Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
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 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).
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Then just guarantee each conference two bids and if the regular season champ wins the tournament, take the runner -up.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.
No. It's the perfect size. Some of the criteria need fixing, but the size is perfect.
why propose giving leagues like the Patriot league 2 bids.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.
Well you wouldn't need that many at-large bids, because you've already doubled the number of automatic bids in this scenario.This idea of course has no chance of going anywhere...64 auto bids and only 32 at-large if you go to 96 teams. That's fewer at-large bids than there are today (36).
Push it to 128!
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.Well you wouldn't need that many at-large bids, because you've already doubled the number of automatic bids in this scenario.
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.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.