-
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
Possible NCAA tournament expansion up to 76 teams
- Thread starter 64NIT
- Start date
LittleBrave
Well-known member
Love the 76-team idea, but 72 would set up the best format of 80 teams (IMO) a few yrs down the road.
No question that ISU-blue would have made the tourney last season if 72 teams...still smh that they got jipped!
No question that ISU-blue would have made the tourney last season if 72 teams...still smh that they got jipped!
bradleyfan124
Well-known member
They can expand all they want but until they come up with a selection guideline fair to everybody it means nothing
LittleBrave
Well-known member
Maybe take out the auto bid for conf. tourneys for any conf. lower than 20 in the KenPom, NET, RPI, or whatever metric they deem the highest for selection.
LittleBrave
Well-known member
Give teams with 12-seeds or better (Top 48 teams) a 1st round bye.
Then you have 32 teams (positioned 49 to 80) in 1st round, with more interest in this group than having these play-in games.
The winners of this bracket (16 winners) are re-seeded (by NET ranking) to determine who they play (Top 4 seeds, who earned a 1st round bye).
The seeds 5 to 12 play vs. each other in the 2nd round as usual.
Let's just say hypothetically, a team like Bradley last season might barely make the field of 80, but if they win their 1st game, they are re-seeded by NET and likely play a #3 seed instead of #1.
Use the NET ranking for something tangible like this. Just my 2 cents.
I don't like the 96-team format just b/c it's not a big deal AT ALL to make the tourney if about 30% of D-1 schools get in. I could imagine there being more griping for the last 4 out than having fewer teams in the field.
Also, a 96-team format would likely mean that 32 teams (Top 8 seeds) get a bye, and the 9 to 12 seeds get screwed by having to play 1 more game.
There is usually not much diff. in the 7-seed to a 10-seed, or an 8-seed to a 9-seed, and this would cause some fits among the 9-12 seed teams.
I could go on, but just wanted to share, as I've had this in my mind for like 10 years soon after they expanded to 68 and there was talk about going to 96 down the road.
Then you have 32 teams (positioned 49 to 80) in 1st round, with more interest in this group than having these play-in games.
The winners of this bracket (16 winners) are re-seeded (by NET ranking) to determine who they play (Top 4 seeds, who earned a 1st round bye).
The seeds 5 to 12 play vs. each other in the 2nd round as usual.
Let's just say hypothetically, a team like Bradley last season might barely make the field of 80, but if they win their 1st game, they are re-seeded by NET and likely play a #3 seed instead of #1.
Use the NET ranking for something tangible like this. Just my 2 cents.
I don't like the 96-team format just b/c it's not a big deal AT ALL to make the tourney if about 30% of D-1 schools get in. I could imagine there being more griping for the last 4 out than having fewer teams in the field.
Also, a 96-team format would likely mean that 32 teams (Top 8 seeds) get a bye, and the 9 to 12 seeds get screwed by having to play 1 more game.
There is usually not much diff. in the 7-seed to a 10-seed, or an 8-seed to a 9-seed, and this would cause some fits among the 9-12 seed teams.
I could go on, but just wanted to share, as I've had this in my mind for like 10 years soon after they expanded to 68 and there was talk about going to 96 down the road.
tomahawk chop
Well-known member
I agree 100%, they need to have criteria in place and one should be they will not accept any teams with 500 or below records as at large bids. Those teams are not deserving as far as getting a bid because their records prove they have not played good enough to get into this tour.
The NCAA is again considering expansion of the NCAA postseason tournament to 72 or 76 teams from the current 68-team format. - https://www.espn.com/mens-college-b...3985/ncaa-talks-expanding-hoops-tourney-72-76
That might seem like good news for mid-majors, but don't count on it. The expansion is actually being considered to accommodate the 10th, 11th, or 12 place teams in the ever-expanding mega conferences like the 18-team ACC, the 18-team Big Ten, the 16-team SEC, or the 16-team Big 12, rather than to give more bids to mid-major conferences like the MVC. In fact, the big conferences want the tournament format changed to eliminate automatic bids for the mid-major conferences and award more bids to the big boys.
Here is a quote form the above ESPN article-
The NCAA's basketball committees presented proposals to expand the tournament last June after several major conferences and leaders such as SEC commissioner Greg Sankey publicly pushed to create more at-large bids for their schools.
"We are giving away highly competitive opportunities for automatic qualifiers [from smaller leagues], and I think that pressure is going to rise as we have more competitive basketball leagues at the top end because of expansion," Sankey told ESPN last March.
That might seem like good news for mid-majors, but don't count on it. The expansion is actually being considered to accommodate the 10th, 11th, or 12 place teams in the ever-expanding mega conferences like the 18-team ACC, the 18-team Big Ten, the 16-team SEC, or the 16-team Big 12, rather than to give more bids to mid-major conferences like the MVC. In fact, the big conferences want the tournament format changed to eliminate automatic bids for the mid-major conferences and award more bids to the big boys.
Here is a quote form the above ESPN article-
The NCAA's basketball committees presented proposals to expand the tournament last June after several major conferences and leaders such as SEC commissioner Greg Sankey publicly pushed to create more at-large bids for their schools.
"We are giving away highly competitive opportunities for automatic qualifiers [from smaller leagues], and I think that pressure is going to rise as we have more competitive basketball leagues at the top end because of expansion," Sankey told ESPN last March.
I am not sure why we can't just be satisfied in sports. People have enjoyed them for as long as they have existed, but we constantly have to change them to try to attract people who don't care, just like the proposed golden at bat rule in baseball. This will just water the tournament down and make sure midmajors don't advance very far.
I don't care who you are or what conference you're in, if you can't finish any better that 12th in your conference,
you have no dang right to expect a chance to compete for the National Championship.
Can you imagine the comedy if it actually happened? What if say, Minnesota finished 12th in the Big Ten with a record of 6-14, and 13-19 overall.
Then they get an at large bid, go on an unbelievable run and win the NCAA Championship with a final record of 19-19. It would be a travesty.
you have no dang right to expect a chance to compete for the National Championship.
Can you imagine the comedy if it actually happened? What if say, Minnesota finished 12th in the Big Ten with a record of 6-14, and 13-19 overall.
Then they get an at large bid, go on an unbelievable run and win the NCAA Championship with a final record of 19-19. It would be a travesty.
National media would pitch it as a tremendous underdog story and there would be a movie. The movie would have no mention of the talented Bradley team that went 30-2, but got upset in the MVC champ game because of a mid game injury and was thus kept out of the NCAA tournament, but then went on to win the NIT.
Tommy
Well-known member
Couldn't agree more. Seriously, the question to ask is what is the point of the different conferences then. If they really just want all of the PC schools to get a bid, then just do it and quit making it seem like you have any interest in the mid-majors, because let's be honest, they don't.
algotrader
New member
Yeah, I take DC's pessimistic view of this. Any expansion of the tournament is purely so they can include big market schools in last place. Lets say Michigan joined the ACC alongside a ton of other schools, expanding the conference to 76 teams. Michigan could finish dead last and they would rather give Michigan an at large bid than anyone else in the MVC.
Nothing matters except for money to these people.
Nothing matters except for money to these people.