Expand the NCAA tourney?
- Thread starter SpiderTrap
- Start date
I voted for 96. I don't think it means everyone gets a trophy so to speak. It would still only be about 25% getting in (compared to every team .500 or better getting a bowl game in football). And as everyone knows many of those are autobids for teams well outside the top 96. There would always be arguments for #97, but realistically most of the really good teams would get in. There would be good ones who don't get in but not any teams who had exceptionally good seasons getting left out.
Last edited:
I voted leave as is, but I'd really prefer going to 64. Always hated any type of play-in games - to me you're either in or you're not, and for those teams in the play-in game it seems like you have to earn making it by getting one more win than you should have had to.
As far as adding teams goes, I think we've seen enough of the selection process etc to know that if they add teams, the extra spots will be more likely to go to an 18-14 Big ten team than they will to a 25-6 mid major, which to me reduces the appeal of the tournament.
As far as adding teams goes, I think we've seen enough of the selection process etc to know that if they add teams, the extra spots will be more likely to go to an 18-14 Big ten team than they will to a 25-6 mid major, which to me reduces the appeal of the tournament.
Conference regular season champions should have automatic bids. If they want to keep allowing conference tournament champs to get in too, that's ok. They can increase the field to cover this and adjust at the end like they do now. I'm not saying this because the Spiders won the regular season this year. I've always felt this way. And, of course, this year, it really hits home.
I say leave as is. I don't love the play-in games, but I can deal with them. And especially since VCU went from play-in to final four, hard to go back from that.
I agree with Jay Bilas on this one - there is no need to expand the tourney, because everyone right now has the same chance with the tourney - you win your conference tournament. That is really when the NCAA tourney starts. Those are the play in games for every team in the country basically.
I would say only take conference tourney's and I would move the NIT back to auto-bid for regular season conference champions and get rid of their P6 agreement.
I agree with Jay Bilas on this one - there is no need to expand the tourney, because everyone right now has the same chance with the tourney - you win your conference tournament. That is really when the NCAA tourney starts. Those are the play in games for every team in the country basically.
I would say only take conference tourney's and I would move the NIT back to auto-bid for regular season conference champions and get rid of their P6 agreement.
8legs1dream
Team Manager
In addition to tournament champions, I would like to see all conference champions make it in. I think there’s something to be said for having the season mean more than just seeding for the conference tournament. Maybe they at least get a play in game.
I like it as is. 68 teams is sufficient. I do wish they would impose some standards on the teams getting in such as .500 in league play, finishing in the Top half of your league to get rid of some of the P6 teams that live off of the high ranking of their league (i.e. Michigan State, Texas, TCU).
How many more 19-14 type Big Ten teams can they allow in? There are a limited number of teams in the league. Ridiculous for sure.
As far as Richmond goes, a 23-9 Spiders team will always get in especially as A10 Champs. We seem to fall in that gray area just outside of the field with a great deserving team. I don't think expanding oversaturates the field. A lot of really good teams get left out.
This 100%. These schools already have massive resources, they have proven they aren't even in the top half of the conference. Why do we need to keep seeing them play on a big stage when they've proven they cant? Much rather see a 14-2 25+ win mid major that lost in their conf final with limited resources get in. I don't care if there is a talent gap, only one way to find out and its not having mediocre P5 teams play against good P5 teams.
I would be willing to accept more bad P6 teams as a means toward getting a few more "mid-majors" into the tournament. Aside from the MWC which managed to play like a P6 this year, other non-P6 conferences earned a grand total of 3 at-large bids...Dayton, FAU, and Gonzaga. Gimme 15 more crappy P6s in the tournament if it means I can get a dozen more from the likes of the A-10 and MVC.
Yes, accept it will never be like that. If they expand the field, it will favor heavily the P6's and the mid-major, A-10, MWV, MVC will get the scraps.
Just for funsies, here are the conference affiliations of the highest 28 NET teams that did not make the NCAA this year. 17 P6 and 11 non-P6.
