Quote:
Originally Posted by capone0
it wouldn't make much sense due to all the team turnover year to year. they could do the same thing for the champs the next year.
What do you mean it "wouldn't make much sense" ?
It's *different*, and American sports are very "every season must be totally separate from every other season" unlike European sports, where seasons overlap (making the top-x in your league this year qualifies you for champions league next year, doing poorly this year relegates you to a lower division next year, etc).
The exception being college football where de jure every season is different but de facto the way you finish last season has a huge impact on what you are able to accomplish the following season, especially for mid majors trying to crack the playoffs or the auto bid.
The field of 64 is obviously not constructed in order to put the 64 best teams in there. The smaller conference champions are often worse than 95% of power 5 teams. It's constructed to be *entertaining*
Watching the Dukes and Michigan States and Virginias of the world play early round games against the little guy champs is entertaining because the upsets are awesome (unlike random Iowa State over Kansas upsets) and generate headlines. And perhaps more importantly, allowing a handfull of bad teams into the tourney is good because it rewards the teams who had great seasons and earned 1 seeds versus the teams who earned like 3 or 4 seads who are often almost as good as the 1 seeds but didn't perform as well, and it also ensures that it's more likely that the really good teams go deeper.
Idk, I'd mostly say it "makes sense" because it adds entertainment without costing you much. If Penn State gets into next year's dance instead of next year's equivalent of ASU or UCLA, who really cares? Replace a mediocre team with a possibly worse mediocre team isn't much of a cost, but making the NIT way higher stakes is pretty cool.