https://nypost.com/2025/05/29/sports/ncaa-looking-to-expand-march-madness-as-soon-as-next-season-in-shocker/
I wonder if this will happen.
I've been tilting at the 80-team expansion windmill for 3 years, and after the season ended I put together a 12-page expansion plan to go to 80 teams. By coincidence, I was finally ready to send it out today, the same day Charlie Baker talked about 72 or 76 (both of which would be mistakes, IMO).
I have an email list of a little over 2,000 league officials, athletics administrators, and coaches that I've compiled over the past couple weeks. I am in the process of sending my expansion plan out to all of them today. They'll probably bull ahead to a poor decision before I'm able to get any traction, but hoping I can get the discussion pushed in a positive direction (which 80 would be).
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 29, 2025, 05:26:46 PMI've been tilting at the 80-team expansion windmill for 3 years, and after the season ended I put together a 12-page expansion plan to go to 80 teams. By coincidence, I was finally ready to send it out today, the same day Charlie Baker talked about 72 or 76 (both of which would be mistakes, IMO).
I have an email list of a little over 2,000 league officials, athletics administrators, and coaches that I've compiled over the past couple weeks. I am in the process of sending my expansion plan out to all of them today. They'll probably bull ahead to a poor decision before I'm able to get any traction, but hoping I can get the discussion pushed in a positive direction (which 80 would be).
If they go to 80 teams, the gap between Marquette and the top of the Big East will be enormous
Great. Let's add 4-12 more mediocre to lousy teams and water the event down some more. All because coaches think more teams equals better chances getting in the field and keeping their jobs.
I feel that way about posters.
The odds of the tourney getting expanded—- high
The odds of the powers that be listening to some rando MU scooper —- ZERO
Quote from: HutchwasClutch on May 29, 2025, 06:14:32 PMGreat. Let's add 4-12 more mediocre to lousy teams and water the event down some more. All because coaches think more teams equals better chances getting in the field and keeping their jobs.
The event wouldn't be watered down at all, the field would be strengthened.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 29, 2025, 05:26:46 PMI've been tilting at the 80-team expansion windmill for 3 years, and after the season ended I put together a 12-page expansion plan to go to 80 teams. By coincidence, I was finally ready to send it out today, the same day Charlie Baker talked about 72 or 76 (both of which would be mistakes, IMO).
I have an email list of a little over 2,000 league officials, athletics administrators, and coaches that I've compiled over the past couple weeks. I am in the process of sending my expansion plan out to all of them today. They'll probably bull ahead to a poor decision before I'm able to get any traction, but hoping I can get the discussion pushed in a positive direction (which 80 would be).
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNzIxZmIzYjEtZGMyZi00NDAwLWJmODktYTAwOWU2ZjkwZjdlXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg)
Quote from: HutchwasClutch on May 29, 2025, 06:14:32 PMGreat. Let's add 4-12 more mediocre to lousy teams and water the event down some more. All because coaches think more teams equals better chances getting in the field and keeping their jobs.
...but with the court settlement perhaps the players will get a cut of that money not just the conferences and individual schools.
Quote from: HutchwasClutch on May 29, 2025, 06:14:32 PMGreat. Let's add 4-12 more mediocre to lousy teams and water the event down some more. All because coaches think more teams equals better chances getting in the field and keeping their jobs.
You are not required to watch every game.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on May 30, 2025, 07:54:13 AM...but with the court settlement perhaps the players will get a cut of that money not just the conferences and individual schools.
More work for accountants
Teach the student athletes how to keep two sets of books.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 29, 2025, 05:26:46 PMI've been tilting at the 80-team expansion windmill for 3 years, and after the season ended I put together a 12-page expansion plan to go to 80 teams. By coincidence, I was finally ready to send it out today, the same day Charlie Baker talked about 72 or 76 (both of which would be mistakes, IMO).
I have an email list of a little over 2,000 league officials, athletics administrators, and coaches that I've compiled over the past couple weeks. I am in the process of sending my expansion plan out to all of them today. They'll probably bull ahead to a poor decision before I'm able to get any traction, but hoping I can get the discussion pushed in a positive direction (which 80 would be).