6 Big East: St. John's (32), Villanova (41), Providence (58), Xavier (64), Seton Hall (67), Butler (68)
4 Big 12: Cincinnati (37), Oklahoma (46), UCF (61), Kansas State (70)
3 ACC: Pitt (40), Wake (43), VT (60)
2 Big Ten: Ohio State (49), Iowa (62)
2 Pac-12: Utah (48), Washington (69)
2 MVC: Indiana State (28), Bradley (57)
2 A-10: VCU (71), Richmond (73)
2 AAC: Memphis (75), South Florida (78)
1 Ivy: Princeton (55)
1 WCC: San Francisco (66)
1 Sun Belt: App State (72)
1 MWC: UNLV (76)
1 Big West: UC Irvine (77)
6 Big East: St. John's (32), Villanova (41), Providence (58), Xavier (64), Seton Hall (67), Butler (68)
4 Big 12: Cincinnati (37), Oklahoma (46), UCF (61), Kansas State (70)
3 ACC: Pitt (40), Wake (43), VT (60)
2 Big Ten: Ohio State (49), Iowa (62)
2 Pac-12: Utah (48), Washington (69)
2 MVC: Indiana State (28), Bradley (57)
2 A-10: VCU (71), Richmond (73)
2 AAC: Memphis (75), South Florida (78)
1 Ivy: Princeton (55)
1 WCC: San Francisco (66)
1 Sun Belt: App State (72)
1 MWC: UNLV (76)
1 Big West: UC Irvine (77)
Expand the Tourney. All regular season champs make it, then fill in the spots for whatever the number is, 76, 82. Some small conferences may get two teams in.
This is my preference too. There are 32 conferences, right? So take the regular season and tournament winners from each one. At most that's 64 teams but most years it's probably more like 48 or 50, I would guess. Then you are rewarding both accomplishment and ensuring you have the best teams from each conference, plus you still have potentially 30+ at-large spots. If the goal is to get all the best teams in, this is the way to do it.
Does that put more pressure on regular season champs from "one-bid" conferences to "tank" their conference tournament final to get another team in?
That obviously already exists to some degree like if it was Dayton against anybody else in the A-10 final this year, but it would definitely be magnified across all of the current one-bid conferences.
That obviously already exists to some degree like if it was Dayton against anybody else in the A-10 final this year, but it would definitely be magnified across all of the current one-bid conferences.
Two more weekends and you can get everyone in the tournament.
The biggest factor for me not rewarding the conference champ a March Madness bid is the unbalanced schedules. And only going to be worst going forward. How many schools will be in the Big Ten next season?
I don't think so, or I would hope not. Maybe you reward teams that win both the regular season and conference tournament by guaranteeing them first/second round games that are closer to them? Probably some way to incentivize it a little.
Last edited:
I don't get the comparison to bowl games in football - not the same in any way. Yes every team winning half or more of their games has a shot at a bowl, but that's not the same as being in the tournament with a shot at winning it all. Right now I believe that's reserved for 12 (starting next year) teams - which is still less than 10% of the total number of teams available (with the 4 team playoff it was 3% of teams with a chance). The other 50 or 60 teams that make a bowl game are playing postseason football yes, but the Dukes mayo bowl and Pop Tarts bowl don't come with a chance at a championship.
So in basketball we have +/- 20% of teams in the NCAA tournament - a number I am more than fine with. I agree with other's thoughts here that it would be good to add emphasis on winning the regular season which would help teams in our situation. But I like that it's hard to get in to, that's part of the appeal of it to me.
So in basketball we have +/- 20% of teams in the NCAA tournament - a number I am more than fine with. I agree with other's thoughts here that it would be good to add emphasis on winning the regular season which would help teams in our situation. But I like that it's hard to get in to, that's part of the appeal of it to me.
yeah, lower conference schools typically have financially strapped basketball programs . this plan incentivizes a lower level conference winner to lose in their tournament as they'd then get a share of 2 bids. cant do it.
I would like to see all conf regular season champs and tournament champs auto entries and if season and tournament champs are the same, then use that for your At Large teams. Also limit # on P6 leagues.
