• 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: No Tournament Expansion

On one hand I think it's good, on the other hand, I don't think they'd be watering down the tournament at all if they added 3 more play-in games for the right to play the #1 seeds.
 
The main point of the NCAA tournament is to crown the National Champion. An expanded field will not bring in a national champion from the expansion ranks.
 
Maybe that's true, but then if that was the only purpose, they could cut the field right now to 16 or 24 teams. They could eliminate all members of the non-power conferences.

But there are other purposes, the most notable of which is to generate revenues. And for that reason, the smaller schools and the non-BCS conferences are on the outside looking in. The only way to allow them to share a tiny bit in this large feast for the big boys is to allow more of them into the field. Just maybe a few more Gonzagas, George Masons, and Butlers will start to emerge. That would be undeniably good for all of college basketball.

If the 2005 NCAA field was 63 instead of 65, Bradley would not have been included (Bradley and Air Force were said to have been the last 2 in). Nobody at Bradley was deluded to believe they had a chance to win the tournament. But the money and the visibility they got was great for the program. The chance to play and knock off a couple of teams that did have aspirations they could win the tounament, Kansas and Pitt, was priceless.
 
Shoot, when we made the Sweet 16, everyone was thinking "Wow, we won 2 games." Meanwhile, I was remembering, "We're only 4 games away from a national championship" :lol:

Bottom line: If the tourney field expands, it'll probably let in just as many big boys as small boys. 64 is a good enough number for now (for the love of God, why 65?) 68 is fine with me too, heck, maybe even 72. Maybe in 2013, that will probably make sense as more and more D-1 schools rise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top