MUScoop

I'm still for it.  Drexel is in.  Syracuse is in.  West Virginia is in.  Missouri State is in.  Florida State is in.  Kansas State is in. UMASS is in.

Kill the NIT if we must (though I'd rather not)

When you get to 72 teams (and certainly by 80) then there is no more room to gripe.  Each year there are 6 to 10 teams that have legitimate gripes so why not fix it.  I know many are against this and will argue passionately against it.  But when you're winning 10 games in the Big East or winning 26 games and playing in the MAC (Akron) and cannot find a way into the Big Dance because when these 10 guys can't figure it out and everyone else can, well something is amiss.  Too much money at stake, too many livlihoods at stake, too many wonderful moments (for the student athletes) prevented because of 10 people using criteria that change from team to team and no sense of consistency at all.


The selection committee (year term expires):
# Gary Walters - Princeton AD (07) - Chairman
# Dan Guerrero - UCLA AD (10)
# Christopher Hill - Utah AD (09)
# Laing Kennedy - Kent St AD (10)
# Jonathan LeCrone - Horizon Commissioner (08)
# Craig Littlepage - Virginia AD (07)
# Stan Morrison - UC Riverside AD (11)
# Thomas O'Connor - George Mason AD (09)
# Mike Slive - SEC Commissioner (09)
# Gene Smith - Ohio St AD (11)

Dumb argument...Syracuse can gripe all they want.  They did themselves in with their pre-con. scheduling.  Their final RPI was 50, in the past the BE was always strong enough to boost their PRI sufficiently, this year it was not.  They dug their own grave, a team like Air Force RPI 30 was more deserving, but not of that really matters.  Expanding the tourney to 70 will just cause teams 71-75 to be "bubble teams" and whine they should have gotten in.  The problem was not so much the who but the seeds.   People say we should expand because there are more teams...so what?  Currently 1 in 5 teams makes the tourney.  That is a higher percentage than when the tourney was 32 or 48.  PC whiner...maybe everyone should get a trophy too...so every one can be proud of themselves.

Quote from: Harrison on March 12, 2007, 08:26:34 PM
Dumb argument...Syracuse can gripe all they want.  They did themselves in with their pre-con. scheduling.  Their final RPI was 50, in the past the BE was always strong enough to boost their PRI sufficiently, this year it was not.  They dug their own grave, a team like Air Force RPI 30 was more deserving, but not of that really matters.  Expanding the tourney to 70 will just cause teams 71-75 to be "bubble teams" and whine they should have gotten in.  The problem was not so much the who but the seeds.   People say we should expand because there are more teams...so what?  Currently 1 in 5 teams makes the tourney.  That is a higher percentage than when the tourney was 32 or 48.  PC whiner...maybe everyone should get a trophy too...so every one can be proud of themselves.

Syracuse was 10-6 in one of the major conferences in the country.  That alone should be sufficient.  WHen people make the argument about the 4th place team out of the Colonial, or a 7-9 Arkanasas team in the SEC West, all that you need to point to is the conference standings and records.  People should worry, the Big East is NOT being treated as one of the major conferences right now.  I have no idea why, but that is clearly the case.

I'm reminded of when MU was leaving CUSA, and everyone saying, hey, the BE will be so awesome, an 8-8 record would probably get you in, and a 9-7 would certainly.

Not so much.

It does make me wonder if this is a long term trend, or did they really just fck up this year.  .. Heck, a few weeks ago when we got our 9th win, many figured we were a lock.

Jim Boeheim made a great point about this today. Its been about 25 years since the tournament was expanded to 64 teams. It was expanded because there were more good teams. The fact is with 336 teams total today, less than 20% make the NCAA. I don't know ho many teams there were back then, but I gurantee you it was nowhere near 336, and I'd be willing to bet a higher percentage of teams made it 30 years or so ago. There are more good teams then there were 25 years ago when it was expanded to 64.

I am not a big fan of Bowl games, but for comparison sake, for the 2006-07 season, 64 of the 119 Division I-A teams will played in a bowl game. That's 54%. Compare that to the NCAA and NIT combined which is 96 teams out of 336, or 29% of teams playing in the post season.

There is no way that going to 72 or 80 teams is going to weaken or water down the tournament in any way. In fact, expand the field, eliminate the 16 seed play in game and make the last few at-large teams play their way into the 64 team field instead.

