NCAA considering expanding field to 80

[Da Coach]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/othersports/story/91324C80F43CB0EC8625717F00220719?OpenDocument

This is probably a good thing for mid-majors. Considering Bradley was probably one of the last 2 to get into last year's tournament. If there had been a couple more upsets in conference tournaments, Bradley would have been squeezed out and never had a chance to do what they did. Expanding the field gives mids more of a chance to get in and get a shot at the big boys.

[64NIT]

The tourney already is watered down with too many low-major teams involved, IMO; many of them shouldn't even be in D-I. Expanding to 80 would make the tourney look like the NBA play-offs.

On second thought, why stop at 80? Why not invite all 300+ teams? And the tourney can go from March to June, just like the NBA.

64

[MacabreMob]

Very interesting article. The seed is planted and there is food for thought which will help it grow. The field will expand - just a matter of how. Sounds as if 2008 would be the earliest if they decide anything this year. I suspect they will decide to expand but not implement anything. Instead, they will form a committee and let them meet a few times a year discussing it before they decide. That would put the calendar at 2009.

But just for fun, if last season were an 80 team field, using the newly seeded NIT field (owned by the NCAA), the next 15 teams would be:
(1 seeds from NIT)Maryland, Michigan, Louisville, Cincinnati
(2 seeds) St Joe's, Creighton, Missouri St, Florida St
(3's) Hofstra, Miami, Fl, Houston, S Carolina
- that's 12 -
leaving the next 8 on the bubble:
(4 seeds) Colorado, Vandy, Clemson, Minnesota
(5's) Old Dominion, ND, La Tech, Wake Forest

Hmmm, would be interesting. Would Northwestern State beaten a team in this group before stunning Iowa?
Would Geo Mason been in a play-in game? (probably not)
What about Montana, Wis-Milwaukee, and of course Bradley?

[oilerpimp]

cha-ching...

Hey, there goes Nantz and Packer!

[tornado]

Very interesting article. The seed is planted and there is food for thought which will help it grow. The field will expand - just a matter of how. Sounds as if 2008 would be the earliest if they decide anything this year. I suspect they will decide to expand but not implement anything. Instead, they will form a committee and let them meet a few times a year discussing it before they decide. That would put the calendar at 2009.

But just for fun, if last season were an 80 team field, using the newly seeded NIT field (owned by the NCAA), the next 15 teams would be:
(1 seeds from NIT)Maryland, Michigan, Louisville, Cincinnati
(2 seeds) St Joe's, Creighton, Missouri St, Florida St
(3's) Hofstra, Miami, Fl, Houston, S Carolina
- that's 12 -
leaving the next 8 on the bubble:
(4 seeds) Colorado, Vandy, Clemson, Minnesota
(5's) Old Dominion, ND, La Tech, Wake Forest

Hmmm, would be interesting. Would Northwestern State beaten a team in this group before stunning Iowa?
Would Geo Mason been in a play-in game? (probably not)
What about Montana, Wis-Milwaukee, and of course Bradley?

Interesting, Mac, and as you can see, even if the field was 80 teams, there still would have been somebody like Colorado, Vandy, Wake, UND, etc that gets left out and goes national with a whining campaign.
Ultimately the BCS coaches will see that one of their big buds was left out and cite a Bradley or a La. Tech as an illegitimate candidate to get in over a BCS school. The SOLUTION will be to rip the selection committee, claim the field is too small, then campaign for an expansion of the NCAA field to 128 teams.
Before long the NCAA Tourney will be essentially like the IHSA State tourney with every single D-I school eligible and the whole things will have to start in February, and last until June!
But think of the revenue!!!!

[BradleyBrave]

I am wholeheartedly against it. I want making the NCAA Tournament to mean something. The more teams they add, the less it's going to mean.

[DannyCooksey]

I am wholeheartedly against it. I want making the NCAA Tournament to mean something. The more teams they add, the less it's going to mean.

i completely agree.

[MacabreMob]

You know, a field of 80 would mean there would be some with byes. I'd rather not see teams with byes.

I would be more in favor of a 128 team field. I know some would argue that nobody would want to see the #1 seed play #128, but honestly... it wouldn't be any different that the matchups now. The bottom 6 teams to get in last year according to their RPI's were:
115 Belmont
119 Albany
131 Oral Roberts
132 Southern U
144 Monmouth
284 Hampton

[BuBraves55]

I am wholeheartedly against it. I want making the NCAA Tournament to mean something. The more teams they add, the less it's going to mean.

exactly