Having top-flight (or believed to be so) recruits coming in in 2 or 3 years provides tremendous job security for Floyd. They aren't going to fire him for fear of losing his band of stand out HS Sophs or whatever they would be at the time.

To even be entertaining the idea of kids who are in Jr. High verbally committing to play ball somewhere and accepting scholarships is pretty ridiculous. But like I said, I think that is what college recruiting is going to eventually come to and while Floyd may look silly or foolish now I think that this recruiting tactic can really only help him in the long run.

Buy or Sell: The US Open at Oakmont C.C. Being Too Tough?

So only 5 of the top 10 players can make the cut. Does that mean that the course is too tough? No and guess what? I'm selling Oakmont CC being too hard. I am really sick of hearing players, caddies, and analysts complain and rant about how Oakmont was made too difficult. I had to hear about it the whole way home from Canada on the radio and I'm ready to sound off.

I don't know about you buy if I have to watch golf I would rather see scores hovering around E and up than to see the leaderboard headlined with -20's. I think it is more fun to watch golf like this and I like to see which players can adapt and plan out shots. I like to see they best players in the world play the best and toughest courses in the world.

Quit your complaining. Everybody is playing the same course so if you aren't making the cut and some less popular, international player is then you have no one to blame but yourself and maybe your caddy. Let me watch the pairing of Angel Cabrera and Bubba Watson if those are the two guys who are making the right adjustments and playing the course the best. I'm sorry that you are upset that you aren't birdieing every hole and that it is a struggle to shoot below par. In my opinion though, that is the way it is supposed to be. Just because your name might be Justin Leonard, Sergio Garcia, or Phil Mickelson that doesn't make you a shoe-in when the cut comes around. It is a tournament and everyone is playing the same course and your play (not your ranking or name) determine how well you do.

I think all the players who are griping and complaining need to shut up. You are a professional golfer and this is a major tournament on the Professional Golfing Tour. Shouldn't the course be as hard as possible? The best of the best competing in a top-tier tourney makes only the best and toughest venue seem reasonable...not?

Buy or Sell: Fans Only Really Care About Their Favorite Teams

So as I'm driving home from our first victory in softball tonight I'm doing some inner-contemplation as to why TV ratings are becoming quite the craze and why they seems to keep on pointing down, down, down....it seems like all the talk. With "Build a Better Burger" from the Food Network beating out the NHL Finals in ratings (807,000 to 769,000) you know there is a potential problem. One might explain such an atrocity in such a way as: "Oh well, It's just the NHL. America doesn't like the NHL and that's why that happened." But with game 1 of the NBA Finals hitting the lowest ratings of a game 1 ever I think something may really be up.

I think America may be heading in the direction of a more concentrated view of the sports world....me included. I'll admit, I didn't watch a single game of the NHL Finals and I didn't watch much of game 1 of the NBA Finals either. I think there is some legitimacy in saying that if it isn't your favorite team or something really entertaining with a lights-out lovable superstar (think back to MJ, Bird, Magic, maybe even Sir Charles) then people can just catch the highlights (mostly a dunk-o-rama) later.

Is it because the game has deteriorated that much in our minds? I watched a lot more NBA games back in the day (basically the 90s). Teams like the Jazz back then with Stockton and Malone got great all-around ratings. Now, the only people watching the Jazz vs. Spurs Western Conference finals were Spurs fans, Jazz fans, and hardcore Bball fans. Maybe the game hasn't really deteriorated that much...I mean Game 1 featured Tim Duncan one of the greatest players ever -in my opinion the greatest 4 ever - and King James who could be MJ's predecessor and is in my opinion the most physically gifted player in the NBA and maybe in the History of the NBA. Could it be that Americans just have a lot more to watch now?It will be really interesting to see because the last episode of The Sopranos will be aired during Game 2. I don't watch the Sopranos but I can guess that that isn't going to help the NBA at all.

Now, in saying all of this it is important to remember that the best way to look at this stuff is in their championship games. In doing so I find it very obvious that the only sport able to avoid this whole mess is the NFL. The Superbowl is so f-ing huge to everyone whether your team is in it or not....it really doesn't matter. College Basketball also does pretty well but that's just because nearly every human being has at least 1-25 brackets filled out for it.

I can personally vouch for this as I watch MNF all the time even if the Packers aren't playing. I will tune into the second game on FOX even if the Packers played the early one. Plus tons tune in weekly for not only MNF, but Sunday night and sometimes Thursday night. By the time the end of summer rolls around some preseason NFL games could probably rival ratings of the NHL Finals and the NBA Finals (at least thus far).