I agree with Naivin's point about the expansion to 80 teams on the caveat that no automatic bid team is seeded below 12. I know the anamoly of some 12-19 team winning a conference tournament could happen, but you're still rewarding a team that won three games in three days (or four in four in some instances) with a guaranteed spot in the field of 64.

In some ways, it's surprising this hasn't been done already because the logistics are not that difficult. You can have a Tuesday slate of games in Dayton, with the winners advancing to their respective Thursday-Saturday brackets and then a slate of games at Hinkle Fieldhouse on Wednesday that feed into Friday-Sunday contests.

Quote from: Harrison on March 12, 2007, 08:26:34 PM
Dumb argument...Syracuse can gripe all they want.  They did themselves in with their pre-con. scheduling.  Their final RPI was 50, in the past the BE was always strong enough to boost their PRI sufficiently, this year it was not.  They dug their own grave, a team like Air Force RPI 30 was more deserving, but not of that really matters.  Expanding the tourney to 70 will just cause teams 71-75 to be "bubble teams" and whine they should have gotten in.  The problem was not so much the who but the seeds.   People say we should expand because there are more teams...so what?  Currently 1 in 5 teams makes the tourney.  That is a higher percentage than when the tourney was 32 or 48.  PC whiner...maybe everyone should get a trophy too...so every one can be proud of themselves.

Thanks for the personal attack, I can always count on you for that.  You may believe it's a dumb argument, that is fine.  Doesn't make it any less legitimate.  Many coaches want it expanded (yes, perhaps to help them with their jobs).  But we also have the issue that in 1985 when it was expanded to 64 teams there were about 270 DI teams.  Now there are more than 67 additional teams added to DI and only 1 more spot.

It was actually easier to get into the tournament in 1985 then it is now...significantly easier.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 12, 2007, 09:34:06 PM
Jim Boeheim made a great point about this today. Its been about 25 years since the tournament was expanded to 64 teams. It was expanded because there were more good teams. The fact is with 336 teams total today, less than 20% make the NCAA. I don't know ho many teams there were back then, but I gurantee you it was nowhere near 336, and I'd be willing to bet a higher percentage of teams made it 30 years or so ago. There are more good teams then there were 25 years ago when it was expanded to 64.

I am not a big fan of Bowl games, but for comparison sake, for the 2006-07 season, 64 of the 119 Division I-A teams will played in a bowl game. That's 54%. Compare that to the NCAA and NIT combined which is 96 teams out of 336, or 29% of teams playing in the post season.

There is no way that going to 72 or 80 teams is going to weaken or water down the tournament in any way. In fact, expand the field, eliminate the 16 seed play in game and make the last few at-large teams play their way into the 64 team field instead.

That's the exact argument I made last year on the Dodds board....it's harder to get in now then it was in 1985...much more difficult.  Yet we've reduced scholarships to increase parity (more good teams) and the rise of the mid major is much greater than before.  This is why they should expand the bids in my opinion.  Not only that, it will increase revenues for the schools.  I cannot underestimate enough to you guys how important it is for MU to make the dance from a financial standpoint.  It is in MU's best interests to expand the field, whether people find that dumb or not, I know the financial numbers and I can tell you it is.  No football.

Quote from: Final Four or Bust on March 12, 2007, 08:33:53 PM
Syracuse was 10-6 in one of the major conferences in the country.  That alone should be sufficient. 

Syracuse first game outside of New York was January 7th (!).  That's pathetic.  Their SoS rated 47th and their RPI rated 50th.  Heck, their most impressive road win against us came when we were playing pretty terrible basketball (that game in particular was quite embarrassing -- I've never seen a team so clueless against a zone as MU was that day.  Luckily that was just a one game occurance.).  They have one road/neutral court win against a tournament team.

I am not going to say whether they deserved a bid or not.  I don't think I'm smart or qualified enough to do that.  But they certainly don't have the resume of a team that should 'clearly' have been in the tourney.  They were a bubble team that ended up on the outside.  Whoops -- try again next year.  Boheim still complaining about it a day later is pretty embarassing, IMO.

I would agree, it's sensless whinning on 'cuse's part EXCEPT; Illinois, Arkansas, Purdue, etc!

