NCAA Expansion

[thefish7]

Just curious, post Selection Sunday, how people are feeling about this topic... I just saw where Bruce Pearl wants an 80 team field.

In my opinion, I don't really want a vastly (80 or 108 teams) expanded field for two reasons:
1. I think the tournament should be exclusive, and that it should be hard to get into.
2. I think that if we had a bigger field we'd get in more often, but we'd just always get a bad seed (even worse than now) and the better seeds would just be filled up by mediocre teams from the bigs.

What I would like, however, is to see the field expanded to 68 (or maybe even 72) and have a play-in opponent for each #1 seed (or for each #1 and #2).

[VromanFan]

Re: NCAA Expansion

Just curious, post Selection Sunday, how people are feeling about this topic... I just saw where Bruce Pearl wants an 80 team field.

In my opinion, I don't really want a vastly (80 or 108 teams) expanded field for two reasons:
1. I think the tournament should be exclusive, and that it should be hard to get into.
2. I think that if we had a bigger field we'd get in more often, but we'd just always get a bad seed (even worse than now) and the better seeds would just be filled up by mediocre teams from the bigs.

What I would like, however, is to see the field expanded to 68 (or maybe even 72) and have a play-in opponent for each #1 seed (or for each #1 and #2).

I also might favor a very limited expansion like the one you are suggesting. Actually the ratio of D1 teams making the tournament has been decreasing as membership keeps increasing past 330. A small expasion would address this and return the ratio of teams in/out back to where it was 15 years ago or so.

[thefish7]

Re: NCAA Expansion

I also might favor a very limited expansion like the one you are suggesting. Actually the ratio of D1 teams making the tournament has been decreasing as membership keeps increasing past 330. A small expasion would address this and return the ratio of teams in/out back to where it was 15 years ago or so.

My selfish thought is that we'd have 8 automatic bids from very weak conferences playing in essentially four tournament spots.

[MacabreMob]

As much as I would like to see a field of 96, I am actually against it. What gets me lit up and puking is the 64/65 'play-in' game. CBS and the NCAA need to get rid of this joke and embarrassment.

Swallow the 1 extra at-large bid to be given up.

[thefish7]

As much as I would like to see a field of 96, I am actually against it. What gets me lit up and puking is the 64/65 'play-in' game. CBS and the NCAA need to get rid of this joke and embarrassment.

Swallow the 1 extra at-large bid to be given up.

Someone at work told me that the play-in game came when some conference was formed that increased the number of automatic bids... Is that the case?

[Bravesfan]

Re: NCAA Expansion

I also might favor a very limited expansion like the one you are suggesting. Actually the ratio of D1 teams making the tournament has been decreasing as membership keeps increasing past 330. A small expasion would address this and return the ratio of teams in/out back to where it was 15 years ago or so.

My selfish thought is that we'd have 8 automatic bids from very weak conferences playing in essentially four tournament spots.

A "tweak" like you suggest might not be a bad idea. However, that is four fewer teams that would normally be a #15 seed with a chance to upset the #2 seed. Still though, if this play-in rule for all #1 seeds were to be implemented, than the #15 seeds would all come from the top 22 or 23 conferences, where there would be a better chance at an upset.

The only other flaw though is that these additional 3 teams could be filled by 3 more mediocre BCS teams, and limit the non-BCS at-larges even more, maybe not all the time, but possibly more often.

One thing that I will always stand by though is this: If the tourney were expanded to 96 or more teams, than the NIT should be eliminated. Just put all those teams into the main NCAA Tournament.

[pfunk880]

As much as I would like to see a field of 96, I am actually against it. What gets me lit up and puking is the 64/65 'play-in' game. CBS and the NCAA need to get rid of this joke and embarrassment.

Swallow the 1 extra at-large bid to be given up.

Someone at work told me that the play-in game came when some conference was formed that increased the number of automatic bids... Is that the case?

Yes, I believe it was from the formation of the Mountain West.

[MacabreMob]

As much as I would like to see a field of 96, I am actually against it. What gets me lit up and puking is the 64/65 'play-in' game. CBS and the NCAA need to get rid of this joke and embarrassment.

Swallow the 1 extra at-large bid to be given up.

Someone at work told me that the play-in game came when some conference was formed that increased the number of automatic bids... Is that the case?

Yes..

I think it was when the WAC had formed into 16 teams.... then it split up and formed the Mountain West and WAC. Prior to the split, the committee had 30 conferences and 34 'at-large' bids... and then they had to give one up... and they didn't want to... so we got 31 (automatic) conference bids and 34 at-large bids = 65, creating a 'play-in' game.

[BuBraves55]

why would they change the best sporting event in the world?

[BradleyBrave]

Nice read on the subject by Skip Myslenski of the Chicago Tribune. He thinks we deserve a bid, as does Drexel, Missouri St, Kansas St, Air Force, and West Virginia. His solution is one that we've talked about often, and that is expanding the field with 3 additional play-in games.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070312myslenski,1,2207881.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

I used to be against the notion of expansion, but I think the addition of 3 more play-in games is a good idea. With the expansion of DI to 330 teams, it's almost silly that they haven't addressed this yet. I have a feeling they will in the very near future.

[thefish7]

Yeah I'm just fearful of a giant expansion (maybe I shouldn't be)... because if we got into the tournament every year perhaps we could keep proving that the MVC may be some sort of high major (if not a power conference).

[Howellmania]

An expansion would ruin the tournament. It's almost too big as it is. It should be exclusive.

[jasonpeoria911]

Expansion would also be very hard for any mid major to win as you would have to win another 1-2 or however many more games in a row on top of the 6 there is now against very tough competition. Even most of the ranked teams barely won 6 games in a row during the season.

Jason

[real fan]

Play in games are a joke as those teams get no rest and whomever wins has to play the no 1 seed ; 64 teams makes for a good tour. if they would come up with the same criteria for all the teams; they need to have 4 or 5 set rules and feed the teams resumes into the computer and let the computer decide the at larges based on that info; at least it would not be biased .

[BradleyBrave]

An expansion would ruin the tournament. It's almost too big as it is. It should be exclusive.

I think it's pretty exclusive considering there are over 330 DI teams and only 65 make the field. If that was bumped to 68 with the addition of 3 play-in games, would it really cheapen the experience?