Be sure to include Muggsy's 5 point plan as well - every little bit helps.
Open 3 and open lay up equals a 5 point plan. Who needs the mid range?
Quote from: tower912 on May 29, 2025, 06:17:23 PMI feel that way about posters.
I'm not worried. My Scoop buyout is too large.
Quote from: barfolomew on May 30, 2025, 01:03:18 PMI'm not worried. My Scoop buyout is too large.
I was told that your buyout was NIL.
Quote from: PJDunn on May 29, 2025, 06:25:53 PMThe odds of the tourney getting expanded—- high
The odds of the powers that be listening to some rando MU scooper —- ZERO
So far, I've received feedback from multiple athletic directors, multiple coaches, a conference commissioner, and Dan Gavitt. So the odds of the powers that be listening to some rando MU scooper have moved from zero to 100%.
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 03, 2025, 10:11:41 AMSo far, I've received feedback from multiple athletic directors, multiple coaches, a conference commissioner, and Dan Gavitt. So the odds of the powers that be listening to some rando MU scooper have moved from zero to 100%.
Whats the general tone of the feedback?
Quote from: Nukem2 on June 03, 2025, 10:14:29 AMWhats the general tone of the feedback?
Mostly positive, some neutral or non-committal (but I'm sure Dan Gavitt couldn't come out and say "I'll push this").
Strongest support is from mid-major leagues; WCC, A10, SoCon.
Quote from: tower912 on May 30, 2025, 09:03:02 AMTeach the student athletes how to keep two sets of books.
Have we ever had any basketball players go onto dental school?
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 03, 2025, 10:25:54 AMMostly positive, some neutral or non-committal (but I'm sure Dan Gavitt couldn't come out and say "I'll push this").
Strongest support is from mid-major leagues; WCC, A10, SoCon.
Where can we see the proposal, or a cliffs-notes version for the tldr crowd?
Quote from: DoctorV on June 03, 2025, 03:26:06 PMWhere can we see the proposal, or a cliffs-notes version for the tldr crowd?
For the most part, it's based on this Cracked Sidewalks (https://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2024/12/the-ncaa-tournament-must-expand-or-die.html) article from December 2024. I've started trying to copy the PDF into a CS post, but there are a number of formatting issues that have made that a pain so far.
Here's a quick bullet-point version:
- Any expansion has to remain in the current calendar (per Dan Gavitt), which means the best expansion dates are Tuesday/Wednesday. To fill primetime windows on Tues/Weds the max number of teams would be going to 80. I think it's better to go directly to 80 because if they expand to 72 or 76, it's only a matter of time before they get to 80 anyway. The NCAA Tournament expanded 8 times from 1966-1985, with repeated criticism along the way. Avoid that by expanding once.
- 12 new at-large bids would be determined by the Selection Committee. My example field included the First Four Out, NIT 1-seeds, the top three Crown teams, and Wake.
- Play-in games would be fixed to seed lines. 11, 13 (at-large), 15, & 16 (auto) seeds would always be play-in games. This puts play-in games in the same cities/arenas that the Rounds of 64 & 32 occur in on Tuesday/Wednesday. This guarantees two play-in games per site (one per pod) and minimizes in-week travel.
- Tuesday/Wednesday would basically have a primetime slate that mirrored Thursday/Friday. These would be the most competitive games (on paper) of any in the first week of the Tournament.
- By eliminating 8 teams on the 15/16 lines, it strengthens the R64 field. Getting rid of the weakest auto-bids will mean the 16, 15, 14, & 12 lines are all stronger, and the teams playing in on the 13 line will be stronger metrically than old 12s would have been. Basically, every line from 12-16 will be better than ever before.
If you want the full plan, DM me your email address and I can send it over. It's probably about a 25 minute read.
I like the little guys getting the true first round games and always will. Plus I'd actually watch the "first four" (or 8, or however many games it is) if it's all at large teams.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 03, 2025, 07:34:24 PMI like the little guys getting the true first round games and always will. Plus I'd actually watch the "first four" (or 8, or however many games it is) if it's all at large teams.