Chicos,

Personally, I don't want to expand the field. I wouldn't have a huge problem with it going back to 64. Honesty compels me to report that a part of that is I think interest in the tourney would go down if you make it harder for people to gamble on the event. While I'd love to say there's great interest in the tourney because lots of people love the sport, the tournament is popular because of easy gambling. It's the biggest reason why the NFL is the most popular sport right now in my mind nationally. That and violence, and ease of watchability.

That being said, just looking at that buffoon from Princeton yesterday not being able to any questions in a straightforward manner, I think this tournament is going to expand in the not-too-distant future.

About the only thing of substance Walters said yesterday was that 104 teams won 20 games. I think the intelligent/diehard college buckets fan understands that 20 wins doesn't mean much of anything anymore, but for the casual fan, saying they won 20 in a major conference and still didn't make the tourney is considered a legitimate argument.

Always keep in mind the goal of Walters and his ilk. Their goal IMHO is to get through the day without #1 being sued, and #2 someone bitching about something. Expanding the field helps accomplish #2.

Can't hurt at all to have Walters and Littlepage off the committee next year. Maybe they can take Slive with them. BTW, how in the H E double hockey sticks does the UC-Riverside AD get on the committee? I honestly wasn't 100 percent sure they were D1 when I first saw that name.

I do know one thing for sure. If the high school ADs and conference commissioners I deal with on the high school level in WI were asked to seed teams for the state high school tournament, they'd do very poorly at it. I would guess between 1/2 and 3/4 of them don't watch games and have never coached basketball before. Lots of them are more concerned about running their athletic departments and conferences than watching games, and deservedly so. Current coaches are biased, and too many media members would be biased (shocking, I know) and not the greatest either. The NIT may have the right idea. Pay 10 former coaches $50,000 a year each to be the committee.

Keith, no argument that Syracuse played a weak non-conference schedule...I just cannot understand how Purdue, Illinois, Arkansas, etc get in over them...there is no excuse for that.

But Eye, remember the NCAA is against gambling.

;D


Yes, it would be a problem but with online pools nowadays, I think that could easily be overcome.  The old paper and pen brackets would have been a nightmare.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 12, 2007, 08:01:20 PMWhen you get to 72 teams (and certainly by 80) then there is no more room to gripe.  Each year there are 6 to 10 teams that have legitimate gripes so why not fix it.

I don't think I'd like to see the field expanded, but I'm not deadset against it either.  But, if you think expanding the field will stop the griping, you're absolutely kidding yourself.  It will just change the teams that are griping each year.  Down here, people are  griping (http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=333#S=333&F=1240&T=237847) that Akron didn't get an NIT bid.  Where ever the line is drawn, there will be teams on the wrong side of the line.  Those teams and their fans will gripe.  Guaranteed.

If you want to expand the tournament because you think it will improve the product -- I might be able to support that.  If you want to expand the tournament because it will increase revenue -- I can at least understand that.  If you want to expand the tournament because you're sick of the griping -- don't bother.

I love the idea of expanding the NCAA tournament. I think they could structure it where the top seeds have a first round bye. Lower seeds would theoretically have to play an extra game to win the championship. The NIT will obviously be impacted when you expand the NCAA. Maybe start a losers bracket which would be the NIT tournament or one side of the NIT bracket. I also say bring back the consolation game.

I think if anything we should reduce the size from 65 to 64... it's called a play in game, but they are considered in the tournament? Please, I would much rather have Arkansas who went 7-9 in conference, out of the tournament, since it is not fair for the teams that won their automatic qualifier and then lose in the "play in game" and never really have the chance to be in the final 64.

I realize it will take away a 12 seed, and it would be possible that teams like George Mason couldn't get in... but I think that for people who says they are in the tournament is crap, since they have to win one more game... it's like saying anyone in the conference final of their tournament is in the NCAA, win one and you are in the 64...(unless we deem you the worst in the tourney)

If you are left out of the field there is no excuse to claim you could win it all, since you haven't proved you can beat the best teams, Syracuse would be left out in this scenario I understand... but if you don't win your conf tourney, and resume is just on the cusp.. there will always be an argument even if they expanded to 120 teams.

At least it is not the BCS where only the select few get a chance to win a national championship... if the system ain't broke, don't fix it... the best tourney doesn't need to be watered down... and it will deem the regular season almost meaningless, with big wins not that important, knowing that you will pretty much make the postseason no matter how much you screw up.

