NCAA tournament expansion talk

[SFspidur]

NCAA is looking at 72-team and 76-team options right now, possibly for as soon as 2025–26. Looks like adding at least one more First Four site to get things down to the 64-team bracket.

Sources: NCAA presents new basketball tournament models that would expand field by 4 or 8 teams

The potential models shown to conference commissioners Wednesday would add additional at-large selections and at least one more First Four site.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[spider23]

It seems inevitable they will expand.

 

[Wood Hall]

More berths and more money for the power conferences. Now that the Big Ten will have 32 teams, at least 28 of them have to get in.

 

[AnnapSpider]

It seems inevitable they will expand.

It does. Money,money, money.
I wonder how much the networks get involved
In these things. College ball is a lot cheaper to
produce than a standard TV show.

 

[fan2011]

NCAA is looking at 72-team and 76-team options right now, possibly for as soon as 2025–26. Looks like adding at least one more First Four site to get things down to the 64-team bracket.

Sources: NCAA presents new basketball tournament models that would expand field by 4 or 8 teams

The potential models shown to conference commissioners Wednesday would add additional at-large selections and at least one more First Four site.

sports.yahoo.com

Do they give retroactive bids if your team would have made the 76-team tournament in past seasons? Mooney could get a few more bids on his resume.

 

[spiderman]

I have no issue with this. there are more D1 teams every year. 362 last season. adding a few bids seems reasonable.

 

[8legs1dream]

seems like a good idea until all but maybe one of the extra bids just goes to some boring, barely .500 P4

 

[spiderstudent17]

While I prefer it not to be expanded, it does seem inevitable. If it were to expand, I really hope its not just another way to get an 18-14 Ole Miss into the tournament. I'd like to see the following if we make changes:

All automatic qualifiers are in the main field
You cannot make the NCAA tournament as an at-large if you are below .500 in conference
Any play-in games should be between teams that were the last 4? 8? or whatever new number it is to get into the field as an at-large.

And of course I think we need to really work on finding a fair model for NET and evaluating at-large teams. Right now power conference teams are all loading up on Q4 games and beating them by 30+ which raises their NET. So when they all play each other in the season (which of course several conferences have expanded conference games to 20 in the year) its all Q1 and Q2 games.

 

[VT4700]

The tricky one to me is the below .500 in conference. I can't stand seeing all of these undeserving power teams get in every year, but not all conferences, and more importantly, not all conference schedules and OOC schedules are the same.

So, while I get frustrated with so many average power teams getting bids, I wouldn't want the under .500 IC rule because there could be a team that played a tough OOC and won many of them, and played the toughest IC schedule in their conference, with great wins there as well, getting left out while a team just ahead of them in the standings with fewer good wins and a soft OOC gets in.

Let's use this example:

Team A goes 8-10 IC with some wins over a few of the top teams in the conference, and goes 11-2 OOC with 3 or 4 really great wins there. Then, they have a couple more good wins in their conference tourney and finish 21-13 with the toughest overall schedule in the country. They also go 2-0 against a team, team B, who went 9-9 in their conference, and played a soft OOC schedule and also had one of the easiest IC schedules. Should team B get in over Team A?

 

[urfan1]

i like the 500 IC test, they still have the chance to win the auto. Any formula will be unfair to someone, I just think the current formula tilts too heavily to the P4/5 and away from mid-majors. The 500 rule is a fair bright line in my mind, it applies to mid-majors also.

 

[kneepadmckinney]

While I prefer it not to be expanded, it does seem inevitable. If it were to expand, I really hope its not just another way to get an 18-14 Ole Miss into the tournament. I'd like to see the following if we make changes:

All automatic qualifiers are in the main field
You cannot make the NCAA tournament as an at-large if you are below .500 in conference
Any play-in games should be between teams that were the last 4? 8? or whatever new number it is to get into the field as an at-large.

And of course I think we need to really work on finding a fair model for NET and evaluating at-large teams. Right now power conference teams are all loading up on Q4 games and beating them by 30+ which raises their NET. So when they all play each other in the season (which of course several conferences have expanded conference games to 20 in the year) its all Q1 and Q2 games.

This makes all the sense in the world, which of course is why it will never happen.

