NCAA tournament expansion talk

[spiderman]

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?

30 more teams? 1st post says they're talking about going from 68 to 72 or possibly 76.

 

[kneepadmckinney]

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.

I think you and VT have a valid viewpoint, I just don't think the more subjective "better resume" ever gets resolved in the favor of a non-P5 team. Like ever. So this would be a guardrail to save the Committee from itself, even if the occasional 8-10 SEC team is left out in favor of a 25-6 MVC team or a 28-5 College of Charleston team that happened to lose in their conference tourney finals. I make that trade every minute of every hour of every day.

To me, all 8-10 proves is that for the most part, you are mediocre against teams that have the same resources as you do.

 

[SpiderAlways]

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.

Please, say it then!!😂

 

[GKiller]

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.

Who r these below .500 teams in the past that anyone was like well thank goodness we let them in? Maybe there’s some random exception. I don’t think worse teams would be picked over them either. The teams would be relatively equal like most of the bubble teams.

The positives outweigh the negatives. the eye test & now NET always favor the power team even tho the goods mids r equal so u eliminate that built in impartiality. But it will never happen.

 

[SpiderTrap]

30 more teams? 1st post says they're talking about going from 68 to 72 or possibly 76.

That is the expansion now - but I have a hard time believing it stops there. There has always been talk of moving to 96 format (I think that is the number) and basically having a play-in weekend before the first round.

I understand the motivation from the NCAA - as too much money is involved - especially now with online sports gambling. Adding a set of play in games would only increase everything - from TV contracts down to gambling rights.

But from a tourney perspective - its great as is. And no matter what you expand it to - the 4-6 teams each year on the bubble that don't make it - will always complain. So that will never stop.

 

[SpiderTrap]

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

I do like this change, but wonder how many would use it. I could see some P5 schools using it to play some good mid-majors, because they know if they lose - it technically doesn't count. But - also remember, voters still have eyes, and if they see something - even in the preseason they don't like - could it come back to haunt a team looking for a bid. So for that reason - I could see them continue to play D2 or D3 schools in scrimmages, or keep them closed.

I still wish UR would do more of this. I think one exhibition against a D2 or D3 school would be good, especially with transfer portal now - to get kids some live action together.

 

[97spiderfan]

I think you and VT have a valid viewpoint, I just don't think the more subjective "better resume" ever gets resolved in the favor of a non-P5 team. Like ever. So this would be a guardrail to save the Committee from itself, even if the occasional 8-10 SEC team is left out in favor of a 25-6 MVC team or a 28-5 College of Charleston team that happened to lose in their conference tourney finals. I make that trade every minute of every hour of every day.

To me, all 8-10 proves is that for the most part, you are mediocre against teams that have the same resources as you do.

Exactly, the NCAA Selection criteria are 100% subjective right now. And we all know who that benefits from that and it isn't us..

 

[urmite]

I like symmetry, so I am in favor of 72.

1 at large and 1 AQ playin per region.

 

[SFspidur]

No changes to exhibition game rules for next season.

 

[SFspidur]

Another change...all 6 coaches can now recruit off-campus (hello, new coach Dollar!), but no more than 4 at any given time.

 

[kneepadmckinney]

I mean, what exactly would be the reason that you can't have all 6 coaches recruiting at the same time?

 

[Eight Legger]

I mean, what exactly would be the reason that you can't have all 6 coaches recruiting at the same time?

Not enough chairs at the high school gym.

 

[GKiller]

Lot of the p5 head coaches don’t want to be on road anymore they don’t see as much need due to transfer portal and NIL. That’s why we finally have this rule.