Boeheim also saying in the history of the Big East, there has never been a 10-6 team that has not made the NCAA Tournament.

I'm against expansion. As has been said above, expanding the field to 72, 80, 128 or whatever number you choose just means the bubble teams are closer to that number instead of to 64/65 as is currently the case. Expanding the field won't eliminate cases like Syracuse this year (although I do think they got a raw deal).

I like the field in its current format.

No doubt that Cuse got jobbed, but until more 13-16 seeds win, you can't convince me that there is a need for expansion.

Why add a round to the tourney if more teams are just going to get slaughtered? #1 vs. #20 seeds or whatever are all going to be terrible games. 

If you take out Arkansas and replace them with Cuse, bump up the Big East seedings, and bump down the Big Ten seedings, I think the committee did a pretty excellent job.

Obviously those are some misses, but I don't think the problem is the structure.

Some tweaks to the committee are in order, probably not tweaks to the tourney.

Quote from: Wade for President on March 13, 2007, 09:10:24 AM
Boeheim also saying in the history of the Big East, there has never been a 10-6 team that has not made the NCAA Tournament.

That is the key point for me.  Yes, Syracuse's resume wasn't outstanding, but they did finish FOUR games above .500 in the conference.  That has to mean something in a conference like the Big East.  If it doesn't, it is no better than CUSA, frankly.  My concern is that trend -- and the other conferences complaining about the number of bids to the Big East (while ignoring the fact that the Big East is at least four teams bigger then their conferences, if not more).  The Big East should have about 8 each year because of size alone.  Look at percentages of teams from major conferences making it, that is my concern.

Want a higher %age of teams in the tourney?  Don't expand the field .. cull the bottom 100 teams out of D1.  NJ Inst of Technology and their friends have no business in D1.

No expanding the tournament! Presently with 65 teams, team # 66-68 or so bitch and moan about how they should have been in. All expanding the tournament will do is have teams #73-78 bitch and moan about how they should have been in.

Not to mention that fact that all but the absolute worst teams in the country (and the Ivies) make their conference tournaments, giving almost any team that's been god-awful all year a chance to get hot for three or four days and land a spot in the dance.

CONFERENCE TOURNAMENTS ARE THE EXPANDED NCAA TOURNAMENT.

If anything, I'd be in favor of bringing it back down to 64 teams.

Quote from: 2002mualum on March 13, 2007, 09:34:05 AM
I like the field in its current format.

No doubt that Cuse got jobbed, but until more 13-16 seeds win, you can't convince me that there is a need for expansion.

Why add a round to the tourney if more teams are just going to get slaughtered? #1 vs. #20 seeds or whatever are all going to be terrible games. 

If you take out Arkansas and replace them with Cuse, bump up the Big East seedings, and bump down the Big Ten seedings, I think the committee did a pretty excellent job.

Obviously those are some misses, but I don't think the problem is the structure.

Some tweaks to the committee are in order, probably not tweaks to the tourney.

The reason why 13-16 seeds don't win is because those teams in those positions are not the top 64 teams in the country...they are winners from dreg conferences around the country.  The tournament has never been about the best 65 teams...more like the best 40 + 25 other teams.  That's why when NIT people say the champion is the 66th best team it is pure folly.

If you expand to 72 or 80, you're actually adding teams 41 through 50 and you would see a lot more upsets in those lower seeds because quality teams are added, not teams in the 100's, 200's that won their conference tournament from some league no one ever heard of.

>>>>"No expanding the tournament! Presently with 65 teams, team # 66-68 or so bitch and moan about how they should have been in. All expanding the tournament will do is have teams #73-78 bitch and moan about how they should have been in">>>>>


That is exactly right...The High majors that end up on the bubble are calling for expanding the tourney because "their are more teams".  That is a total smoke screen, the teams that have joined are nonfactors.  Simply new members to 1 bid conferences. How many more teams are really part of the debate?  Were IUPUFW and NJIT and the couple dozen other 2000 student commuter schools that have joined over the last 10-15 years the real reason Syracuse not make the tourney?   Well, maybe indirectly because Boeheim scheduled them all for his Novemeber and December home dates.   
Like I said Boeheims scheduling practices slit his own throut becuase the BE was down this year and the conference RPI only brought Syracuses RPI to 50, in years past with a Uconn in the top 5 and the BE with a top 4 conference RPI Syracuses RPI would have been in the 30's or 40's.  Were they better than Illinois, sure but we are splitting hairs, he only need look in the mirror to find the blame.  Put your self as one of the last 3-4-5 teams in or out and you will get disappointed.  this is not the first time this has happened to Boeheim.  Just 5-6 years ago the exact same thing happened to him, And we heard him whine the whole week, bowed out in the 1st round of the NIT if I recall. 

