I've asked this before when we were regularly going to the tourney and the answer was no.
How about now ... should the tourney go to 96 teams? They would add a Tuesday/Wednesday round of games before the Thursday/Friday round.
To add more than 96 teams would require another week and possibly the end of the conference tournaments. I doubt that will happen.
Thoughts?
I dont know. Its a revenue based thing. I can see them doing it but the others would be autobids to the regular season conference champion.
I think it would be a mistake to go to 96. Can't see that happening anytime soon, but who knows.
I'd rather be sitting at home this year watching the tourney sans MU than traveling somewhere just to see MU get bounced in the round of 96.
Quote from: Benny B on March 17, 2014, 10:44:08 AM
I'd rather be sitting at home this year watching the tourney sans MU than traveling somewhere just to see MU get bounced in the round of 96.
Yeah that does sound bad for any team any year
No. 68 instead of 65 was lame enough.
I'm the wrong guy to ask. I think 68 is too many and 64 is right. Does it really enhance the tournament to have NC State, Xavier, Iowa and Tennessee? How does adding 32 more teams that are worse than them help? Nobody who has truly earned the right to play for the national title is left out with 64, so I guess I don't understand the need for 96 except for a blatant money grab.
No.
It should never have gone from 64 to 65 to 68 either. Going to 96 would just add an entire round that nobody would care about. Given that the NCAA is calling the shots, I suspect that expansion is inevitable.
No. 64 is perfect and wish we would just go back.
Honestly, they need to scrub D1 basketball of about 10 conferences. No reason some of those leagues deserve auto bids.
Quote from: Aughnanure on March 17, 2014, 11:05:19 AM
No. 64 is perfect and wish we would just go back.
Honestly, they need to scrub D1 basketball of about 10 conferences. No reason some of those leagues deserve auto bids.
This I agree with. Those auto-bids for the WAC and Northeast are pretty brutal.
NO. NO. An emphatic NO! Absolutely not.
When Marquette made the tournament, I thought that expanding to 96 teams was a bad idea. Now that a 96 team field is needed for Marquette to be in the tournament, I know that expanding to 96 teams is a bad idea. I can't see how anyone who watched MU this year would think otherwise.
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 17, 2014, 11:09:36 AM
When Marquette made the tournament, I thought that expanding to 96 teams was a bad idea. Now that a 96 team field is needed for Marquette to be in the tournament, I know that expanding to 96 teams is a bad idea. I can't see how anyone who watched MU this year would think otherwise.
Don't worry, MU still would not have made the tournament if it had 96 teams. NCAA = 68; NIT = 32 -- that's already 100 teams in tournaments that MU is not part of.
Personally, I like the idea of 96 teams or even 128 teams. Do the extra teams really have a good shot? Probably not. But they do have a shot and that's all they ask for. And they would mostly all get eliminated after 1 game so if you have that big a problem with it then just start watching at the round of 64 and the tournament will be basically unchanged for you.
No but I like the auto-bids. Making the NCAA means the world to these tiny schools. Give them a chance to play in a meaningful game. Stephen F. Austin went like 26-2 and this season. Do you think they would have ever gotten an at large bid? These schools are doomed because of the confrences they play in.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 17, 2014, 11:18:21 AM
No but I like the auto-bids. Making the NCAA means the world to these tiny schools. Give them a chance to play in a meaningful game. Stephen F. Austin went like 26-2 and this season. Do you think they would have ever gotten an at large bid? These schools are doomed because of the confrences they play in.
+1000
Who wants the exact same 64 teams every year? The fact that some of these crappy DI schools who have an autobid to the tourney is at least somewhat of a reason that solid recruits may choose them over some bottom feeder power school.
From a fan's perspective, parity in sports is always a good thing. Always.
Quote from: Aughnanure on March 17, 2014, 11:05:19 AM
No. 64 is perfect and wish we would just go back.
Honestly, they need to scrub D1 basketball of about 10 conferences. No reason some of those leagues deserve auto bids.