The little guys prefer to get First Four games. It's a huge benefit financially as it's the best chance for the smallest single-bid leagues to get multiple NCAA Tournament credits. It has also been a huge boon for the 15/16 seeds odds of winning R64 games.
From 1985-2010, 15 & 16 seeds went 4-204 in their first round games, giving them just 1.92% chance of winning. Since 2011, 15 & 16 seeds are more than four times more likely to win a R64 game, going 9-103 (8.04%) in that time. That's because mathematically, the two "worst" 16s are knocked out, which pushes 15-seeds to the 16 line and 14-seeds to the 15 line.
If people truly want to see giant-killers, the best way to have that happen is not by letting all the one-bid league winners into the R64, but making sure the one-bid league winners in the R64 are the strongest ones possible.
And, admittedly, part of it is just economics. The P4 schools likely won't agree to all at-large play-in games because they lose credit opportunity in the R64 and beyond. Currently, the R64 effectively has 46 at-large caliber teams with single-bid leagues (generally) making up the last 22 bids on the 12-16 seed lines. When that cuts to 64, there are 44 at-large caliber and 20 single-bids. Expanding to 80 and splitting the play-ins would shift that dynamic to 48 & 16.
This would guarantee more single-bid leagues get two credits and would give them a better chance of winning R64 games, but at the expense of the number of them still standing when the R64 starts. And if the 16 games were all at-large teams, that would have put Marquette in a play-in game last year, and the play-in games would have went all the way up to S-Curve #24 Ole Miss. Not that Marquette or Ole Miss can't be in play-in games, but teams on the 6/7 lines feel a bit high to be play-in teams, IMO.
Quote from: Shaka Shart on June 03, 2025, 02:34:17 PMHave we ever had any basketball players go onto dental school?
Maybe from the women's team? After all for every 43 men admitted there are 57 women admitted to Marquette's Dental School of Criminology.
Quote from: Shaka Shart on June 03, 2025, 02:34:17 PMHave we ever had any basketball players go onto dental school?
No, but Larry Hatchett from the 80s became a urologist......
Quote from: Nukem2 on June 04, 2025, 08:58:57 AMNo, but Larry Hatchett from the 80s became a urologist......
He was really pissed that the NBA showed no interest in him.
There's rumors the Portland Jail Blazers had some of the best looking teeth in the NBA.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 04, 2025, 07:02:52 AMMaybe from the women's team? After all for every 43 men admitted there are 57 women admitted to Marquette's Dental School of Criminology.
Studying the dentists is a good career
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 29, 2025, 05:26:46 PMI've been tilting at the 80-team expansion windmill for 3 years, and after the season ended I put together a 12-page expansion plan to go to 80 teams. By coincidence, I was finally ready to send it out today, the same day Charlie Baker talked about 72 or 76 (both of which would be mistakes, IMO).
I have an email list of a little over 2,000 league officials, athletics administrators, and coaches that I've compiled over the past couple weeks. I am in the process of sending my expansion plan out to all of them today. They'll probably bull ahead to a poor decision before I'm able to get any traction, but hoping I can get the discussion pushed in a positive direction (which 80 would be).
A 12 page plan? You really only need 5 points, not 12 pages.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on June 05, 2025, 02:57:18 PMA 12 page plan? You really only need 5 points, not 12 pages.
The first eleven pages are...
We make more money, we make more money.... Etc then the. 4 other points
Quote from: Shaka Shart on June 03, 2025, 02:34:17 PMHave we ever had any basketball players go onto dental school?
Jay Schauer was one of the best players in Wisconsin during the 1950's (South Milwaukee High School). He played only one year at Marquette before going to dental school.
Quote from: MU1in77 on June 05, 2025, 07:54:01 PMJay Schauer was one of the best players in Wisconsin during the 1950's (South Milwaukee High School). He played only one year at Marquette before going to dental school.
Praying for him
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 29, 2025, 06:31:02 PMThe event wouldn't be watered down at all, the field would be strengthened.
Adding 12 teams with a combined 0% chance of winning the tournament does not strengthen the field. Just my opinion.
Quote from: CTWarrior on June 06, 2025, 06:42:58 AMAdding 12 teams with a combined 0% chance of winning the tournament does not strengthen the field. Just my opinion.