Quote from: Harrison on March 13, 2007, 10:33:08 AM
>>>>"No expanding the tournament! Presently with 65 teams, team # 66-68 or so bitch and moan about how they should have been in. All expanding the tournament will do is have teams #73-78 bitch and moan about how they should have been in">>>>>


That is exactly right...The High majors that end up on the bubble are calling for expanding the tourney because "their are more teams".  That is a total smoke screen, the teams that have joined are nonfactors.  Simply new members to 1 bid conferences. How many more teams are really part of the debate?  Were IUPUFW and NJIT and the couple dozen other 2000 student commuter schools that have joined over the last 10-15 years the real reason Syracuse not make the tourney?   Well, maybe indirectly because Boeheim scheduled them all for his Novemeber and December home dates.   
Like I said Boeheims scheduling practices slit his own throut becuase the BE was down this year and the conference RPI only brought Syracuses RPI to 50, in years past with a Uconn in the top 5 and the BE with a top 4 conference RPI Syracuses RPI would have been in the 30's or 40's.  Were they better than Illinois, sure but we are splitting hairs, he only need look in the mirror to find the blame.  Put your self as one of the last 3-4-5 teams in or out and you will get disappointed.  this is not the first time this has happened to Boeheim.  Just 5-6 years ago the exact same thing happened to him, And we heard him whine the whole week, bowed out in the 1st round of the NIT if I recall. 

I hate to say it  ;), but I agree 100% with Harrison on this one.

This demands a poll.  Added one to the top of this thread - knock yourselves out.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 13, 2007, 10:28:59 AM

Quote from: 2002mualum on March 13, 2007, 09:34:05 AM
I like the field in its current format.

No doubt that Cuse got jobbed, but until more 13-16 seeds win, you can't convince me that there is a need for expansion.

Why add a round to the tourney if more teams are just going to get slaughtered? #1 vs. #20 seeds or whatever are all going to be terrible games. 

If you take out Arkansas and replace them with Cuse, bump up the Big East seedings, and bump down the Big Ten seedings, I think the committee did a pretty excellent job.

Obviously those are some misses, but I don't think the problem is the structure.

Some tweaks to the committee are in order, probably not tweaks to the tourney.

The reason why 13-16 seeds don't win is because those teams in those positions are not the top 64 teams in the country...they are winners from dreg conferences around the country.  The tournament has never been about the best 65 teams...more like the best 40 + 25 other teams.  That's why when NIT people say the champion is the 66th best team it is pure folly.

If you expand to 72 or 80, you're actually adding teams 41 through 50 and you would see a lot more upsets in those lower seeds because quality teams are added, not teams in the 100's, 200's that won their conference tournament from some league no one ever heard of.

I guess I understand your theory... but I'm not sure that any of the 20+ teams that would be added would really make the tourney better. Just longer.

I think there is a probably a point of diminishing returns; meaning 3 weekends might be the perfect number for the tourney.

Any longer and you might cheapen it. It's kind of like the NBA playoffs. Do we really need 8 teams from each conference? I understand that there are probably 16 quality teams in the league, but #s 12-16 usually have no chance at winning the title.

