• 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.

NCAA Expansion

T

thefish7

New member
Just curious, post Selection Sunday, how people are feeling about this topic... I just saw where Bruce Pearl wants an 80 team field.

In my opinion, I don't really want a vastly (80 or 108 teams) expanded field for two reasons:
1. I think the tournament should be exclusive, and that it should be hard to get into.
2. I think that if we had a bigger field we'd get in more often, but we'd just always get a bad seed (even worse than now) and the better seeds would just be filled up by mediocre teams from the bigs.

What I would like, however, is to see the field expanded to 68 (or maybe even 72) and have a play-in opponent for each #1 seed (or for each #1 and #2).
 
Re: NCAA Expansion

thefish7 said:
Just curious, post Selection Sunday, how people are feeling about this topic... I just saw where Bruce Pearl wants an 80 team field.

In my opinion, I don't really want a vastly (80 or 108 teams) expanded field for two reasons:
1. I think the tournament should be exclusive, and that it should be hard to get into.
2. I think that if we had a bigger field we'd get in more often, but we'd just always get a bad seed (even worse than now) and the better seeds would just be filled up by mediocre teams from the bigs.

What I would like, however, is to see the field expanded to 68 (or maybe even 72) and have a play-in opponent for each #1 seed (or for each #1 and #2).
Click to expand...

I also might favor a very limited expansion like the one you are suggesting. Actually the ratio of D1 teams making the tournament has been decreasing as membership keeps increasing past 330. A small expasion would address this and return the ratio of teams in/out back to where it was 15 years ago or so.
 
Re: NCAA Expansion

VromanFan said:
I also might favor a very limited expansion like the one you are suggesting. Actually the ratio of D1 teams making the tournament has been decreasing as membership keeps increasing past 330. A small expasion would address this and return the ratio of teams in/out back to where it was 15 years ago or so.
Click to expand...

My selfish thought is that we'd have 8 automatic bids from very weak conferences playing in essentially four tournament spots.
 
As much as I would like to see a field of 96, I am actually against it. What gets me lit up and puking is the 64/65 'play-in' game. CBS and the NCAA need to get rid of this joke and embarrassment.

Swallow the 1 extra at-large bid to be given up.
 
MacabreMob said:
As much as I would like to see a field of 96, I am actually against it. What gets me lit up and puking is the 64/65 'play-in' game. CBS and the NCAA need to get rid of this joke and embarrassment.

Swallow the 1 extra at-large bid to be given up.
Click to expand...

Someone at work told me that the play-in game came when some conference was formed that increased the number of automatic bids... Is that the case?
 
Re: NCAA Expansion

thefish7 said:
VromanFan said:
I also might favor a very limited expansion like the one you are suggesting. Actually the ratio of D1 teams making the tournament has been decreasing as membership keeps increasing past 330. A small expasion would address this and return the ratio of teams in/out back to where it was 15 years ago or so.
Click to expand...

My selfish thought is that we'd have 8 automatic bids from very weak conferences playing in essentially four tournament spots.
Click to expand...

A "tweak" like you suggest might not be a bad idea. However, that is four fewer teams that would normally be a #15 seed with a chance to upset the #2 seed. Still though, if this play-in rule for all #1 seeds were to be implemented, than the #15 seeds would all come from the top 22 or 23 conferences, where there would be a better chance at an upset.

The only other flaw though is that these additional 3 teams could be filled by 3 more mediocre BCS teams, and limit the non-BCS at-larges even more, maybe not all the time, but possibly more often.

One thing that I will always stand by though is this: If the tourney were expanded to 96 or more teams, than the NIT should be eliminated. Just put all those teams into the main NCAA Tournament.
 
thefish7 said:
MacabreMob said:
As much as I would like to see a field of 96, I am actually against it. What gets me lit up and puking is the 64/65 'play-in' game. CBS and the NCAA need to get rid of this joke and embarrassment.

Swallow the 1 extra at-large bid to be given up.
Click to expand...

Someone at work told me that the play-in game came when some conference was formed that increased the number of automatic bids... Is that the case?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe it was from the formation of the Mountain West.
 
thefish7 said:
MacabreMob said:
As much as I would like to see a field of 96, I am actually against it. What gets me lit up and puking is the 64/65 'play-in' game. CBS and the NCAA need to get rid of this joke and embarrassment.

Swallow the 1 extra at-large bid to be given up.
Click to expand...

Someone at work told me that the play-in game came when some conference was formed that increased the number of automatic bids... Is that the case?
Click to expand...

Yes..

I think it was when the WAC had formed into 16 teams.... then it split up and formed the Mountain West and WAC. Prior to the split, the committee had 30 conferences and 34 'at-large' bids... and then they had to give one up... and they didn't want to... so we got 31 (automatic) conference bids and 34 at-large bids = 65, creating a 'play-in' game.
 
