30 more teams? 1st post says they're talking about going from 68 to 72 or possibly 76.
NCAA tournament expansion talk
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly, the NCAA Selection criteria are 100% subjective right now. And we all know who that benefits from that and it isn't us..
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.
Why does a sport of 13 scholarships, with only five playing at a time need 6 coaches?
Close, but if only his name was Dollars.
To prospective recruits, "Hello, I'm Coach Dollars from Richmond and do we have a signing deal for you!"
With the transfer portal - this rule change really does nothing. I mean look at our current roster. 8 guys are from other colleges. Only HS guys we have that could be factors - Walz, Soulis, and Tyne. And with the 8 transfers we have - they can't all play - we are not playing 11 deep. Some some of these guys - will not get minutes. Walz and Soulis have best chance to play because of lack of big guys. But after that - its a log jam.
Disagree. Build relationships now, and you might get a second bite at the apple, once a kid realizes going for the biggest school in the biggest league isn't always the best thing.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
I agree with that. We should almost take the Bryant approach I believe - offer 100 scholarships to HS kids next year we know won't come here, At least 30% of them will transfer at some point.
Just not sure how much that impacts allowing all coaches on the road.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
2024 Richmond Spiders Football - Opponents Countdown - Towson
- Latest: CarolinaSpider
-
-
-