Quote from: Harrison on March 13, 2007, 10:33:08 AM
>>>>"No expanding the tournament! Presently with 65 teams, team # 66-68 or so bitch and moan about how they should have been in. All expanding the tournament will do is have teams #73-78 bitch and moan about how they should have been in">>>>>


That is exactly right...The High majors that end up on the bubble are calling for expanding the tourney because "their are more teams".  That is a total smoke screen, the teams that have joined are nonfactors.  Simply new members to 1 bid conferences. How many more teams are really part of the debate?  Were IUPUFW and NJIT and the couple dozen other 2000 student commuter schools that have joined over the last 10-15 years the real reason Syracuse not make the tourney?   Well, maybe indirectly because Boeheim scheduled them all for his Novemeber and December home dates.   
Like I said Boeheims scheduling practices slit his own throut becuase the BE was down this year and the conference RPI only brought Syracuses RPI to 50, in years past with a Uconn in the top 5 and the BE with a top 4 conference RPI Syracuses RPI would have been in the 30's or 40's.  Were they better than Illinois, sure but we are splitting hairs, he only need look in the mirror to find the blame.  Put your self as one of the last 3-4-5 teams in or out and you will get disappointed.  this is not the first time this has happened to Boeheim.  Just 5-6 years ago the exact same thing happened to him, And we heard him whine the whole week, bowed out in the 1st round of the NIT if I recall. 

"The teams that have joined are non factors"...Harrison again is totally wrong.  Look at the 70 teams that have joined Division I in the last 22 years and how many NCAA bids they have acquired....if they were non-factors they would have acquired no bids yet we know that is completely untrue.  Never let those facts get in the way Harrison.  Each and every bid they take is a lost bid for someone else.  Would you like the list of teams from the last 22 years?  It's a lot longer then you think.  Belmont ring a bell?  Albany ring a bell?  Oral Roberts ring a bell?  etc, etc, etc

At the end of the day it's coming whether you guys like it or not, it's a matter of economics.  It won't be next year and it won't be 2009 but it's coming...maybe later than sooner but it's coming.

I agree with NotKirkCameron, if you want to get into the NCAA tournament, go out and win your conference tournament (I'm talking to you Syracuse!). It's a golden ticket into the field, and in essence, it is an extension of the NCAA tournament.

The purpose of the tournament is to CROWN A CHAMPION. Adding the 7th-10th teams from the major conferences does nothing to help crown a champion. They aren't giving out "participant" ribbons here.  Diluting the field and the level of play in the early rounds makes no sense.

With the tv contracts and sponsorship deals, there's plenty of money coming in. Duke made $4 million in profit this year on Men's Basketball. North Carolina made $12.5 million in profit.

I'd vote against the expansion.  There will always be gripping because teams compare themselves to how did make it.  In fact the more you water it down the less important the regular season is (see NBA) and the more complaints a team left out will have.  "We're no more mediocre than team X, Y and Z and they got in."

Quote from: MUDish on March 13, 2007, 01:40:35 PM
I agree with NotKirkCameron, if you want to get into the NCAA tournament, go out and win your conference tournament (I'm talking to you Syracuse!). It's a golden ticket into the field, and in essence, it is an extension of the NCAA tournament.

The purpose of the tournament is to CROWN A CHAMPION. Adding the 7th-10th teams from the major conferences does nothing to help crown a champion. They aren't giving out "participant" ribbons here.  Diluting the field and the level of play in the early rounds makes no sense.

With the tv contracts and sponsorship deals, there's plenty of money coming in. Duke made $4 million in profit this year on Men's Basketball. North Carolina made $12.5 million in profit.

The 7th place in the Big East is the same as the 5th place team in the ACC or the 4th place team in the Pac Ten....remember, there are 16 teams in the Big East.

It's nice that those schools made those profits on basketball, most schools are in the red for athletic departments...for example, 4 women's programs made a profit last year...333 did not.  Who covers those losses?  Men's basketball and football.  MU has one profitable sport...Men's hoops...13 unprofitable sports which Men's hoops has to subsidize.  Simply put, there is not plenty of money coming in for the vast majority of schools.

Chicos post is really funny.
I had originally posted....

That is exactly right...The High majors that end up on the bubble are calling for expanding the tourney because "their are more teams".  That is a total smoke screen, the teams that have joined are nonfactors.  Simply new members to 1 bid conferences. How many more teams are really part of the debate?  Were IUPUFW and NJIT and the couple dozen other 2000 student commuter schools that have joined over the last 10-15 years the real reason Syracuse did not make the tourney?



So he responds with....

