i hope smarter heads prevail in the endgame of this.
this is a terrible idear
this is a terrible idear
NCAA Tournament Expansion Talk
- Thread starter ClonesFTW
- Start date
It wouldn't be my preference, but since I've come around to accepting the play-in games, I'm sure I'd do the same if this were to happen.
My biggest worry would be how it would affect the timing of the conference tourney games or the current schedule of the "real" tournament.
My biggest worry would be how it would affect the timing of the conference tourney games or the current schedule of the "real" tournament.
Jfc, of course, they've already diluted every other sport down just to make money, go ahead and finish off the only thing left sacred.
The tourney is already full as it as with these terrible play-in games.
The tourney is already full as it as with these terrible play-in games.
I mean… I don’t hate this. Add a week, top 32 seeds host. Top 256 get byes, with “play-in” on Tues/Weds, then we’re down to 64 and business as usual week later. What could go wrong?
Don’t answer that.
The easiest solution is moving the Tues/Wed games from Dayton to the "regular" 1st/2nd round sites, like how ISU hosted a WBB play-in game this past season on Wednesday night, with the 1st/2nd round games on Friday/Sunday.
If they expanded to 90 teams, they would need 26 first round games with 38 teams getting byes. I think they would need to stretch the tournament out either a ween or at least 4 or 5 days.
80 is a more realistic number, IMO.
That's 16 games over 2 days, spread across 8 sites and 4 TV channels.
The only expansion I could tolerate would be go to 72, so that's 4 games each Tuesday & Wednesday, and change all to at-large play-in (the 16 seed autobids aren't forced to play in First 8).
Any expansion is going to benefit mostly teams on the fringe from power conferences, with maybe some MWC/American/A-10. There's absolutely no need to go beyond 72.
Any expansion is going to benefit mostly teams on the fringe from power conferences, with maybe some MWC/American/A-10. There's absolutely no need to go beyond 72.
Can you imagine what the women's tournament early rounds would look like? It is, of course, a cash grab by the NCAA, which in turn gives a lot of the revenue to member institutions.
I completely disagree with this. The teams that have the worst resumes should have the toughest paths through the tournament.
The fact is, the 15 and 16 seeds generally earn their low seedings. Most of the time its not just that they came from a bad conference but that they have some horrific losses on their resumes. Even the lowest at large teams generally have far better resumes. The 15\16 seeds have earned the tough paths they are given through the tournament.
I wish they'd just stayed at 64 or, if they must do 68, then make the Dayton teams the eight teams above/below the bubble and have them play each other in some fashion for "one more data point" rather than forcing a few of the low-ranked AQ teams there who already earned their place in the real tournament.
I can see your argument ... probably I'd be OK with it being one way or the other -- -- either have all the 16s play additional game (or 15 and 16s with 72) or have it be all at-large.
Either way I don't think the tournament has become any more compelling at 68 teams compared to 64, so I can't see expansion helping any, regardless how it's done.
The people who tried to call the PIG games "The First Round" are probably behind it.
The only reason we have the current mix is that while it would make sense for it to be all 16 seeds, it would be terrible for the TV execs. So they mix in some teams people will watch.
I think if we're going to expand it should be all the way up to 128. No byes. No play ins. Just one additional round tues\weds.
That being said, i think any of this expansion is likely bad for the tournament. Especially if you end up with a situation where your top 30 seeds are getting byes, this could reduce upsets in the R64 and R32 and make the tournament a lot less compelling. Of course this might be what the powers that be want.
Everything I’ve heard/read is that this is mainly on the big picture, all sports NCAA side for 25% of teams into post season, but when it goes to the individual sports oversight there is a lot less support in the basketball circles of the NCAA. So it’s far from a done deal that the NCAA basketball tournament will get expanded.
But even thinking worst case scenario and the field expends by about 22 teams I don’t think that will completely change the feel of the tournament or regular season. Particularly if some of those 22 teams are filled by 1 bid conference regular season champions that didn’t win their tournament. You would have 38 teams that get in on selection Sunday and 52 teams that play in over a couple day period (that probably gets called first round) to fill out the 64 team field. Waters down both the regular season and tournament season some, but certainly wouldn’t ruin it in my mind.
But even thinking worst case scenario and the field expends by about 22 teams I don’t think that will completely change the feel of the tournament or regular season. Particularly if some of those 22 teams are filled by 1 bid conference regular season champions that didn’t win their tournament. You would have 38 teams that get in on selection Sunday and 52 teams that play in over a couple day period (that probably gets called first round) to fill out the 64 team field. Waters down both the regular season and tournament season some, but certainly wouldn’t ruin it in my mind.