I'm not totally sure why it has happened to me and most of America, but I'm Buying fans only really caring about their favorite teams. Personal experience and statistics lead me to believe this is true. I would love to continue to elaborate more on this but I am thoroughly exhausted and would like to put a little more thought into things...I will get back at you.

Are you buying or selling and why? What is the NFL doing to draw in viewers and fans to their championship game? How can the NHL and NBA get back to where they once were (and MLB too for that matter)?

Buy or Sell: Interleague play

We've really been hitting the NBA hard on TSF so I want to spell you readers a bit with some baseball banter. Although I have an idea on the NBA I'm gunna cut you a little break. Buy or Sell....here we go.

Interleague play is great right? I mean who doesn't love to see the Mets vs, Yanks, Braves vs. Red Sox, and the Angels vs. the Dodgers? But interleague play is definately not fair and I'm not a fan.

As a Brewers fan our "Big" interleague foes are the Twins. Ok, so I consider the Cubs to be rivals and our relationship to the Twins to be something secondary to that. However, I do understand that there are those few great rivalries that I named above which are indeed great for the game. They're wonderfully entertaining matchups and get great attendence. But, the bottomline is that Interleague play messes with records, scheduals, and playoff races. That's why I'm selling interleague play.

Case and Point: The Braves have to play six games against the AL East-leading Red Sox, plus have series against the Tigers, Twins and Indians. In fairness, the Mets have six with the Yankees as well as series against Tigers, Twins and A’s, all four Al 2006 playoff teams, while the Phillies get series against the Royals, Blue Jays, White Sox, Indians and Tigers. Because the Braves have to play the Mets, they have the toughest strength of schedule of any team in baseball; the Mets, unable to play themselves are stuck with the third toughest schedule. In theory. Since the Mets were the best team in the National League, playoffs notwithstanding, they should have the toughest schedule!

"I don't think there's any question it’s not fair, but I don't think Major League Baseball is concerned with fair. If you play the top teams in the American League and everybody else doesn't, it's pretty unfair. If we're going to play the American League Central, everybody has to play all the teams in the American League Central. This split-it-up and we have to play our rival in the American League East stuff, I don't get it. It's unfair for us and the Mets on a year-in, year-out basis to have to play the Yankees and Red Sox when other teams don't.” - Chipper Jones

Yea, and I agree with that too. The NFL finds a way for the worst teams to have easier schedules and I think MLB needs to figure out a way to do this with interleague play. That way maybe they could come a little close to creating some parity in who is contending for the playoffs at the end of the season.

When it comes to interleague play I strongly believe that last place teams should get to play other last place teams and those of similar winning %'s. Either that or maybe there would be a way they could figure it out by payroll (before you kill me on that one it's just an alternative idea). If you don't do that at the very least take Chippers' advice and set it up so every team in the AL East plays every team in the division and not just the Mets and Braves. That would at least begin to even out the divisional races.

It's the whole newly added wrinkle that requires teams to play so-called regional rivals in home-and-home series each season, such as Braves-Red Sox, Yankees-Mets and Angels-Dodgers that makes Chipper mad. I can't blame him. Interleague play is unfair and baseball knows it. But these series, we'll call them "the Big 3" are here for bigtime ratings and bigtime $$$. I would love to sit here at my keyboard and just continue to put interleague play to death but I want to tell you this right now: Interleague play isn't going anywhere and I don't think that MLB has the desire or cares enough to make the changes necessary to make it fair. So, as a result I'll just have to keep on hating Interleague play.

I'm going to leave you with this amazing quote in regards to interleague play. Read it, soak it in, and take it to heart because this is truly wonderful writing.

“Like most sensible people, I hate interleague play. I can describe this hatred, but to explain it would be to do violence to the depth of my contempt for a misbegotten, half-animate monstrosity.

The distinctive and unique qualities of the World Series are gone because of interleague play, as is much of the prestige of winning the World Championship. Interleague play, though, is not to be scorned because it has evil effects. Its evil is fundamental to its nature. By its existence alone, interleague play marks out the rest of the schedule as unworthy of notice — filled with meaningless games of little consequence, mere preludes to the garish spectacles on offer at the beginning and midpoint of summer.

The slow, comfortable rhythm and routine of the long season, into which we should just now be settling as May winds into its final days, is suddenly broken; the charms of small games against minor teams give sudden, abrupt way to games of apocalyptic consequence.

- Tim Marchman- NY Sun

Are you buying or selling Interleague play and why?

