• 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.

March Madness Expanding?

B

Bradleyguy10

New member
wouldn't surprise me.

1. Why not try to make a successful product a little bigger and a little longer.
2. Easy way to combat the bevy of new competition in postseason tourneys
 
Leave it as is. It should mean something to get into the tourny. when one third of the teams get admitted, it becomes more and more like a participation ribbon.
 
Incredible. Expand the college basketball tourney but absolutely refuse to crown the D1 football champion via a 16 or even an 8 team tournament.
 
D1 is too big.

Part of them needs to expand just because of all the new teams. In theory, you have to expand to give more teams more chances when more teams are in the available eligibility pool.

The one thing this would do is help all that mid-major bubble teams get in.
 
It should be noted however the much to my chagrin, they have once again taken up the call to change the BCS system in Washington. While I've never been a fan of the BCS, just seems like some thing pretty silly to have congress bother with right now.
 
I recall sending a suggestion to the NCAA a few years back.

My suggestion was to have the top 32 seeded teams (#1-#8 seeds) in a bye round. The next 64 seeded teams play each other. Winners advance to meet the top 32 while the losers advance into the "losers" bracket and meet a bottom 32 in the NIT.

I suggested games begin on Tuesday - so it adds only 2 days to the event. I also suggested the NIT bracket to be played at same venues during the "off days" of the NCAA games. Fans can attend both events. So instead of going to St Louis for Thursday-Saturday games and then having to find a sports bar to watch the Friday-Sunday games.... you can go watch the NIT games live.

Anyway - I got a nice letter back explaining they weren't expanding the tourney and then gave some disclaimer that whatever they do if they expand I can't claim it as my idea or something. :roll: :lol:
 
CzechBrave said:
Leave it as is. It should mean something to get into the tourny. when one third of the teams get admitted, it becomes more and more like a participation ribbon.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the NCAA expanding the basketball tournament. Czech, in the D1 football "bowl" system, over one half of the teams go on to postseason play (something along the lines of 30-some bowls). That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

I like the idea presented earlier that the top 32 get byes while there are 64 teams that play against each other for the right to take on the top 32. I don't like the idea of sending those losers to the NIT, though. Leave the NIT at 32 teams. The only problem I see with this is that pretty much every "power conference" member will probably be in one or the other.

To put it simply, 96 teams out of the 300-plus that play D1 get in the NCAA Tournament? I'm OK with that...
 
CzechBrave said:
Leave it as is. It should mean something to get into the tourny. when one third of the teams get admitted, it becomes more and more like a participation ribbon.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but when the tourney went to 64 teams back in the early 80's, there were only 150 (approx) DI teams. Now there's 340 or so. It would still be special making the field.
 
This would only be a good thing for non-BCS schools if they would place a hard cap on a minimum record (i.e. .500 w/l with possibly an exception for a top 30 SOS)

Really, as much as I'd like to see more non-BCS schools in the tourney, the point of the tourney is to determine the national champion. I really do not see how they are currently excluding a potential national champion in the 64 team field.

..but if you follow the $, the BCS conferences may go for this expanded field, They "let" 8 more non-BCS schools in we rejoice for the smaller conferences "finally" getting their chance, but that means 24 more BCS schools are in, and the shared revenue pie for the BCS gets larger, and the non-BCS gets smaller...
 
ph said:
Really, as much as I'd like to see more non-BCS schools in the tourney, the point of the tourney is to determine the national champion. I really do not see how they are currently excluding a potential national champion in the 64 team field.
Click to expand...

Good point!
 
ph said:
Really, as much as I'd like to see more non-BCS schools in the tourney, the point of the tourney is to determine the national champion. I really do not see how they are currently excluding a potential national champion in the 64 team field.
Click to expand...

True, but with that train of thought, there would be justification for greatly reducing the number of teams in the tournament. I believe NC State was the lowest to ever win it at a #8, so by your logic it should be a 32 team field. I doubt anyone would really be in favor of that.
 
BradleyBrave said:
True, but with that train of thought, there would be justification for greatly reducing the number of teams in the tournament. I believe NC State was the lowest to ever win it at a #8, so by your logic it should be a 32 team field. I doubt anyone would really be in favor of that.
Click to expand...

...but that is where the NCAA's "inclusion and fairness academic idealogy" gets in the way. They want to have all the D1 conference auto-bids, isn't there like 30 D1 conferences?
After the auto-bids they would be exclufing a #8 seed in a 3 team tourney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top