NCAA looking into expanding tournament

#26      

aaeismacgychel

A
aaeismacgychel
It would depend in how this is implemented. I'm still of the opinion that if you don't have a .500 record in conference and at least 20 wins you're not very deserving of making the tournament. Sure, exceptions will be made in years when there's a weak field and you have to fill those final at large spots, but if this is to put in more undeserving major conference teams, I'm not for it. That's what the NIT is for.

Now if it's to put in midmajors with great records who won their conference but got knocked out in their conference tournament or midmajors who finished 2nd in their conference with good records, that I can somewhat get behind. Each game should be bubble major conference at large vs. bubble midmajor at large and may the better team win.

What I won't stand for is if this is an attempt to squeeze in more major conference teams while pushing out more automatic qualifier midmajors to play against each other in play in games to ween them out before they even make the actual tournament.
 
#27      

Guest

Guest
Guest
LadyLoyalty said:
Love It Snack GIF by The Roku Channel


Unpopular opinion, apparently. I love the tournament and wouldn’t mind more of it. Who watches play-in game? Me. I love college basketball and will watch any team from any conference (I record/watch as many as possible all season), especially when the tournament kicks off. More teams means more chances for Cinderella upsets, busted brackets and gives more teams, who don’t have multi millions to spend on NIL a fighting chance. Plus, we are so on the rise. It shouldn’t affect us, at least in the foreseeable future. I’m here for it.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if I can "like" this but I appreciate and respect your points. I am on the fence about this expansion and am leaning toward not expanding (not that my opinion matters) but your point about giving more teams who don't have the NIL money a fighting chance is interesting and a good reason to be okay with the expansion. If this is true (and I don't doubt it) and if this means that teams that win their conference but lose in their conference tournament and thus are not selected can now also be added I am more inclined to be okay with this (again, not that my opinion matters much).
 
#31      

Lord Voldemort

Lord Voldemort
Lord Voldemort
aaeismacgychel said:
It would depend in how this is implemented. I'm still of the opinion that if you don't have a .500 record in conference and at least 20 wins you're not very deserving of making the tournament. Sure, exceptions will be made in years when there's a weak field and you have to fill those final at large spots, but if this is to put in more undeserving major conference teams, I'm not for it. That's what the NIT is for.

Now if it's to put in midmajors with great records who won their conference but got knocked out in their conference tournament or midmajors who finished 2nd in their conference with good records, that I can somewhat get behind. Each game should be bubble major conference at large vs. bubble midmajor at large and may the better team win.

What I won't stand for is if this is an attempt to squeeze in more major conference teams while pushing out more automatic qualifier midmajors to play against each other in play in games to ween them out before they even make the actual tournament.
Click to expand...
That's about where I am. Regular season champs from mid and even low major conferences should get in ahead of .500 teams from any power conference. Either that or drop the pretenses and give everyone a spot like in high school.

They can have all the first-round games they want. They can't make anyone watch.
 
#33      

Illini2010-11

I
Sugar Grove
Illini2010-11
I might have the most contrarian view on this topic, but I actually like the idea of the field expanding to 76 teams. Some of the best games have come out of the first 4 games, especially the at-large games (and some of these teams have made extended runs in the tournament). I can say that I have almost always watched the two at-large play-in games since it has come out. I personally want to get rid of the two 16-seed play-in games, and have this be four (keeping the current number of teams) or eight play-in games (expanding to 76 teams) of the at-large teams.

I actually think this would be a great way of easing into the tournament Thursday, compared to these somewhat clunky 16-seed games. I am sure the gambling market would also like this increase in teams. JMO.
 
#34      

LadyLoyalty

LadyLoyalty
Indian Wells, CA
LadyLoyalty
frozenrope9190 said:
I love watching the current play in games. I tune in every year to all 4 of them.

Having said that, I don't want any more. I don't want the 8th place Big East steam and the 12th place SEC team getting rewarded for their constant bitching about the unfairness of the committee not letting their 13-loss butts in. Feels like that is what's happening.
Click to expand...
An 8th place Big East team could be better than a mid major conference champion with an automatic bid in the tourney (Colonial/Southern/WAC/Maac/etc). If teams get a chance to play in but are not “worthy” of making the tournament, then by your logic, they shouldn’t advance anyway. It’s a moot point.
 
#35      

Battle89

Battle89
Battle89
LadyLoyalty said:
Love It Snack GIF by The Roku Channel


Unpopular opinion, apparently. I love the tournament and wouldn’t mind more of it. Who watches play-in game? Me. I love college basketball and will watch any team from any conference (I record/watch as many as possible all season), especially when the tournament kicks off. More teams means more chances for Cinderella upsets, busted brackets and gives more teams, who don’t have multi millions to spend on NIL a fighting chance. Plus, we are so on the rise. It shouldn’t affect us, at least in the foreseeable future. I’m here for it.
Click to expand...
The rare sighting of a second Pru on Loyalty!
 