"The teams that have joined are non factors"...Harrison again is totally wrong.  Look at the 70 teams that have joined Division I in the last 22 years and how many NCAA bids they have acquired....if they were non-factors they would have acquired no bids yet we know that is completely untrue.  Never let those facts get in the way Harrison.  Each and every bid they take is a lost bid for someone else.  Would you like the list of teams from the last 22 years?  It's a lot longer then you think.  Belmont ring a bell?  Albany ring a bell?  Oral Roberts ring a bell?  etc, etc, etc

That is funny..like I said all these new teams all come from 1 bid conferences and do not hurt Syracuse's or other chances 1 iota.  In fact when the NCAA recently added a conference they added a team to protect the 1 at large bid.   Chicos, Thanks for backing up my point.

:D :D ;D ::)

Nice try Harrison, but I didn't back up your point.  There are more conference automatic bids now then there were in the past.  There is more parity now, less scholarships now, more teams now.

So when Butler receives and At-Large bid, that takes away a spot.  Do you think if Syracuse played in the Horizon they wouldn't finish first or second?  Please.  Of course they would.

At the end of the day it's coming and everyone can bitch and whine about it, meanwhile MU and other schools will get an infusion of $$$ they desperately need.  It won't happen likely before 2013 (when the CBS deal is up) but I suspect that is when you will see it.  The NCAA is smart, they will the ability to add more games = MORE MONEY.  They can chop up the package and give those early games to ESPN or to a satellite company, etc.  At the end of the day, money makes the world go round and has to pay for these athletic departments.

It's coming, only a matter of time Harrison, only a matter of time.

The salient point remains which you cannot refute.  It is more difficult to get into the tournament in 2007 then it was in 1985 and becomes more and more difficult each year.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 13, 2007, 02:43:03 PM
The salient point remains which you cannot refute.  It is more difficult to get into the tournament in 2007 then it was in 1985 and becomes more and more difficult each year.

Which begs the question, is this a bad thing? If it's more difficult to get in, then wouldn't the teams who end up making it naturally be better teams? Isn't that what the tournament is supposed to be about (auto bids notwithstanding) -- the best 65 teams in the country? If it is in fact more difficult to get a bid now than it once was, and will only continue to become more difficult, doesn't the product benefit from showcasing truly the best teams, which would improve from year to year?

Making the NCAAs should be difficult. It should be an accomplishment. Expanding the field merely waters down the product, even as more teams join D-I.

Unfortunately, you're right, and money does make the world go 'round. CBS, the NCAA and everyone else involved no doubt already know this, and since more games = more $$$, I'm afraid that expansion may be inevitable. It's akin to the NFL's decision to play Thursday night games last season. Putting more games on more days takes away from the once-a-week NFL viewing tradtion, and waters down the product through overexposure. The motivation? Money, of course.

Again, the point of the tournament is to CROWN THE BEST TEAM IN THE COUNTRY THE CHAMPION!

It is not to hand out "Hey, we participated!" awards! Adding teams to the tournament does nothing to help this. In fact, it does quite the opposite and hurts the top teams.

College basketball is a business, and like any business climate, the top teams (companies) will make a greater share of the money than the smaller companies. It happens with my local video store trying to compete with Blockbuster, it happens with the Yankees vs the Royals. Since Duke makes $4 million a year in men's basketball, and Winthrop only makes $100,000 in profit, does this mean we should start increasing the amount of tournament games to offset this and make it equal? Heck no!

What about some side effects of increasing the tournament?
-Coaches salaries continue to rise as more teams make the tournament
-Spending on men's programs increases. Does the increase in tournament games offset/equal this increase?
-The college football pundits will be out to argue "Hey, if these basketball players are missing more class time for an extra week of the tournament, why can't we have a college football tournament"
-The inevitable downward value of the cost of broadcast packages. The tipping point is coming soon, not just for the NCAA men's package, but for MLB and yes, even the NFL. We're at or near the ceiling now of what these networks will pay for packages, even with the absurd amounts being spent.

Quote from: MUDish on March 13, 2007, 03:39:53 PM
Again, the point of the tournament is to CROWN THE BEST TEAM IN THE COUNTRY THE CHAMPION!

It is not to hand out "Hey, we participated!" awards! Adding teams to the tournament does nothing to help this. In fact, it does quite the opposite and hurts the top teams.

Yes, but to an extent, it is "we participated!" .. there are at 2, perhaps 3 dozen teams that are really there to fill out the brackets for the big boys to march over in their "Crowning."

It's one part "participation" .. one part "Crowning" .. and one big part m-o-n-e-y.

