Tourney expansion problem solved

[mike radigan]

I sent the following e-mail to the NCAA and PTI:

There has been much talk about expanding the NCAA tourney field as too many good teams feel they are left out, or so the theory goes. However, every solution I??™ve seen makes no sense. Bob Knight suggests 7 rounds with 128 teams with the higher seed hosting the first round. Doesn??™t he realize nobody cares about a 1 seed facing a 32 seed? And what about the availability of the higher seed arenas?

There is a simple solution. Expand to 96 teams. That should satisfy the left out contingent. In the first round the top 8 seeds (32 teams) would receive a bye. 9 seeds would play 24 seeds, 10 seeds would play 23 seeds, ??¦ 16 seeds would play 17 seeds. The second round the 1 seeds would play the 16-17 winner, 2 seeds would play the 15-18 winner, and so on. The mismatches would remain about where there are today.

This method also solves the scheduling problem as follows. There are currently 8 sites for the sub regionals. Each sub regional would have to host 4 additional games, 2 afternoon and 2 evening. The Thursday ??“ Saturday sub regional would host on Tuesday while the Friday ??“ Sunday sub regional would host on Wednesday. Each team gets a rest day with no new sites to add.

[tornado]

Or give the top 16 teams a bye, then have either 64 more teams or 128 more battle down to just 16, then meet the seeded teams!

Then we'd have a decent tourney of 80 or 144 teams

[thefish7]

I think the best way is to a play-in game for every 16 seed. So instead of 65 teams, you'd have 68. Or you could make 15 and 16 seeds all play-in games... This is where you could put all of those undeserving conference championship automatic bids and 72 total teams in. I think this would be fair, but wouldn't dilute the tournament so far that it's "easy" to get in or less fun.

[Beninator]

I think the best way is to a play-in game for every 16 seed. So instead of 65 teams, you'd have 68. Or you could make 15 and 16 seeds all play-in games... This is where you could put all of those undeserving conference championship automatic bids and 72 total teams in. I think this would be fair, but wouldn't dilute the tournament so far that it's "easy" to get in or less fun.

Exactly... Expand the play-in-games and that is all. Technically, just about every school has a chance to get into the field of 64-65 by winning their conference tournament. Just ask Georgia.

[Bravesfan]

I think the best way is to a play-in game for every 16 seed. So instead of 65 teams, you'd have 68. Or you could make 15 and 16 seeds all play-in games... This is where you could put all of those undeserving conference championship automatic bids and 72 total teams in. I think this would be fair, but wouldn't dilute the tournament so far that it's "easy" to get in or less fun.

No, I hate the one play-in game as it is. This would not be fair to the lower conference teams who may not even get the chance to play the top seeds if they don't make it past this round.

I like the 96 team field the best with the one additional round to sort out the teams that would play the top 8 seeds. 128 teams are too many with the result being the same if 64 teams were in the field in the first place.

[pfunk880]

I am a proponent of expanding to eight play-in games for all of the 15 and 16 seeds.

That makes the play-in games mean more than just the one lonely game there is right now, and it opens up a reasonable 7 more at-large bids.

[ser_solace]

I'd prefer not to expand the tournament anymore so than it is. I think beyond where it is now, it'd get less special to be invited.

[Fetz86]

I would support play ins for all 16 seeds. 3 more teams really removes most of the gripes the last couple years.

[Scouter]

There will always be bubble teams and teams that have gripes about getting left out, no matter how many teams are in the tournament. If the tournament expanded, the only difference would be worse teams than the ones that are left out now would be the ones on the edge of the tournament.

Quite frankly, the teams that just made the tournament or just got left on the outside looking in have little or no chance of winning the whole thing. Expanding the tournament wouldn't change who the current favorites are. I think adding more teams would be completely unnecessary.

[SFP]

My only gripe is that there is a BCS bias in the selection process that needs to be addressed. There is a considerable amount of money that the mids are losing out because of this. Even if you expand the field it does not mean that the mids will get their fair share of the pie. Over the long run this make a huge difference in programs ability to build and provide state of the art facilities and recruit.

[real fan]

I like Mike Radigans ides the best as unless you expand to 96 there will still be teams left out that should be in; I would also like to see some rules that if you do not have a winning record in both your conference and the season then you cannot be an at large, also you cannot play more then 18 home games as a lot of the larger schools have great records because they play so many home games.