Doug Elgin: Expand the NCAA Tournament!

[tornado]

Duh...pretty self-explanatory and pretty obvious...
We do not need any more 8-12 teams or 9th place teams from their big conferences...
We need more solid midmajors - UNI, Lipscomb, UNCG, Toledo, South Dakota State - all could have done way better than
some of the woeful performances by Nevada, Seton Hall, Syracuse, Arizona State, Wisconsin & St. John's
http://www.valleyhoopsinsider.com/do...he-tournament/

but I disagree on the number of teams-
we ought to go to 96 teams then the first round would be 32 byes (would make it much more valuable for a team to fight for one of those top 32 spots), & 64 teams playing with seed #33 vs. #96, 34-95, etc...
then the winners of that first round are the opponents for either the top 32 seeds or the 32 automatic qualifiers..

we already play one extra round on Tues & Wed - why not make that extra round a bit more interesting with 32 games in 4 or 8 different sites for people who want to see some good 1st round upsets?

[Bradley3342]

Getting so tired of midmajors always having to take the back seat to all of the pompous power conferences. Teams in the lower half of their conferences taking spots from midmajors who were way more deserving of those seeds. The midmajors have proven the selection committee wrong year after year. People want to root for the underdog. It would bring so much more interest to the field each year but as we all know it’s all about pampering the big boys...

[Chibearsfan10125]

Like every year, early round games between two power 5 teams are just boring. I love the tournament but I couldn’t watch Auburn vs Kansas for more than 5 minutes. MSU vs Minnesota was only interesting because it’s the game we would’ve played in had we beat MSU. I loved the Wofford vs Kentucky game, and while I wish Wofford could’ve pulled it off, it was still infinitely more enjoyable than watching two middling Power 5 teams, who wouldn’t make the tournament if they played in a mid major conference go at it. At this point, I’m rooting hard for Buffalo, Liberty and UC Irvine, because once they’re out, the tournament just won’t be as interesting to me.

I’d like to see more mid majors in the tournament, but let’s be honest, if we expanded the tournament, we’d just end up with more below .500 power 5 teams, not more mid majors, unless new guidelines were put in place. Personally, I’d like a rating system that doesn’t reward you just for playing in a bigger conference, maybe put in a rule that a loss by more than 15-20 points can’t help your ranking, no matter who it’s against. Let’s not reward people for getting smoked by top 10 teams. We don’t need to expand, just to get rid of middle of the pack mid majors from the field of 68. That would make the tournament so much more interesting.

[Tommy]

It’s all about money, baby!

[Dubl R 1]

The very first Guideline to start with is if you are not .500 in your conference then u are automatically ineligible.

[Go_Braves]

With the exception of Gonzaga - the remaining 15 teams in the NCAA tournament are all from Power 5 conferences. I don't know how many college basketball followers are like me - but once no real Cinderellas remain in the tournament - I really no longer "go out of my way" to watch the remaining NCAA tournament games. Oh I may "glance" at them if I am home and clicking through the channels and I may have the Championship game on if I am home that Monday night... but I quickly loose my interest.... In another topic > Looking forward to the next Bradley basketball season - and this past month filled me with a new set of lifetime memories. Thank you Bradley...

[houstonbrave]

Although it probably won’t happen I agree the best answer would be if you don’t have a winning record in your conference (above .500) your only path into the tournament is to win your conference tournament. If you don’t have a winning record in your conference you have not earned an at-large birth.

[BUSongwriter]

<I don't know how many college basketball followers are like me - but once no real Cinderellas remain in the tournament - I really no longer "go out of my way" to watch the remaining NCAA tournament games. Oh I may "glance" at them if I am home and clicking through the channels and I may have the Championship game on if I am home that Monday night... but I quickly lose my interest....>

I'm like you, Go_Braves, and I suspect many others are as well. I predict low ratings for the rest of the tournament. Same storylines, players, big-budget programs and coaches who are on ESPN every week all winter long. No David-vs.-Goliath interest. And I've had about all the Charles Barkley gushing about Auburn that I can handle.

Next year, however, we can hope a team from Peoria dances again and makes more noise.