Isn't that what the BCS schools say about colleges that don't play football? Careful what you wish for...
Quote from: keefe on March 17, 2014, 11:24:09 AM
Isn't that what the BCS schools say about colleges that don't play football? Careful what you wish for...
Comeon. There's 32 freakin' divisions! You could cut 10 out and still have 250+ schools. Just not 363. This would actually do a lot of placate the football conferences, as the TV money wouldn't have to be split with the sisters of the poor. I don't think they look at us and A-10, the AAC, etc as the problem. They know we have value to the tournament and college basketball. Also, they know that if they ever break-off to do their own thing they will never get the tournament back (every team gets in? haha). They will have killed it.
Division 1 has long been due for trim. It's gotten way overbloated in both football and basketball the past 20 years. We can still make it more compact and better while still keeping the integrity.
Quote from: Aughnanure on March 17, 2014, 11:31:28 AM
Comeon. There's 32 freakin' divisions! You could cut 10 out and still have 250+ schools. Just not 363. This would actually do a lot of placate the football conferences, as the TV money wouldn't have to be split with the sisters of the poor. I don't think they look at us and A-10, the AAC, etc as the problem. They know we have value to the tournament and college basketball. Also, they know that if they ever break-off to do their own thing they will never get the tournament back (every team gets in? haha). They will have killed it.
Division 1 has long been due for trim. It's gotten way overbloated in both football and basketball the past 20 years. We can still make it more compact and better while still keeping the integrity.
I agree with Aughnanure, except I think he meant 32 freakin'
conferences, not divisions. Until the NCAA caught on, a lot of teams moved up to Division I with other similarly situated teams, so that they could form a conference and get an automatic bid. Move up to Division I with seven of your brethren and suddenly all your league games are now Division I games instead of Division II games, although the opponents stay the same. And with an auto bid, your school now has 1/8 of a chance to cash in on NCAA tourney money each year, or if you're more egalitarian, everyone gets 1/8 of an NCAA share each year which was a lot more than any of those schools saw from the Division II playoffs.
Weeding out conferences wouldn't be difficult to do and do fairly. A year or so ago, I looked at what would happen if you took away the auto bid from just the conferences that had no teams in the top 150 RPI for three years straight and it ended up eliminating more than 10 conferences. When these teams get in they are largely offered up as first round fodder which while delivering up an occasional first round shocker really results in most of the top three seeds getting a pass in their first game.
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 17, 2014, 12:03:32 PM
When these teams get in they are largely offered up as first round fodder which while delivering up an occasional first round shocker really results in most of the top three seeds getting a pass in their first game.
Those "shockers" are why the early rounds are so popular. Also, the first three seeds should get the advantage of a relatively easy first round game, they've earned it. If you take at the 10 worst auto qualifiers and replace them with 10 at-large teams that are worse than Xavier this season, have you really helped the tournament become more interesting? Do you really want a world where there is no reasonable way for any new schools to work their way into the upper echelon of college hoops because they are shut out by the power conferences?
Bottom line, the tournament is most popular now for the early round upsets in the beginning and the battles between the top teams at the end. Getting rid of the bottom conferences make both of those things less likely to happen.
I would be okay with going to 96 but eliminating the NIT (so I guess we would still be out). Play a round of 64, with the 32 winners moving on to play top 32 teams which would have a bye. Not much would change and you would get better first round matchups.
QuoteI would be okay with going to 96 but eliminating the NIT (so I guess we would still be out). Play a round of 64, with the 32 winners moving on to play top 32 teams which would have a bye. Not much would change and you would get better first round matchups.
More games does not equal more better. This would water down the regular season, the tournament, etc. The major conference teams would have no reason at ALL to schedule anyone decent as it would not be worth it.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 17, 2014, 12:13:08 PM
Those "shockers" are why the early rounds are so popular. Also, the first three seeds should get the advantage of a relatively easy first round game, they've earned it. If you take at the 10 worst auto qualifiers and replace them with 10 at-large teams that are worse than Xavier this season, have you really helped the tournament become more interesting? Do you really want a world where there is no reasonable way for any new schools to work their way into the upper echelon of college hoops because they are shut out by the power conferences?