As Brew has demonstrated, it strengthens the bottom quarter of the field when you get to the round of 64.
That makes it more difficult for top teams. But upsets weaken the field when you get to the later rounds.
Quote from: CTWarrior on June 06, 2025, 06:42:58 AMAdding 12 teams with a combined 0% chance of winning the tournament does not strengthen the field. Just my opinion.
no more than eight teams will or even can be added, unless the basketball season starts a week earlier. The NCAA tournament window can't be extended because of the Masters. The only solution right now is two more games on Tuesday and Wednesday, probably somewhere out west like Salt Lake.
Quote from: CTWarrior on June 06, 2025, 06:42:58 AMAdding 12 teams with a combined 0% chance of winning the tournament does not strengthen the field. Just my opinion.
It depends on how they are added, but on Thursday/Friday it's a mathematical certainty that the field would be stronger. It's similar to how eliminating two 16-seeds in play in games and shifting 15s to the 16-line, 14s to the 15-line, etc ended at the 11-seed at-large play-in winners who ultimately replaced the 16s.
The teams added would all metrically be stronger than the teams on the 14-16 lines. By eliminating 6 more 15/16 seeds, it would remove 8 of the 16 weakest teams (typically 100-250 in metric rankings) & effectively replacing them with teams in the 35-70 range on the 11 & 13 lines.
It would 100% strengthen the R64 & beyond, and we've already seen two such teams (2011 VCU, 2021 UCLA) reach the Final Four so it's safe to say the chance one of them eventually wins it is greater than 0%.
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 06, 2025, 07:12:40 PMIt would 100% strengthen the R64 & beyond, and we've already seen two such teams (2011 VCU, 2021 UCLA) reach the Final Four so it's safe to say the chance one of them eventually wins it is greater than 0%.
No such team has been in the tournament as they would in theory be worse than the two teams you mentioned (who both fell two wins short). 0%
Quote from: CTWarrior on June 07, 2025, 08:13:08 AMNo such team has been in the tournament as they would in theory be worse than the two teams you mentioned (who both fell two wins short). 0%
Maybe we should eliminate all the 5-seeds too, since no 5-seed has ever won the title. Make it a 28 team tournament, eliminating teams 17-20 on the S-Curve right off the bat.
Quote from: tower912 on May 29, 2025, 06:17:23 PMI feel that way about posters.
Are you saying we should expand the field of posters by letting the dentists back in?
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 07, 2025, 03:02:43 PMMaybe we should eliminate all the 5-seeds too, since no 5-seed has ever won the title. Make it a 28 team tournament, eliminating teams 17-20 on the S-Curve right off the bat.
That'd make a hilarious selection show. "And now to the dreaded 5 seeds, who of course won't be playing in the tournament. Some teams just couldn't flop enough towards the end pr couldn't win enough to pull themselves into being a 4 seed"
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 07, 2025, 03:02:43 PMMaybe we should eliminate all the 5-seeds too, since no 5-seed has ever won the title. Make it a 28 team tournament, eliminating teams 17-20 on the S-Curve right off the bat.
I'm arguing against expanding the field because every team that has a 0.001% chance of winning the tournament is already in it. It doesn't strengthen anything to add more teams that don't have a chance to win. I understand that the winners of the weaker conferences have no chance to win the tournament, but at least they won something. Furthermore, the weaker conference champions serve a valuable function for the tournament, they give the best teams a significantly easier first round game, which serves as a reward for their season. Finally, it's fun to watch them get their crack at the big boys in a neutral environment, which is something they never get otherwise.
There are too many teams in the tournament now. The NCAA should have stopped at 48 and left the Bottom 16 to 18 to a Division 2 tournament. Does anyone below a 12 seed have a legitimate chance at anything more than a remote fluke?
This is the NCAA throwing weak conferences a bone. It replaces what once was a bye (that's right, bye) position for the major conferences (i.e., Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC, Pac 10 etc.). With the exception of two games, no 16 has come close to a one and it's hardly worth inviting a flock of nobodys to hope that another UMBC is out there!