Nice read on the subject by Skip Myslenski of the Chicago Tribune. He thinks we deserve a bid, as does Drexel, Missouri St, Kansas St, Air Force, and West Virginia. His solution is one that we've talked about often, and that is expanding the field with 3 additional play-in games.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...enski,1,2207881.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

I used to be against the notion of expansion, but I think the addition of 3 more play-in games is a good idea. With the expansion of DI to 330 teams, it's almost silly that they haven't addressed this yet. I have a feeling they will in the very near future.
 
Yeah I'm just fearful of a giant expansion (maybe I shouldn't be)... because if we got into the tournament every year perhaps we could keep proving that the MVC may be some sort of high major (if not a power conference).
 
Expansion would also be very hard for any mid major to win as you would have to win another 1-2 or however many more games in a row on top of the 6 there is now against very tough competition. Even most of the ranked teams barely won 6 games in a row during the season.

Jason
 
Play in games are a joke as those teams get no rest and whomever wins has to play the no 1 seed ; 64 teams makes for a good tour. if they would come up with the same criteria for all the teams; they need to have 4 or 5 set rules and feed the teams resumes into the computer and let the computer decide the at larges based on that info; at least it would not be biased .
 
Howellmania said:
An expansion would ruin the tournament. It's almost too big as it is. It should be exclusive.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty exclusive considering there are over 330 DI teams and only 65 make the field. If that was bumped to 68 with the addition of 3 play-in games, would it really cheapen the experience?
 
real fan said:
Play in games are a joke as those teams get no rest and whomever wins has to play the no 1 seed ; 64 teams makes for a good tour. if they would come up with the same criteria for all the teams; they need to have 4 or 5 set rules and feed the teams resumes into the computer and let the computer decide the at larges based on that info; at least it would not be biased .
Click to expand...

The teams that play in the play-in really have no chance anyway...
 
thefish7 said:
real fan said:
Play in games are a joke as those teams get no rest and whomever wins has to play the no 1 seed ; 64 teams makes for a good tour. if they would come up with the same criteria for all the teams; they need to have 4 or 5 set rules and feed the teams resumes into the computer and let the computer decide the at larges based on that info; at least it would not be biased .
Click to expand...

The teams that play in the play-in really have no chance anyway...
Click to expand...

That's why you have 8 bubble teams playing in for the 12 seeds. That would give some real meaning to the play-in games on Tuesday and Wednesday, and create a real Cinderella team or 2 should they make it through the weekend having won 3 games in 5 days.
 
The teams that play in the play-in really have no chance anyway...
Click to expand...

Play-in schools, and schools like Bradley, Drexel, etc. do not strive to get into the NCAA with aspirations of winning it all. But they want desperately to have a chance just to play, with hopes to possibly win a game or 2. It can make a huge difference to these smaller programs.

Even though the purpose of the NCAA tournament orignally was to determine the best team, what has become every bit as important is revenues it generates for the small schools and how it affects the team's recruiting and future. A large number of Div I coaches even have bonuses written into their contracts if they just get into the NCAA.

If a marginal team gets an NCAA bid, it can have a huge boost to that team's recruiting, not to mention all the revenue it brings to that school and their conference. It can make the difference between a single good season for a team like Drexel, and maybe a long run of success if they would have gotten the revenue and exposure that an NCAA appearance generates (see Gonzaga).
Heck, maybe some of the midmajors could even stand a chance of taking some 4 and 5-star recruits away from the Big Boys!

That's why the big boys don't want to let it happen. They want to reserve the pie all for themselves, and not even let the smaller schools have a tiny slice.
 
I agree with you DaCoach... That was kinda my point, play-in teams whether they are rested or not or have any chance of beating a 1-seed want to get in there. They can't realistically have a hope of winning, but getting to play 2 games on national TV is big for them. So, while expanding to 4 play-in games wouldn't make it any more likely for the play-in teams to win, it would get a few more in there to get the exposure, and maybe even get a couple more bubble teams into the actual 1st round seeds.

Play-in teams winning is not the point of adding additional play in games.
 
I remember an article last year, where the coach of the Monmouth Hawks (the team that won the play-in game and then got beaten in the 1-16 seed matchup by Villanova) was able to see it as a huge positive for their program. They got to play an NCAA game for a national TV audience and won!
He was able to go to recruits and tell them that they made the NCAA and won their first game! I don't know how much of a difference it made, but Monmouth had a pretty decent recruiting class.
A couple of them are redshirting, but one of their freshmen was 2nd on their team in scoring and was named the NEC "Rookie of the Year"--
http://www.gomuhawks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=62255&SPID=6806&DB_OEM_ID=14300&ATCLID=810395
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top