Bottom line, the tournament is most popular now for the early round upsets in the beginning and the battles between the top teams at the end. Getting rid of the bottom conferences make both of those things less likely to happen.
I agree that the small conferences should still get an automatic bid instead of getting more mediocre major conference teams in.
However, I don't like that the conference tournament champion gets the bid from these conferences. Mount St. Mary's is 16-16, has a conference record of 12-7 and an RPI of 194...but they get the bid over Robert Morris (21-13, 16-3, 126). Or Albany (18-14, 12-7, 175) gets the bid over Vermont (20-10, 16-2, 102). And of course Milwaukee gets in over GB...even though their RPI is nearly 100 places worse.
I don't know what percentage of the first round "shockers" come from these teams that were mediocre all season and then went on a three-game winning streak last week...but I'll bet it isn't many....
Weakens the product... also a lot of logistical issues with moving to 96 teams.
NONONONONONONONO!!!!!!
Why put any more garbage in the tournament than already exists? We'd see a lot more Mid-Majors and Low-Majors and I'm not sure it would make a difference to us this year.
We would still last about 40 minutes!
Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 17, 2014, 12:40:03 PM
However, I don't like that the conference tournament champion gets the bid from these conferences. Mount St. Mary's is 16-16, has a conference record of 12-7 and an RPI of 194...but they get the bid over Robert Morris (21-13, 16-3, 126). Or Albany (18-14, 12-7, 175) gets the bid over Vermont (20-10, 16-2, 102). And of course Milwaukee gets in over GB...even though their RPI is nearly 100 places worse.
I don't know what percentage of the first round "shockers" come from these teams that were mediocre all season and then went on a three-game winning streak last week...but I'll bet it isn't many....
I think you are right but the shockers coming from teams that are both regular season and tournament champs, but I am not interested enough to try an figure it out. The NCAA doesn't dictate that the conference tourney winner has to go to the NCAA tournament. The individual conferences have the right to select from the regular season champ or a tournament champ, but you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to attend a SWAC tournament, for example, that doesn't award the winner with an auto-birth.
The conference tournaments add to the romantic notion that every team, no matter how poor their season, has a chance and can keep playing once the conference tournaments starts as long as they keep winning, and that's OK with me.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 17, 2014, 12:13:08 PM
Those "shockers" are why the early rounds are so popular. Also, the first three seeds should get the advantage of a relatively easy first round game, they've earned it. If you take at the 10 worst auto qualifiers and replace them with 10 at-large teams that are worse than Xavier this season, have you really helped the tournament become more interesting? Do you really want a world where there is no reasonable way for any new schools to work their way into the upper echelon of college hoops because they are shut out by the power conferences?
Bottom line, the tournament is most popular now for the early round upsets in the beginning and the battles between the top teams at the end. Getting rid of the bottom conferences make both of those things less likely to happen.
I guess my answers are yes and yes, although I don't think you can say that new schools are being blocked by power conferences when 22 conferences still have auto bids. Are there 22 power conferences in Division I?
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 17, 2014, 12:48:52 PM
I think you are right but the shockers coming from teams that are both regular season and tournament champs, but I am not interested enough to try an figure it out. The NCAA doesn't dictate that the conference tourney winner has to go to the NCAA tournament. The individual conferences have the right to select from the regular season champ or a tournament champ, but you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to attend a SWAC tournament, for example, that doesn't award the winner with an auto-birth.
The conference tournaments add to the romantic notion that every team, no matter how poor their season, has a chance and can keep playing once the conference tournaments starts as long as they keep winning, and that's OK with me.
"you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to attend a SWAC tournament, for example, that doesn't award the winner with an auto-birth."
What does that tell you about such conferences?
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 17, 2014, 01:03:18 PM
I guess my answers are yes and yes, although I don't think you can say that new schools are being block by power conferences when 22 conferences still have auto bids. Are there 22 power conferences in Division I?