 

[Eight Legger]

I like the requirement about having to be .500 or better in conference, because it might be a downside to being in a mega conference and give some teams pause before they join. Of course that will never happen, probably in part for that reason.

 

[spiderman]

I don't need a rule for a .500 record in conference. just pick the best teams. the NET doesn't do that.

 

[97spiderfan]

I don't need a rule for a .500 record in conference. just pick the best teams. the NET doesn't do that.

.500 in conference would be an easy black and white determination and prevents what we all know will happen when this expansion occurs, more mediocre P5 teams getting in.

If you have a 16/18 game IC schedule and can't win half of them, than you just aren't that good and don't deserve to be in the consideration for a national championship game. And even if you are under. 500, you still have a shot by winning your conference tourney.

This is an objective measure which is why it will never happen because the NCAA is going to just tweak their highly subjective measures so they can reward their big ticket teams over and over again.

 

[spiderman]

how many sub .500 in conference teams have made it that you're worried about?

if a team has a great OOC and somehow goes 8-10 in a really tough conference but their overall body of work says they deserve a bid, I don't need a rule that says they can't get it.

 

[spiderstudent17]

The tricky one to me is the below .500 in conference. I can't stand seeing all of these undeserving power teams get in every year, but not all conferences, and more importantly, not all conference schedules and OOC schedules are the same.

So, while I get frustrated with so many average power teams getting bids, I wouldn't want the under .500 IC rule because there could be a team that played a tough OOC and won many of them, and played the toughest IC schedule in their conference, with great wins there as well, getting left out while a team just ahead of them in the standings with fewer good wins and a soft OOC gets in.

Let's use this example:

Team A goes 8-10 IC with some wins over a few of the top teams in the conference, and goes 11-2 OOC with 3 or 4 really great wins there. Then, they have a couple more good wins in their conference tourney and finish 21-13 with the toughest overall schedule in the country. They also go 2-0 against a team, team B, who went 9-9 in their conference, and played a soft OOC schedule and also had one of the easiest IC schedules. Should team B get in over Team A?

Fair points VT. Certainly highlights that this is an imperfect system. How many of these power conference teams are actually going out and trying to schedule the best games possible though? Look who Iowa State played in their non-conference last year, and they were a very good team. They had 9 Q4 games, 8 of which at home.

Iowa State Cyclones Nitty Gritty at Bracketologists

bracketologists.com

Also like Eight mentions above, these conferences are now trying to become super conferences by adding more teams. I wouldn't be surprised if we see 20+ team power conference soon. In a 32 regular season, we are seeing some P5 conferences already do 20 conference games. So 62% of the games in a season are being played in conference. This could potentially increase in the future. I get that there is inherently some subjectivity when selecting at-large bids, but at least there is one more screener to avoid some really lousy power conference team that have no reason to make it, who's only real argument is that they lost a lot of games to other Q1 teams in their conference and their NET was artificially raised because of it.

I sort of think about it like in college football, where there is a rule that you need to have at least a .500 record to be eligible for a bowl game (with some exceptions). This helps give it some standards at least.

 

[urfan1]

I think the football minimum is 6 wins to be bowl eligible, UNLESS there are not enough eligible teams, then they can make exceptions.

 

[VT4700]

how many sub .500 in conference teams have made it that you're worried about?

if a team has a great OOC and somehow goes 8-10 in a really tough conference but their overall body of work says they deserve a bid, I don't need a rule that says they can't get it.

That's the key. If they deserve to be in over a 9-9 IC team, it seems silly to leave them out and put the 9-9 IC team in just because of a rule that has nothing to do with who is the better team.

 

[SpiderTrap]

I hate this idea - cause it will only benefit the Power Conferences. It will not trickle down to the mid-majors.

I like Jay Bilas argument on this. The tournament is already expanded. The tournament basically starts with your conference tournament. That is the "play in" round to get into NCAA. So every team (almost) already has a chance at bid through their conference tourney. So why expand? It should be hard to get into it, and if you don't make it - but still want to play - accept the NIT invite. But this is not about games - its about money, and units and getting payouts. Its pretty hard to run a tournament worth billions and call yourself a non-profit, like the NCAA does.

