64 or 96 NCAA Tournament teams
- Thread starter SC Cy
- Start date
Re: NCAA Tourney Expansion
Can't be overly surprised this is happening. gives us a better chance....
but seriously this is ridiculous this give Kansas a first round bye, and the probability of upset for them is slim to none.. this is another attempt of the NCAA trying to get all the number 1 seeds in the final 4...
Can't be overly surprised this is happening. gives us a better chance....
but seriously this is ridiculous this give Kansas a first round bye, and the probability of upset for them is slim to none.. this is another attempt of the NCAA trying to get all the number 1 seeds in the final 4...
Re: NCAA Tourney Expansion
Hate this. This is just stupid. Why don't they just admit it is about money. This will only water down the tournament. There aren't that many more teams that deserve to be in. Now when they discuss bubble teams it is usually 3-4 teams that some people feel should have been in. How can you go from that to letting almost 30 more teams in? That doesn't make the tournament better. The first weekend is the best weekend and now it is going to be like watching the CBI.
Hate this. This is just stupid. Why don't they just admit it is about money. This will only water down the tournament. There aren't that many more teams that deserve to be in. Now when they discuss bubble teams it is usually 3-4 teams that some people feel should have been in. How can you go from that to letting almost 30 more teams in? That doesn't make the tournament better. The first weekend is the best weekend and now it is going to be like watching the CBI.
Re: NCAA Tourney Expansion
I don't really hate it as much as some do...but I also don't feel like they should mess with a good thing! That said...if they want to make the regular season more meaningful then they should hold conference tournaments at the beginning of the season! We would know who the automatic qualifiers would be all year long. I know they wouldn't do this...but if the complaint right now is that the regular season is not important...this would help make it more important!
I don't really hate it as much as some do...but I also don't feel like they should mess with a good thing! That said...if they want to make the regular season more meaningful then they should hold conference tournaments at the beginning of the season! We would know who the automatic qualifiers would be all year long. I know they wouldn't do this...but if the complaint right now is that the regular season is not important...this would help make it more important!
Re: NCAA Tourney Expansion
I think someone said it best in an earlier thread: as soon as we see year after year the 12 seeds and such making it to the final 4 then we can go for this.
Clearly it's just money to them.
I think someone said it best in an earlier thread: as soon as we see year after year the 12 seeds and such making it to the final 4 then we can go for this.
Clearly it's just money to them.
I could go for 96 teams but only if the 31 automatic bid teams are exempt from playing in the 1st round. I just don't see how it would be fair any other way.
Yes, but only a couple are playing for a championship. Going to 96 renders the regular season so much more useless it isn't even funny.
IF that is your stance then why don't we just make it the Power Conference NCAA tournament. Eliminate all of the automatic bids and just put all of the power conference teams in. That sure would be fun to watch. Who doesn't want to watch a great 1st round game like Syracuse vs. Nebraska, Duke vs. Iowa, Kentucky vs. Oregon, etc....
The point you are making is you would rather watch a 16-15 team from a power conference with a losing conference record get in the tournament over a team like Murray State that went 30-4 this year? Hey Providence.... congratulations you are in the Tourney. We know it isn't your fault you finished 12-19 cause you play in the Big East and that is really tough. Sorry Wofford... that 26-8 record, conference title, and tournament title just wasn't enough to let you in this year.
Re: NCAA Tourney Expansion
If they're going to do this (which I'm not a fan of), they should give the top 4-8 seeds a home game the first two rounds....seriously.....the regular season will be diluted even further if 96 teams get in.
College football isn't perfect, but it is a better postseason than college basketball. The regular season is INCREDIBLY important in college football....not even remotely the case in college bball.
If they're going to do this (which I'm not a fan of), they should give the top 4-8 seeds a home game the first two rounds....seriously.....the regular season will be diluted even further if 96 teams get in.
College football isn't perfect, but it is a better postseason than college basketball. The regular season is INCREDIBLY important in college football....not even remotely the case in college bball.
I was thinking more like, sorry Wofford, your season in which you went 26-8 but played nobody of consequence was nice, you're in the tournament but you don't get a first round bye. I want the lower teams in the tournament, but the first round byes should still be determined by overall seeding, not by conference tournament winners.
Re: NCAA Tourney Expansion
How many games are played now..33 or so? When you only need to win 15 or so games per season to get in, losses don't mean that much. There is no drama. It's watered down. There is no "bubble watch" "Championship week". People will be playing for seeds not to try and get in.
NBA is atrocious in the regular season, expansion would only make CBB more like the NBA.
How many games are played now..33 or so? When you only need to win 15 or so games per season to get in, losses don't mean that much. There is no drama. It's watered down. There is no "bubble watch" "Championship week". People will be playing for seeds not to try and get in.
NBA is atrocious in the regular season, expansion would only make CBB more like the NBA.
Re: NCAA Tourney Expansion
NBA plays almost 3 times as many games though.
With first round byes seeding would be even more important than it is now. I think you'd see a "bubble watch" on the last teams in/first out for the final first round bye seeds, in addition to one for teams not getting in.
Yes... Wofford... you are a crappy team from a crappy little conference. Next year don't bother scheduling games against Pittsburgh, Illinois, Georgia, Bradley, Michigan State, Kent State, or South Carolina. There is no reason for you to subject yourself to such tremendous beatings like your 3 point loss at PITT, or your 12 point loss at Final Four bound Michigan State. Please stop embarrassing yourself by going on the road and beating South Carolina. You have no business beating a team on their home court especially when Kentucky couldn't even match that same feat.
So Wofford beating a bad South Carolina team who happened to beat Kentucky earns them a bye? Or maybe it's the fact that they didn't lose too badly to Pitt or MSU? Did they beat anyone worth a damn the whole season? And they LOST to Pittsburgh, Illinois, Bradley, Michigan State and Kent State, do they get bonus points for scheduling them even if they lose?Yes... Wofford... you are a crappy team from a crappy little conference. Next year don't bother scheduling games against Pittsburgh, Illinois, Georgia, Bradley, Michigan State, Kent State, or South Carolina. There is no reason for you to subject yourself to such tremendous beatings like your 3 point loss at PITT, or your 12 point loss at Final Four bound Michigan State. Please stop embarrassing yourself by going on the road and beating South Carolina. You have no business beating a team on their home court especially when Kentucky couldn't even match that same feat.
I don't want to see any more teams in. However, from what I have heard there were complaints and concerns when the tourney has been expanded in the past and look how that turned out. I'm not sure this would be the same, but what is somewhat the same is that people don't like screwing with a product that they already love. I already think the play in game is a screw job for the teams in it because I doubt they really get a taste of the tourney if they lose that one.
In doing a little checking I found that 52 teams from the power conferences had winning records this season. That means that you would like to increase the number of crappy teams from crappy little conferences in the tournament to 44?
FYI.... the 52 teams included any team with a winning record at least 1 game over .500. That includes garbage teams like Miami & Washington State that finished dead last in the ACC & Pac 10 conferences but would get bids based virtually on the fact that they had a winning record and didn't beat a single solid basketball team the entire season.
FYI.... the 52 teams included any team with a winning record at least 1 game over .500. That includes garbage teams like Miami & Washington State that finished dead last in the ACC & Pac 10 conferences but would get bids based virtually on the fact that they had a winning record and didn't beat a single solid basketball team the entire season.