No, I used the number 10 because earlier Aughnanure mentioned that there were about 10 conferences that could be eliminated under a certain criteria. My position is simple. Let the little guys in because they serve two purporses. One, they add a little excitement/flavor to the early rounds, and two, they give the top teams an advantage by playing an easier first game, and thus increase the likelihood of the best teams advancing, lending more importance to the value of a great regular season.
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 17, 2014, 01:07:36 PM
"you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to attend a SWAC tournament, for example, that doesn't award the winner with an auto-birth."
What does that tell you about such conferences?
Not a lot. I would think all conferences would suffer a dip in attendance, often significant, if no automatic bid was on the line.
When's the last time a double-digit seed won the tournament? Oh yeah... never. So you'd be expanding the tournament with a bunch of teams that wouldn't stand a rat's chance in Meowville of winning the title.
The lowest seed that's ever appeared in the championship game is an 8-seed (Butler 2011, Nova 1985). Therefore, it makes more sense to go back to 32 teams than it does beyond 68.
64 was perfect. 68 is 4 too many, but bearable.
96 would be awful.
NO!
If I was going to redesign the NCAA, I would prefer a scenario where the top seeds in each region get a home game for the second and third rounds of the NCAA. So if you were a 1, you played at home as long as you won.
Would make seedings MUCH more valuable. If you were 1 playing a 16, you got an exhibition game. Would make up for the sub-300s you didn't play during the season.
Quote from: Aughnanure on March 17, 2014, 11:31:28 AM
Comeon. There's 32 freakin' divisions! You could cut 10 out and still have 250+ schools. Just not 363. This would actually do a lot of placate the football conferences, as the TV money wouldn't have to be split with the sisters of the poor. I don't think they look at us and A-10, the AAC, etc as the problem. They know we have value to the tournament and college basketball. Also, they know that if they ever break-off to do their own thing they will never get the tournament back (every team gets in? haha). They will have killed it.
Division 1 has long been due for trim. It's gotten way overbloated in both football and basketball the past 20 years. We can still make it more compact and better while still keeping the integrity.
How are we going to schedule Grambling then?
Quote from: dgies9156 on March 17, 2014, 06:18:11 PM
If I was going to redesign the NCAA, I would prefer a scenario where the top seeds in each region get a home game for the second and third rounds of the NCAA. So if you were a 1, you played at home as long as you won.
Isn't this Duke and North Carolina nearly every year? ;D
Quote from: Aughnanure on March 17, 2014, 11:31:28 AM
Division 1 has long been due for trim. It's gotten way overbloated
Well, actually, I feel the same way
But how do you trim D1?
Can you tell a school they are no longer welcome, even if they are willing to pony up the scholarships and satisfy all the other requirements? And what about the rest of the members of their conferences? How are they going to feel if one (or half) of their conference opponents is now D2? It would create a lot more unstability and conference realignment.
Its a tricky question. I do agree though, D1 should ideally be <250 teams.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 17, 2014, 12:48:52 PM
I think you are right but the shockers coming from teams that are both regular season and tournament champs, but I am not interested enough to try an figure it out. The NCAA doesn't dictate that the conference tourney winner has to go to the NCAA tournament. The individual conferences have the right to select from the regular season champ or a tournament champ, but you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to attend a SWAC tournament, for example, that doesn't award the winner with an auto-birth.
The conference tournaments add to the romantic notion that every team, no matter how poor their season, has a chance and can keep playing once the conference tournaments starts as long as they keep winning, and that's OK with me.
If the goal is to make the SWAC, MEAC, etc tournaments more interesting, then you're right.
But I thought the goal was to make the NCAA tournament more interesting. If that truly is the goal, the NCAA could easily revise its rules about who gets invited and who doesn't.
Also, the rule wouldn't necessarily have to apply to all conferences. There would be plenty of ways (such as one mentioned above about figuring out which are the 10 worst conferences) where you could determine when the rule applies...while still permitting other conferences to choose how they select their champions.