Quote from: IAmMarquette on March 13, 2007, 03:26:31 PM

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 13, 2007, 02:43:03 PM
The salient point remains which you cannot refute.  It is more difficult to get into the tournament in 2007 then it was in 1985 and becomes more and more difficult each year.

Which begs the question, is this a bad thing? If it's more difficult to get in, then wouldn't the teams who end up making it naturally be better teams? Isn't that what the tournament is supposed to be about (auto bids notwithstanding) -- the best 65 teams in the country? If it is in fact more difficult to get a bid now than it once was, and will only continue to become more difficult, doesn't the product benefit from showcasing truly the best teams, which would improve from year to year?

Making the NCAAs should be difficult. It should be an accomplishment. Expanding the field merely waters down the product, even as more teams join D-I.

Unfortunately, you're right, and money does make the world go 'round. CBS, the NCAA and everyone else involved no doubt already know this, and since more games = more $$$, I'm afraid that expansion may be inevitable. It's akin to the NFL's decision to play Thursday night games last season. Putting more games on more days takes away from the once-a-week NFL viewing tradtion, and waters down the product through overexposure. The motivation? Money, of course.

19% of teams make it to the NCAA Tournament overall.  When you take away all of the automatic bids (sans the one your team is eligible for) which MU cannot win, then Marquette and every other team in America has a 10.38% chance of getting into the NCAA tournament and the number gets smaller.

I don't disagree with you that there is a concern of watering down the field...my point is that you aren't watering down the field.  By expanding it you are adding more quality teams, not the dregs from the small conference auto bids.  You're adding teams that can actually win some games.  I don't think adding 8 teams or 15 teams is going to dilute the tournament.  If it was the right decision in 1985 to increase it so 24% of teams got in, why is it not the right decision today when only 19% get in (and really the number is 10.38% for each individual team)?  There were people that bitched when it went from 32 to 48 and again when it went from 48 to 64.  Somehow, miraculously, the sport survived....AND THRIVED.

Quote from: MUDish on March 13, 2007, 01:40:35 PM
They aren't giving out "participant" ribbons here.

The NC2A is all about giving out participation ribbons.

Quote from: Eye on March 13, 2007, 05:56:58 PM

Quote from: MUDish on March 13, 2007, 01:40:35 PM
They aren't giving out "participant" ribbons here.

The NC2A is all about giving out participation ribbons.

Just ask how people feel about Marquette going to the final four.  If you tell them it doesn't count since the tourney is only about crowning a winner and everything else is worthless then I'll bet you get a LOT more disagreement than agreement.

I didn't see if someone pointed this out yet but, just count down from 80 or 72 teams...you get 5 and 9. Not quite the even numbers you'd need, what do you do with those, get rid of one of the teams? The only way to get a final four is to have 128 teams, which is too big of a field. Even if having 72 or so teams would make for a better tournament, it just isn't feasible with needing 4 teams in the end.

Max, that is why you would need play in games of some kind to make the math work.  Just like in the old days when there were 48 teams...not everyone played that first round.

Interesting article


http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070313/SPORTS09/703130340/1007/SPORTS

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 13, 2007, 08:31:17 PM
Max, that is why you would need play in games of some kind to make the math work.  Just like in the old days when there were 48 teams...not everyone played that first round.

Ok, I see how that'd work. Now the problem with that is the same problem you have with the play in game now. The teams don't feel apart of the tournament, but even worse is they have to win more games than a team seeded in the official first round.  I've already heard enough about the play in game winner having to play an extra game, and thats a 16 seed. Just think if it was Arkansas or Illinois, they'd complain more than Bo Ryan.

You're missing my point. As presently constructed, the tournament is fine (perfect in my opinion) and being in the Final 4 is obviously a huge accomplishment. My point was that by EXPANDING the tournament, just so teams can say "hey, we participated" is stupid in my opinion. Yes, any time you have a competitive tournament, the point or goal is to win the tournament. (Beckon the voice of Herm Edwards if need be). Qualifying for the tournament as it is presently constructed is an accomplishment.

The way to do it would be to add three more play in games. Make the "lower" conferences play one another in these play in games for the chance to face a #1 seed. That would allow for 3 more at large bids. Wouldn't be a huge expansion, but would eliminate the nonsense that we saw with Syracuse. They should have been in. There shouldn't even be an argument about it.