Yes curing cancer, creating world peace, ending hunger, etc are important but the most important thing AI can do is fix the NCAA tournament selection.
No. It's the perfect size. Some of the criteria need fixing, but the size is perfect.
The CONFERENCES determine who gets the automatic bid to the tournament, not the NCAA. All have determined the conference tournament champ gets the bid. They could just as easily decide that the regular-season champion gets the bid, but they don't because they want the money from a conference tournament.
Giving the tournament champion the automatic bid is actually counter-productive for any one-bid league. You earn money for your league by winning NCAA games. Not sending your best team to the NCAAs - which often happens, as the No. 1 seed is frequently eliminated and replaced by a lesser team - doesn't make any sense.
Any time someone like Sankey, another P4 commissioner or Notre Dame make a recommendation, it is not for the betterment of the sport. It's to get more money for the SEC, for another P4 conference, or for Notre Dame, at the expense of everyone in a lesser conference.
The CONFERENCES determine who gets the automatic bid to the tournament, not the NCAA. All have determined the conference tournament champ gets the bid. They could just as easily decide that the regular-season champion gets the bid, but they don't because they want the money from a conference tournament.
Giving the tournament champion the automatic bid is actually counter-productive for any one-bid league. You earn money for your league by winning NCAA games. Not sending your best team to the NCAAs - which often happens, as the No. 1 seed is frequently eliminated and replaced by a lesser team - doesn't make any sense.
Any time someone like Sankey, another P4 commissioner or Notre Dame make a recommendation, it is not for the betterment of the sport. It's to get more money for the SEC, for another P4 conference, or for Notre Dame, at the expense of everyone in a lesser conference.
Simplest solution is to leave the setup the way it is but with one change. The Richmond Spiders get an automatic bid every year.
Then just guarantee each conference two bids and if the regular season champ wins the tournament, take the runner -up.
why propose giving leagues like the Patriot league 2 bids.
the current way at least tries to put the best teams in the field.
Agree & I want more access for Richmond. That's what I care most about. 2 bids to all those leagues would only hurt us and essentially make them equal to A10. The A10 reg season will normally still get in or have great chance. Yeah I know too soon when we just got burned. But if they're going to do that re: 2 bids we really should actually consider moving down leagues. I like having those deep longshots in there, we've been there, they are great for March Madness, but u can't dilute the strength of field too much.
Well you wouldn't need that many at-large bids, because you've already doubled the number of automatic bids in this scenario.
That's true, but all of the at-larges came from just 10 conferences, so 22 of them would be still be "new" bids from current one-bid conferences.
So if you added 28 teams to go to 96, 22 of the new ones would have been new automatic bids from current one-bid conferences and only 6 would have been additional at-larges. Not enough to get the big boys on board with the idea.
Tomatoes ready? Expletives ready?
MBB needs to be subdivided into FBS/FCS like football structure. 362 teams with 13 scholarships, but gulfing differences in national recognition, facilities, attendance, reputations, and NIL resources doesn't make sense logically. Scarcely level playing field there.
This is what the P6 preferential rules and measuring metrics are setting up for the near future.
Perhaps cynical or heretical, but, sadly, believe it is already unfolding.
MBB needs to be subdivided into FBS/FCS like football structure. 362 teams with 13 scholarships, but gulfing differences in national recognition, facilities, attendance, reputations, and NIL resources doesn't make sense logically. Scarcely level playing field there.
This is what the P6 preferential rules and measuring metrics are setting up for the near future.
Perhaps cynical or heretical, but, sadly, believe it is already unfolding.
Last edited:
Yeah. It's in progress. May only have a few years left to care. Once that happens if we're on the shortend of the stick, I'm not interested anymore.
Haven't paid attention to FBS in years or ever. A large part of what makes March Madness awesome is the little guys and Cinderella stories. Why would the NCAA want to eliminate something that actually brings more people in? Wouldn't you just lose some percentage of the crowds of people tuning in now days?
It does seem to be happening, though.
Last edited:
Similar threads