How about going back to 32 with double elimination?
Quote from: Class71 on March 18, 2014, 04:01:14 PM
How about going back to 32 with double elimination?
While it may be the most interesting idea, it's also the worst idea mentioned here.
Doing this would not only be a logistical nightmare, it would add tons of confusion to March Madness, and it would make the simple bracket concept impossible to do. Added confusion would remove the tens of millions of casual fans out of the picture... those fans are great for the sustainability of the college hoops, and taking them away eliminates the buzz which makes this tournament great. There is no need for us hoops purists to ostracize them.
Quote from: wardle2wade on March 18, 2014, 05:37:04 PM
While it may be the most interesting idea, it's also the worst idea mentioned here.
Doing this would not only be a logistical nightmare, it would add tons of confusion to March Madness, and it would make the simple bracket concept impossible to do. Added confusion would remove the tens of millions of casual fans out of the picture... those fans are great for the sustainability of the college hoops, and taking them away eliminates the buzz which makes this tournament great. There is no need for us hoops purists to ostracize them.
Not my intent to ostracize but appreciate your concern. While I enjoy watching the underdog beating the big dog I think it is unfortunate that the automatic bids include a number of very undeserving teams.
Quote from: Class71 on March 18, 2014, 07:23:34 PM
Not my intent to ostracize but appreciate your concern. While I enjoy watching the underdog beating the big dog I think it is unfortunate that the automatic bids include a number of very undeserving teams.
By definition the teams that earn automatic bids deserve their bids. The best part about the NCAA tournament is that literally every team in Div-1 has a shot at winning it, however slim that chance may be. It's the biggest reason I hate NCAA football - in a given year there are basically 20-30 teams that have a chance to win a National Championship, the rest of the teams can win every game and not even have a chance. You can argue that Div-1 should be reduced in size all you want, but the automatic bids for every conference remaining in Div-1 MUST stay.
Quote from: TJ on March 19, 2014, 08:28:21 AM
By definition the teams that earn automatic bids deserve their bids. The best part about the NCAA tournament is that literally every team in Div-1 has a shot at winning it, however slim that chance may be. It's the biggest reason I hate NCAA football - in a given year there are basically 20-30 teams that have a chance to win a National Championship, the rest of the teams can win every game and not even have a chance. You can argue that Div-1 should be reduced in size all you want, but the automatic bids for every conference remaining in Div-1 MUST stay.
+1
The autobids are the reason people watch. Everyone picks a Cinderella. Once in a while, they make a little run.
You kill that and you kill the product. It turns into a BCS situation where only teams from a handful of conferences get a shot at winning the whole thing.
Whether or not the mid majors actually win it is irrelevant. People want to see them have a chance to make the run.
And eventually, a 16 will upset a 1. It will happen sooner or later. And when it does, it will be one of the most exciting games in the history of the NCAA tournament. You want to take that away before it happens? Seems silly to me.
All of that said, I could do without the play-in games. Shrink it back to 64. 64 is perfect.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 19, 2014, 09:34:59 AM
And eventually, a 16 will upset a 1. It will happen sooner or later. And when it does, it will be one of the most exciting games in the history of the NCAA tournament. You want to take that away before it happens? Seems silly to me.
All of that said, I could do without the play-in games. Shrink it back to 64. 64 is perfect.
I honestly doubt this happens. I am fine with the auto-bids but I honestly cant see a situation where a Mt. St. Marys beats a 1 seed. Hell, we beat them by almost 50 two years ago. The closest were going to see for awhile was Southern vs. Gonzaga.
Quote from: esard2011 on March 19, 2014, 09:39:02 AM
I honestly doubt this happens. I am fine with the auto-bids but I honestly cant see a situation where a Mt. St. Marys beats a 1 seed. Hell, we beat them by almost 50 two years ago. The closest were going to see for awhile was Southern vs. Gonzaga.