Buy or Sell: Instant Replay in Major League Baseball

So, I came downstairs and flipped on the TV just in time to catch second-base umpire Gerry Davis call Willie Bloomquist safe while stealing 2nd base on Monday night. Replays (along with the naked eye) confirmed that he was tagged right on the ass while his hands were still almost 3 feet away from the bag. It was honestly one of the worst missed calls/bad calls you will see in the majors.

"With all we've been through, it was a well-deserved break, and it came at a good time. I'll take it. On the play itself, I thought it was actually pretty close. But when I got a chance to see the replay ... well, he called me safe, so I was safe. It's a good thing there's no instant replay in baseball." -Willie Bloomsquist-

But is it really? Something as little as that, just a bad angle that lead to a bad call by the 2nd base ump can change the outcome of a game. So I was thinking, Maybe Willie's wrong. Maybe instant replay is something that baseball needs to seriously think about.

I'm buying instant replay in Major League Baseball and here's why:

I think overall instant replay has been a success in the NFL. Although it elongates games I think it's more valuable that the right calls are made (taste bitterness of me thinking of the 1996 Wildcard game where Jerry Rice fumbled, the Pack recovered, they called it incomplete, and T.O. went on to win that game for them). However, instant replay in baseball would definitely have the opposite effect. Instead of appealing calls, managers arguing, and umpire conferences, you could just have a replay official quickly view it and make sure the correct call is made in the case of something like what happened Monday night.

Shorter games (however not by much), and getting the call right...so what's not to love about the idea? Well it would take a considerable amount of money to set the whole things up with the equipment, more officials, and etc. Also a lot of people would say that it would be threatening the integrity of the game. The old game. The original game....America's past time.

Look, there was no instant replay in Ruth or Aaron's time because...gee I don't know, maybe because we didn't have the means to! Duh! There was no instant replay in the NFL up until 1999. Now that we have the means to why the hell not!? It works for the NFL (most of the time), it works for the NHL, it works for NCAA Bball and the NBA when the game is on the line, and it worked extremely well in NCAA Football (At the 1-A level). It would just be better for the game if things like this didn't decide games.

Instant Replay is not going to hurt the game of baseball or threaten its integrity nearly as much as that 8-letter word beginning with ster- and ending in -oids. Get with the times. Everybody else has gone to it so give it a chance or at least some thought. Giving each manager 1 challenge a game I think would probably work wonders in this. Most games would probably go with none or maybe 1 being used. And if each manager only had one they would not waste them, they would be used almost exclusively in game-changing fashion like we saw Monday night.

I just don't see how getting it right could be anything other than a good thing. What do you think about instant replay in Major League Baseball (If you're a Yankees fan I might already know your answer)?

Buy or Sell: The Play-In Game

OK...finally back from Montana after a long train-ride last night and I'm tired and sore and wanna talk some NCAA Tourney. Specifically I want to talk about the play-in game.

A lot of people want to abolish the play-in game altogether. They think that there is no point especially since no 16 seed as ever beaten a #1. Personally, I don't even look at the teams playing because it really doesn't matter. See but this is the problem that most people make.

This year's play-in game is between Niagara and Florida A&M. Now like I said before I feel that it really doesn't matter the outcome of the game but I along with everyone else who takes this stance is WRONG. You can't tell the players on Florida A&M and Niagara that their game doesn't matter. Sure it matters; it matters a lot! The winner of the game can tell their kids some day that they won a game in the NCAA tournament. That's worth something isn't it! Now, beyond that I don't see much but people need to recognize that this is indeed something.

Those who wish to abolish the play-in game say that it doesn't really matter and that it generates no revenue and is just a waste of time. These people desire to see the field cut down to an original 64. It needs to be realized though that this cuts down 1 at large bid. Now, here is my solution. I say you have 4 play-in games instead of just one! Yes, you heard me...4 play-in games. This would fix their revenue generating problem. Plus, I love the tournament so I'm always up for a little expansion, because I can't get enough.

So, we make 4 play-in games. This gives 6 more teams a shot. These spots could be given to larger schools from power conferences who's bubbles were "burst" on selection Sunday. This would also create the possibility of better and more mainstreamed teams playing against the #1 seeds, in turn drawing more attention to the 1 vs. 16 match-up.

So I probably won't watch Niagara vs. Florida A&M, nor will I watch the winner play against my beloved Jayhawks. But who knows, maybe some day a 16 will beat a #1 seed? However I do know that if there were 4 play-in games that the match ups would be a lot more interesting and we could begin the madness even sooner. So my verdict is: keep the play-in game; and if you are considering anything, consider expanding the play-in games to 4 and getting the madness going just a little earlier.

Any thoughts?