Expand The NCAA's Big Dance?

[AZ BU Fan]

Couldn't find an earlier post, so I will apologize up front if there is one.

Stories swirling about expanded NCAA Div I Tournament Format.

I would support expansion which would guarantee minimum of the top two teams from all mid major conferences without post season conference tournament, and, the conference winner/conference tournament winner from mid majors with post season conference tournaments. If these were the same team, then the 2nd berth would be the team with the second best record. Head to head records determine who goes when ties involved.

What do others think?

[SFP]

Couldn't find an earlier post, so I will apologize up front if there is one.

Stories swirling about expanded NCAA Div I Tournament Format.

I would support expansion which would guarantee minimum of the top two teams from all mid major conferences without post season conference tournament, and, the conference winner/conference tournament winner from mid majors with post season conference tournaments. If these were the same team, then the 2nd berth would be the team with the second best record. Head to head records determine who goes when ties involved.

What do others think?

Yes there is another thread! Second your idea makes too much sense so it will not happen. The idea regarding expansion is all about money and the big boys will only go along with it if they can be guaranteed the ability to keep most of it.

[houstontxbrave]

This is just a way to expand the tourney to bring in more average BCS conference teams into the NCAA tourney. This just swallows up the NIT and since the NIT was taken over by the NCAA it is a BCS tourney.

This will not bring along more non BCS's and I think is the first step in dividing the NCAA into two sets non BCS and BCS.

[ph]

I'm sure if they included more non-BCS teams, they would be putting the non-BCS teams in the "play-in" round, but revenue gets divided among the 64 real teams that remain..

[houstontxbrave]

By count there are 73 schools in BCS conferences (excluding the Mountain West)

There are outside of the BCS 25 conferences.

73+25= 98 More BCS's and still keeping the non BCS champs.

On % I doubt more non BCS's would be invited, maybe a few more schools but as we see those schools would play each other. Watch teams now that can not get to .500 in their conference will now be eligible.

This is nothing but a ploy to get more BCS schools in and keep as much revenue with the BCS, CBS, ESPN.

[Bravesfan]

By count there are 73 schools in BCS conferences (excluding the Mountain West)

There are outside of the BCS 25 conferences.

73+25= 98 More BCS's and still keeping the non BCS champs.

On % I doubt more non BCS's would be invited, maybe a few more schools but as we see those schools would play each other. Watch teams now that can not get to .500 in their conference will now be eligible.

This is nothing but a ploy to get more BCS schools in and keep as much revenue with the BCS, CBS, ESPN.

I agree. Maybe an expanded tournament would get teams like Creighton and St. Mary's in last year, but not much else. Yeah, I don't think we would see many more non-BCS teams get in.

Good thing for the CIT and CI.com tourneys. They may be the beginning of the D1-AA tournament separate from the BCS tourney!

[KillerB]

from the ap

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- The NCAA is taking things slow when it comes to deciding whether to expand the men's basketball tournament.
Officials have met with conference commissioners, university presidents and athletic directors about the possibility, but haven't gotten past the discussion stage yet.
NCAA senior vice president Greg Shaheen says there aren't any new developments from the fall, when the organization first started to look at expansion.
Some coaches and administrators like the idea of adding teams to college basketball's big dance, saying it needs to grow to accommodate the 347 Division I teams. Others like the tournament the way it is and believe expansion would water down the regular season and conference tournaments.

[AZ BU Fan]

I suspect the only thing some people are worried about 'watering down' is the NCAA Tournament payouts to the BCS Conferences! My guess is Mr Shaheen is trying to figure out how to 'water down' attempts by Congress to break up the NCAA/BCS monopoly!

[SFP]

I suspect the only thing some people are worried about 'watering down' is the NCAA Tournament payouts to the BCS Conferences! My guess is Mr Shaheen is trying to figure out how to 'water down' attempts by Congress to break up the NCAA/BCS monopoly!

That one will be easy! Expand the Pac 10 to the Pac 12 with Utah and BYU joining the BCS. Hatch is the one on this and if his constituents are happy he'll leave it alone.

[Big Mike]

PJS=to expand or noy to expand.....

http://www.pjstar.com/sports/x644558827/NCAA-To-expand-or-not-to-expand

[BUfan14]

My biggest problem with the expansion to 96 teams is the byes. The teams that get the byes will have such a huge advantage towards advancing further especially if it is in the same weekend as the next couple rounds. Also that makes determining who gets a bye and who doesn't a huge decision, and the difference between teams 30-40 usually isn't that great. Determining who gets the last few byes and who doesn't is such a huge decision and how do you make a fair determination? You don't think BCS teams will get chosen more than non-BCS teams for byes if it came down to a couple of each fighting for the last bye? With the set up now the difference between a 8 and 9 seed is not that big of a deal if a difference at all, in this situation it would be a substantial difference and it all comes down to the unfair determination of a committee. I just don't like the idea of byes in the tournament, because teams are too close to equal to make a fair objective determination of who should get one, and it is too huge of a decision for it not to be completely fair. I mean how much easier is it to win the Valley tourny not having to play on Thursday night? It is a substantial difference, and in the case of the NCAA tourny it will be determined by opinion, not record.

[RedSoxDSM]

It would never happen, but if I were in charge I would take the 31 automatic qualifiers plus the highest RPI team that was not an automatic qualifier and give them all first round-byes. They earned it because they won their conference tournaments. Then have the remaining 64 teams have to play-in. The bracket would potentially look strange because I would still allow for seeding the teams. The winner of the SWAC could still play Kansas in the first round (not the play-in round), but you would have two teams like Ohio State and Oklahoma St. battling out in the play-in round to get to be the sixth seed in a region.

This would basically force all of the bubble team to win their way into the field of 64 and would create some pretty enticing play-in round match-ups.

[ImAStowellMan]

I don't know. I feel like Jacobson hit it right on the head in this article...

???Obviously it??™s difficult to make that field, but that??™s why it??™s the best sporting event of the entire year,??? said Northern Iowa coach Ben Jacobson. ???We have the greatest thing going with the way the field is now. I would hate to see some of the luster taken off of it, if you expand it to the point where it doesn??™t have quite the same excitement from the first game to the title game.???

As Brad Pitt said in Fight Club, "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." If you aren't one of the top 64 teams in the country, who cares if you get an "invite" or not? Adding more teams just cheapens the resume of the teams that deserve to get in by way of the current format.

[AZ BU Fan]

Agree Stowell Man. Trouble is the top 64 teams are not in the NCAA Tourney each year.

Too many 'Who?' conferences get an automatic ticket, too many post season tourney winners get a ticket whose only claim to fame is getting hot at the right time, and too many 4-5-6-7th place teams from BCS conferences.

A lot of teams with feathers up their butts get to play in the Dance!