#39      

LadyLoyalty

LadyLoyalty
Indian Wells, CA
LadyLoyalty
But not all conferences are equal. A 7th place big east team could be far better than low/mid major conference champion with an automatic bid. If a team isn’t good enough to make the tournament, then they simply won’t advance from the play-in rounds. Don’t get why this is such a big deal.
 
#40      

Bbuck21

B
Bbuck21
I think it's time to adopt a true regional format like HS. They can go to 128 or 256. Either add another weekend up front or everybody plays Tue-Wed. Whichever works. First, there will no more "Final 4 Out" and teams feeling slighted. #129 (or 257) would be a laughing stock for complaining. Make it a 16 team/8 regions. Go ahead and use any method they want to seed them all (personally I think after 32 (top 4 per region) it really shouldn't matter. You then gerrymander the regions to divide the first 8 seeds, then 9-16, 17-32 with 4 per region. No team seeded 9-16 should be upset if their in the same bracket as #1, and so forth with seed #3and #4. Regardless of what size and shape of each region you complete the brackets based on geograhic proximity. Make it as easy as possible for fans to see their team. Reduce travel expenses for everybody and will still end up seeing great basketball. Including the Cinderellas.
 
#42      

Illinicpa14

I
Chicago
Illinicpa14
I like the minimal conference record and/or total wins.

I’ve gotten sick the past few years of seeing teams considered that all they’ve demonstrated is the ability to lose relatively close Q1 games. I think the Covid year purdue was on the bubble at like 15-15 because all the metrics backed up their losses.

It’s like in baseball - yes wins don’t account when the offense doesn’t score but there’s “good” pitchers that constantly give up 1-2 more runs then their opponent on a given day. Conversely you got guys like Mark Beuhrle from the WSox who knew how to keep their teams in the game despite on paper looking closer to average then great.
 
#43      

FeelYourPaign

FeelYourPaign
So Cal
FeelYourPaign
thefalcon5 said:
I get the goal is really to generate more revenue, but I think the current format is a bit too watered down already.
Click to expand...
Agree. I was actually pretty happy with 48 teams. Gave top 16 a bye and produced better hoops, imo. Also got some surprises when in round 2 the underdog who had played a game upset the seeded team who had not.
 
#44      

OrangeKrush1981

OrangeKrush1981
OrangeKrush1981
With each increase in size of the field, the NCAA tournament is becoming less of a national championship tournament and instead a bit more like an exciting lottery-like experience (I agree, "lottery-like" is a serious exaggeration, sorry :) ). It has been trending this way for a long time.

This past season, UConn won and they seem very much to be the true national champion. But with each game added (if we end up with 256 tourney teams), the chance of the best team running the gauntlet is not high when it is one-loss-and-you're-out.
 
#45      

OskieWowWow

OskieWowWow
OskieWowWow
Dan Gavitt at the NCAA is such a nepo baby hack. No real original ideas of his own, so just comes up with these lame proposals
 
#46      

IlliniFan42

IlliniFan42
IlliniFan42
LadyLoyalty said:
Love It Snack GIF by The Roku Channel


Unpopular opinion, apparently. I love the tournament and wouldn’t mind more of it. Who watches play-in game? Me. I love college basketball and will watch any team from any conference (I record/watch as many as possible all season), especially when the tournament kicks off. More teams means more chances for Cinderella upsets, busted brackets and gives more teams, who don’t have multi millions to spend on NIL a fighting chance. Plus, we are so on the rise. It shouldn’t affect us, at least in the foreseeable future. I’m here for it.
Click to expand...
I'm glad someone said it. More games aren't "too rich for me".
 
#48      

FreshlySqueezed

FreshlySqueezed
FreshlySqueezed
thefalcon5 said:
In a single elimination tournament having more rounds reduces the odds that the true best team is going to win. That’s just straight mathematics.

It is totally ok to be fine with that, but that is the largest deterrent in my mind.
Click to expand...

But you're not increasing the number of games for the best teams. Only 3 NCAA champions have been outside the top 4 seed lines. In order for any of those teams to play more games, the tournament would have to expand much more than is being presented.

Even at 96, the top 8 seeds would all play the same number of games, conceivably.
 
#49      

thefalcon5

T
thefalcon5
FreshlySqueezed said:
But you're not increasing the number of games for the best teams. Only 3 NCAA champions have been outside the top 4 seed lines. In order for any of those teams to play more games, the tournament would have to expand much more than is being presented.

Even at 96, the top 8 seeds would all play the same number of games, conceivably.
Click to expand...
But are they going to stop at 96?