 

[AnnapSpider]

Years ago, Lefty Driesell said they should let everyone in. Start at the
bottom playing the top. May only add a week or so to get to a final
four.

 

[PASpider]

College football has ruined college sports.

 

[SpiderTrap]

Years ago, Lefty Driesell said they should let everyone in. Start at the
bottom playing the top. May only add a week or so to get to a final
four.

They already do that. Your conference tournament is the "bottom" teams playing to get to the top. Especially now where most conference tourney's reward the better teams with byes and even double byes. So you have 12-13 seed conference teams playing each other before they play a 1-2 seed.

So win your regular season or get near the top of your conference, your path will be easier. That is when the tourney starts. And most of these tourney's now - because of the popularity of the big dance, are on major TV networks - like ESPN, CBS, USA, etc.

 

[97spiderfan]

how many sub .500 in conference teams have made it that you're worried about?

if a team has a great OOC and somehow goes 8-10 in a really tough conference but their overall body of work says they deserve a bid, I don't need a rule that says they can't get it.

Probably several every year if they expand the tournament. They will get in at the expense of say a 15-2 1st place A-10 team so if that is cool with you than sure lets continue a system that is completely based on the "eye" test and some effed up computer ranking system that the BCS teams have figured out how to game and has zero hard and fast rules.

Finishing .500 in your league is not some massive accomplishment if you want to play in postseason play.

 

[RichmondNative]

JOC article about expansion and Mooney. https://richmond.com/sports/college...cle_25348d24-2f20-11ef-b507-27b8f006a910.html

Don’t understand how expansion helps out scheduling, but Mooney seems to think it will. I guess the premise is more spots means the P5 will play higher level OOC teams because if the P5 team loses they still have an opportunity to get in NCAAs? I don’t get it.

I agree with everyone else that adding more teams helps the marginal P5 teams (and why this changes how they schedule is beyond me). It is also funny that adding games will not add any tv revenue for close to 10 years because the TV contracts are already set.

I also like JOC pointing out the old history of the A10 and number of bids received. The name of the league hasn’t changed but the teams in it now versus then sure have. #GloryDays

 

[spiderman]

if just 1 of the 4 new spots goes to a non-P6, then it heped the mid-majors.
if none do, then it didn't hurt.
no idea why people are complaining about this.

 

[VT4700]

if just 1 of the 4 new spots goes to a non-P6, then it heped the mid-majors.
if none do, then it didn't hurt.
no idea why people are complaining about this.

My thoughts exactly...this could only help us. And, of course people on here will complain. The day ends in y, right?

 

[97spiderfan]

if just 1 of the 4 new spots goes to a non-P6, then it heped the mid-majors.
if none do, then it didn't hurt.
no idea why people are complaining about this.

Well, if none go to mid majors than why would any mid major be in favor of this, as it isn't helping them in the least. In fact, it hurts them because the BCS programs get more and more shares of the NCAA money from the tourney to reinvest into their already large advantages.

I don't understand why as a person who supports a non-BCS program, why one would be against a hard line like .500 in conference that would definitively help programs like ours.

 

[SpiderTrap]

My thoughts exactly...this could only help us. And, of course people on here will complain. The day ends in y, right?

Agree - it could help mid-majors, but I think everyone knows - the majority of the expanded teams will go to marginal P5 schools.

I am against this at all costs. Think the tourney is fine where its at. its as exciting as ever. If it aint't broke - don't fix it.

in 1985 when the tourney expanded to 64 teams - there were 306 teams. Today there are 362. An increase of 56, and we want to blow up the tourney and throw in 30 more teams? Why?

Of course the coaches like it - better chance for them to get in tourney or get close on the bubble, both of which can lead to longer and more lucrative contracts.

Look at UR - if the tourney was expanded - we probably make it in 2017 (think we were 1 seed in NIT) and then probably 2015 and 2024, we are on the bubble. So at most - 3 more appearances. Worse case - 1 more appearance.

Or possibly look at it this way - the NCAA is absorbing the NIT, or most of it since teams are declining.

 

[Eight Legger]

I am in favor of the expansion while also realizing it’s probably not going to help teams like us. With all these mega conferences, you will have good teams that have a losing record in conference play, and this probably will be a way to get some of them in on the perceived basis that if they played in a league like ours, they would have a great record.