[The Old Guy]

How about a mid-major tournament with 32 teams playing before the regular tournament starts. The top 8 finishers would earn spots in the regular NCAA tournament and NOT just as 15 or 16 seeds. If the mid-majors are given fair seeds, some could go deep into the regular tournament. Had Bradley been seeded at 12 or 13, we could still be playing. Certainly BU played MSU a much tougher game that did Minnesota. Had we beaten MSU, we would probably still be playing. The path for the typical mid-major is extremely difficult since we get stuck with a 14 or 15 seed. I know that the committee expects us to play a tougher non-conference schedule, but the power conference schools are willing to play the mid-majors only if the mid-major is expecting a down year and if the mid-major is willing to play at the home court of the power conference school. We all know why Illinois is unwilling to schedule Bradley on a home and home basis. Last time they played us was in Las Vegas, a game that Bradley won. With Chris Reynolds on the committee, maybe the idea of a mid-major tournament will have a chance. Go Braves!

[LittleBrave]

Absolutely agree with expanding and giving a slight edge to lower seeds.

Here's the last solution I came up with a few years back...
Seeding from 1 to 20 (4 teams per seed #)
Seeds 13 - 20 (32 "Wild Card" teams), play each other to get 16 teams.
Seeds 1-12 (48 teams)

Round 1: 32 WC teams; 16 teams advance
Round 2: 64 teams (Top 48 + 16 WC); 32 teams advance
Rounds to follow: Same as traditional single-elimination format

So you still have to win 6 games for the National Championship (shouldn't be any less), but include more teams in 1st round.
This makes it more meaningful too, as you get some good "wild card" match-ups, and Round 1 would have more games = more revenue.
There would be NEARLY A FULL WEEK of the tournament to start!!!

Some teams that win Wednesday may have a quick turn-around and play Thursday, but that shouldn't matter much, and would slightly award the Top 4 seeds (16 teams), as they would face the 16 WC winners (from Rnd 1).

So 80 total teams - you won't get as much griping about not making it (4 additional team added in recent years is NOT enough to halt the snubbery talk. And I think 96 is too many teams - that's like 30% of all D-1 teams!!!

[LittleBrave]

<I don't know how many college basketball followers are like me - but once no real Cinderellas remain in the tournament - I really no longer "go out of my way" to watch the remaining NCAA tournament games. Oh I may "glance" at them if I am home and clicking through the channels and I may have the Championship game on if I am home that Monday night... but I quickly lose my interest....>

I'm like you, Go_Braves, and I suspect many others are as well. I predict low ratings for the rest of the tournament. Same storylines, players, big-budget programs and coaches who are on ESPN every week all winter long. No David-vs.-Goliath interest. And I've had about all the Charles Barkley gushing about Auburn that I can handle.

Next year, however, we can hope a team from Peoria dances again and makes more noise.

Very poor tourney this season, and agreed that there is no real story you can conjure from the 16 teams left...some good match-ups though.
We can only hope games are CLOSER!

[Da Coach]

Unless it was set up and run by the NCAA, it would not be considered legitimate and would not succeed. And the NCAA would never agree to that, unfortunately, because it would detract from the NCAA Tournament.
I believe that even if such a "mid-major tournament" could be done, it would never be considered anything more than a copy of the CIT.

I agree with MVC Commissioner Doug Elgin that the best solution is to expand the NCAA Tournament, and give more at-large bid to the top mid-majors (and not the Power 6 teams with losing records).

http://www.valleyhoopsinsider.com/doug-elgin-time-to-expand-the-tournament/

[tornado]

Doug Elgin on scheduling - he doesn't really say much that we don't already know - that scheduling is hard and
we need to beat the better teams when we do play them

https://www.tribstar.com/sports/local_college_sports/isu_sports/elgin-scheduling-continues-to-be-a-moving-target-for-mvc/article_601d70af-1d0e-5321-a88a-c57d58925151.html

[bradleyfan124]

Doug Elgin on scheduling - he doesn't really say much that we don't already know - that scheduling is hard and
we need to beat the better teams when we do play them
https://www.tribstar.com/sports/loca...d58925151.html

Scheduling is a big problem!! How does a team schedule a game against bigger name schools. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose but when the NET is derived from that then it needs to happen. I think the NCAA needs to step up and create a rule so the bigger name schools have to play others not in their social class

[basketball nut]

Doug Elgin on scheduling - he doesn't really say much that we don't already know - that scheduling is hard and
we need to beat the better teams when we do play them
https://www.tribstar.com/sports/loca...d58925151.html

I like what Elgin mentioned about working with the better mid-major conferences to come up with a system for helping each other in scheduling. I know our fans would appreciate seeing top teams like SLU, Liberty, Buffalo, etc That would help get fans into the stands also.