It will eventually happen. Maybe not this year, or this decade, but it will.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 19, 2014, 09:42:33 AM
It will eventually happen. Maybe not this year, or this decade, but it will.
That would be Appalachian St. vs Michigan esq. A lt of things need to go right.
Quote from: esard2011 on March 19, 2014, 09:39:02 AM
I honestly doubt this happens. I am fine with the auto-bids but I honestly cant see a situation where a Mt. St. Marys beats a 1 seed. Hell, we beat them by almost 50 two years ago. The closest were going to see for awhile was Southern vs. Gonzaga.
Chaminade beat Virginia. Anything can happen
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 19, 2014, 09:42:33 AM
It will eventually happen. Maybe not this year, or this decade, but it will.
Likely in a situation where a team gets a one seed (or just before seeding), a key player is hurt, which makes the team vulnerable.
I took a huge chance in my bracket and picked Coastal Carolina against UVA.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 19, 2014, 09:51:43 AM
Likely in a situation where a team gets a one seed (or just before seeding), a key player is hurt, which makes the team vulnerable.
I took a huge chance in my bracket and picked Coastal Carolina against UVA.
You know, I'm looking at your signature like and thinking.... unless Legs is picking CC, I'm going with UVA.
I think this pretty much nails the stupidity of the first four...
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24490948/the-first-four-a-play-in-game-and-insult (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24490948/the-first-four-a-play-in-game-and-insult)
No further expansion...won't make the product better, nor help crown a champion.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 19, 2014, 11:28:26 AM
I think this pretty much nails the stupidity of the first four...
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24490948/the-first-four-a-play-in-game-and-insult (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24490948/the-first-four-a-play-in-game-and-insult)
No further expansion...won't make the product better, nor help crown a champion.
Yep. Like he says, no matter what the NCAA calls them, everybody knows that they're play-in games to get to the real dance.
Quote from: TJ on March 19, 2014, 08:28:21 AM
By definition the teams that earn automatic bids deserve their bids. The best part about the NCAA tournament is that literally every team in Div-1 has a shot at winning it, however slim that chance may be. It's the biggest reason I hate NCAA football - in a given year there are basically 20-30 teams that have a chance to win a National Championship, the rest of the teams can win every game and not even have a chance. You can argue that Div-1 should be reduced in size all you want, but the automatic bids for every conference remaining in Div-1 MUST stay.
No worries. I don't vote on it.
If you want in the ncaa tourney, win your conference tourney!
68 is better than 65, but 64 is better than 68. However, I think they should change the seeding. The top seeds should go to teams that win both their regular season and their conference title. Rank the conferences before the start of the conference tournaments. Than slot the double champions in the tourament according to their conference rankings. Virginia, Florida and Wichita St are all double winners. I not sure if Arizona beat UCLA in the championship game. If Arizona lost to UCLA they would not be a number one seed, but probably be no worse than a 3. The big difference would be the little guy that pulls off the double. Not likely to get a number one seed, but could have a chance at a two or three depending on how many conference champions lose. It would make a big difference to them getting a three seed vs a 16. MU probably would of lost the first game of the last three touraments, if they were thrown in the 16th spot. This seeding would make the conference tournament championship more valuable to the good teams and would be a great award for the double champions.
Quote from: esard2011 on March 17, 2014, 11:08:07 AM
This I agree with. Those auto-bids for the WAC and Northeast are pretty brutal.
Yeah.. I'd much rather see Duke play Illinois instead of Mercer ;D
The great appeal are the matchups between the power teams and the little guy. Why would you want to eliminate that.
And, BTW, how about all them 5-stars on Duke? We need us some of them.
Quote from: brandx on March 21, 2014, 01:35:16 PM
Yeah.. I'd much rather see Duke play Illinois instead of Mercer ;D
The great appeal are the matchups between the power teams and the little guy. Why would you want to eliminate that.
And, BTW, how about all them 5-stars on Duke? We need us some of them.
Of course Duke is going to win. They are the higher seed. And they are favored, too! Bet the ranch.
Or, maybe it's a crapshoot.