NCAA Tournament

[Da Coach]

A lot of people believe the NCAA Tournament should not be expanded beyond the current 68-team format.
Here is a good argument by ESPN's Joe Lunardi that makes the case for expanding it further. But it's not just for mid-major schools to get teams in the tournament. It is because conferences like the Big Ten and ACC will soon have 18 teams, and the SEC and Big 12 will have 16. He wants the NCAA Tournament to expand to get more of the Power Conference teams in, "otherwise power conference realignment will punish mid-majors even more than it already has or, worse, lead to the dreaded Division I breakup". He favors an 80-team field.
>> https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...xpand-80-teams

You need to be an ESPN+ subscriber to read.

[Tommy]

Who are we kidding, expanding the tournament would just lead to them adding more power conference teams. Nothing the NCAA does is ever with the intention of leveling the playing field for mid-majors, but then, I always loved an underdog.

[ManMythLegend]

Great read, I agree with most of what was said.

[Bradley3342]

Who are we kidding, expanding the tournament would just lead to them adding more power conference teams. Nothing the NCAA does is ever with the intention of leveling the playing field for mid-majors, but then, I always loved an underdog.

Nailed it Tommy!

[BUfan14]

I think I’d favor 96 teams. 64 teams play in the “opening round” for the 9-16 seeds on Tuesday/Wednesday, while the top 32 teams get into the bracket automatically as the 1-8 seeds. Then you still have your nice 64 team bracket to attract the masses after the opening play in round, still less than a third of teams get in to make it meaningful, but more teams get to be a part of it. Also it’d be like a combine NCAA/NIT field size anyway minus the first four play in game losers.

[BUBraves2006]

I could get on board with a new system if there was an actual rating system where you could know where you stood. NET, RPI, quad wins, whatever - just pick a set of criteria and then release it weekly just like the polls. It's exhausting to not really actually know what the criteria is.

Oh and if you can't win half your conference games you are ineligible, just like the college bowls for total wins. Sorry if you're in a super conference, play better.

[egib52]

Oh and if you can't win half your conference games you are ineligible, just like the college bowls for total wins. Sorry if you're in a super conference, play better.

I agree, I'm tired of the P5 teams complaining that if they were in X mid major conference they would have won. Then switch conferences and win constantly instead of chasing money.

[LittleBrave]

I proposed an 80-team field about 8 yrs ago that I thought made sense, and hopefully it wouldn't expand further for another 10 yrs. Anything beyond 80 to me is ridiculous.
The Top 12 seeds would get a bye (but still need to win 6 games to win the title); then the 13-20 seeds would be in the 1st round, and there would be 16 winners to advance, which would then become the 13 to 16 seeds (to total 64 teams in the 2nd round).

[tomahawk chop]

I could get on board with a new system if there was an actual rating system where you could know where you stood. NET, RPI, quad wins, whatever - just pick a set of criteria and then release it weekly just like the polls. It's exhausting to not really actually know what the criteria is.

Oh and if you can't win half your conference games you are ineligible, just like the college bowls for total wins. Sorry if you're in a super conference, play better.

There should be a set of criteria in place in order to get bids to the Tour. Teams that have not won more then 50% of their games in conferences do not belong in because they really have not proven anything as far as being a good team. I get tired of teams getting at large bids because of their conference and not because they earned their bid.

[Da Coach]

Here is an interesting fact- https://twitter.com/madeformarch/sta...63106764685653

Since the NET went into use by the NCAA for determining at-large bids and seeding, no team with an NET below 31 on this date was denied an NCAA bid. Indiana State's NET has been at 29 since Sunday. Obviously, that doesn't guarantee anything. There are a lot of variables including upsets that occur in conference tournaments. And the NCAA will try to screw mid-majors as they do every year. But it bodes well for Indiana State if they need an at-large bid.

[elmerb]

Mid Majors need their own tournament.

[Dub]

Mid Majors need their own tournament.

If “mid majors” had their own national postseason tournament, the world would care about it approximately to the same level it cares about the DII and DIII national tournaments.

In this concept, you are basically just creating another “division” that falls below D1.

What makes the NCAA tournament so broadly popular is the chance for mid major upsets. Take that possibility away, and far fewer people will engage in it.

Put all the mid majors safely away in their own tournament and very few will engage in that either.

I believe this move would actually result in a net loss of interest across both tournaments, and would be bad for the sport. D1 is D1, we have enough Divisions.

[Da Coach]

Mid Majors need their own tournament.

The big schools would be happy if the mid-majors pulled out and had their own tournament. That is what they have been trying to do for years with their selection methods, RPI, and NET tools. They don't like losing to mid-majors, or sharing money with them. This would solve all their concerns.
In a way, the mid-majors already do have their own tournaments, the CBI and CIT. And the big networks and the media would ignore it, and teams would lose money participating in it.

[bradleyfan124]

If “mid majors” had their own national postseason tournament, the world would care about it approximately to the same level it cares about the DII and DIII national tournaments.

In this concept, you are basically just creating another “division” that falls below D1.

What makes the NCAA tournament so broadly popular is the chance for mid major upsets. Take that possibility away, and far fewer people will engage in it.

Put all the mid majors safely away in their own tournament and very few will engage in that either.

I believe this move would actually result in a net loss of interest across both tournaments, and would be bad for the sport. D1 is D1, we have enough Divisions.

I totally agree with this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dub]

The big schools would be happy if the mid-majors pulled out and had their own tournament. That is what they have been trying to do for years with their selection methods, RPI, and NET tools. They don't like losing to mid-majors, or sharing money with them. This would solve all their concerns.
In a way, the mid-majors already do have their own tournaments, the CBI and CIT. And the big networks and the media would ignore it, and teams would lose money participating in it.

Exactly right. The step sisters are trying to get Cinderella to dis-invite herself from the big dance and stay home with the mice. Don’t fall for it.