 

[GKiller]

I like expansion too and just eliminate NIT. I don’t think making it simpler & easier to pick a bracket for the casual fan is really a good reason. That part is fun no doubt but it can be done same way as they do now.

Just feel like we should be closer to other major sports in postseason participation. Of course there is concern it benefits p5 more than mids but I’m ok with the risk. If the Spiders r helped in any way to get more NCAAs I sign up.

I’ve long been in favor of the .500 IC rule. Those teams historically do very poorly. That extremely unlikely hypothetical presented is not a concern to me.

 

[VT4700]

Well, if none go to mid majors than why would any mid major be in favor of this, as it isn't helping them in the least. In fact, it hurts them because the BCS programs get more and more shares of the NCAA money from the tourney to reinvest into their already large advantages.

I don't understand why as a person who supports a non-BCS program, why one would be against a hard line like .500 in conference that would definitively help programs like ours.

Because I don't think a 9-9 IC team who clearly has a worse resume than an 8-10 IC team should get in over them. It's as simple as that. As for helping us, we could also say things like no more than 6 teams from a conference can get in...that would definitely help us too, but I would not be for that either because I think the best teams and most deserving teams should get the at larges. Forgive me for just wanting what I think is fair. And, I'm not sure keeping under .500 IC teams out would help us anyway because if an 8-10 IC team with great wins and a good looking resume has to be left out because of a rule, you know the committee will replace them with a .500 IC power team.

And, while we are not understanding stuff, I don't understand why so many supporters of a non BCS program would do nothing but crap on that team on a message board all day, regardless of topic. Especially one that has had our success the last 5 years.

 

[VT4700]

I would be for the under .500 IC gets left out if all schedules were close to the same, but not only are OOC schedules dramatically different, but IC as well. An 8-10 IC team could have a much harder IC and OOC schedule than a 9-9 IC team, and could beat them head to head. Seems ridiculous to pick the 9-9 team over them because of a rule.

 

[urfan1]

(crap on a team on a message board all day) probably the same reason you love to "crap" on fellow Spider fans that don't see things the way you do.

 

[8legs1dream]

urfan1 from the top rope

 

[SFspidur]

Another potential change...allowing public D-I exhibitions rather than closed scrimmages or lower-level exhibitions (aside from some existing charity exceptions).

 

[VT4700]

(crap on a team on a message board all day) probably the same reason you love to "crap" on fellow Spider fans that don't see things the way you do.

Of course...here u come doing what u do best. Getting on me for something others do way worse than I do. Funny that u never get on them. You are so predictable. And, yes, it's pathetic how negative so many so called fans are on here. It's as if they can't stand when we have success because anytime someone talks about success or gets excited, they shoot it down.

As for u, I expect so much better from a moderator. So nice of u to post what u did so others can now pile on even more. If u want me to leave, just freaking say so. I probably should just say what I want to say to u right now, so u can just boot my ass off of here.

 

[Eight Legger]

Another potential change...allowing public D-I exhibitions rather than closed scrimmages or lower-level exhibitions (aside from some existing charity exceptions).

View embedded media

Apply the gate sales from these games to the NIL fund of the home team.

 

[8legs1dream]

I probably should just say what I want to say to u right now, so u can just boot my ass off of here.

 

[Wood Hall]

Can't charge money for a closed scrimmage. Can charge money for a non-counting exhibition. The only reason why this is being considered.

From a coaching/teaching/learning aspect a closed scrimmage is better. There's nobody there to care if you win or not and you can mix and match your players without having to worry about the score. I guarantee you fans of the losing team in a non-counting exhibition will be plenty pissed off, even though the result is completely meaningless.

 

[spiderman]

I don't understand why as a person who supports a non-BCS program, why one would be against a hard line like .500 in conference that would definitively help programs like ours.

because .500 is just a random number. it has nothing to do with picking the best 68 teams.

the Big East has 11 teams right now. 2 are currently awful but the other 9 could be top 25 teams in any given year. it's possible a really good team goes 9-11 in that conference after going 12-0 out of conference. it's possible that team deserves a bid. so no, I'm not in favor of some arbitrary .500 number ruling them out. if they're not worthy, I don't give them a bid. but if they are they should go.