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 13, 2025, 02:19:35 PMThere are too many teams in the tournament now. The NCAA should have stopped at 48 and left the Bottom 16 to 18 to a Division 2 tournament. Does anyone below a 12 seed have a legitimate chance at anything more than a remote fluke?
This is the NCAA throwing weak conferences a bone. It replaces what once was a bye (that's right, bye) position for the major conferences (i.e., Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC, Pac 10 etc.). With the exception of two games, no 16 has come close to a one and it's hardly worth inviting a flock of nobodys to hope that another UMBC is out there!
nope
Quote from: CTWarrior on June 13, 2025, 12:37:56 PMI'm arguing against expanding the field because every team that has a 0.001% chance of winning the tournament is already in it. It doesn't strengthen anything to add more teams that don't have a chance to win. I understand that the winners of the weaker conferences have no chance to win the tournament, but at least they won something. Furthermore, the weaker conference champions serve a valuable function for the tournament, they give the best teams a significantly easier first round game, which serves as a reward for their season. Finally, it's fun to watch them get their crack at the big boys in a neutral environment, which is something they never get otherwise.
The point isn't about being for or against expansion. There's no "against" expansion, it's either accepting that expansion is coming and finding the best way to facilitate it or denying reality.
It might not be this year, might not even be next year, but it's happening and it'll be in place before the next contract so they have proof of concept. They will expand and while they're talking 72/76, those are stepping stones on the way to 80 & likely eventually 96. It's not if, it's when.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 13, 2025, 02:19:35 PMThere are too many teams in the tournament now. The NCAA should have stopped at 48 and left the Bottom 16 to 18 to a Division 2 tournament. Does anyone below a 12 seed have a legitimate chance at anything more than a remote fluke?
This is the NCAA throwing weak conferences a bone. It replaces what once was a bye (that's right, bye) position for the major conferences (i.e., Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC, Pac 10 etc.). With the exception of two games, no 16 has come close to a one and it's hardly worth inviting a flock of nobodys to hope that another UMBC is out there!
The bolded is false. More at larges, largely from the biggest conferences.
Quote from: CTWarrior on June 13, 2025, 12:37:56 PMI'm arguing against expanding the field because every team that has a 0.001% chance of winning the tournament is already in it. It doesn't strengthen anything to add more teams that don't have a chance to win. I understand that the winners of the weaker conferences have no chance to win the tournament, but at least they won something. Furthermore, the weaker conference champions serve a valuable function for the tournament, they give the best teams a significantly easier first round game, which serves as a reward for their season. Finally, it's fun to watch them get their crack at the big boys in a neutral environment, which is something they never get otherwise.
It's cute you think this matters.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 13, 2025, 06:35:52 PMIt's cute you think this matters.
I don't think it matters. I do think it stinks.
I fully realize that every sport in this country does not care one scintilla about their fans, other than how much cash they can wring from their pockets.
Someday fans may stop standing for it, but that day is not any time soon.
Quote from: CTWarrior on June 19, 2025, 02:31:05 PMI don't think it matters. I do think it stinks.
I fully realize that every sport in this country does not care one scintilla about their fans, other than how much cash they can wring from their pockets.
Someday fans may stop standing for it, but that day is not any time soon.
Why do you think that expansion of the tournament, or any other playoff expansion, means that a sport doesn't care about their fans?
Peter Thamel ESPN. June 24th 8:15 pm
A decision on whether or not to expand the NCAA men's and women's basketball tournaments will be made in the upcoming weeks, sources told ESPN.
If the decision is made to expand, the expansion would begin in the 2025-26 season, per sources, and the tournament would expand to no more than 76 teams.
Sources have indicated to ESPN for months that 76 is the more likely expansion option than 72, as the current format for the men's and women's tournament is 68
teams.
The NCAA remains in talks with its media partners about the potential expansion, which have been ongoing for months.
An expansion of the tournament would be a historic and potentially controversial step for the NCAA. An eight-team addition would be the biggest jump in how the men's NCAA basketball tournament has been compromised since 1985.
The men's tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985.
An additional team was added in 2001, and the expansion to the current 68-team format came back In 2011.
The expectation is that both the men's and women's tournaments would grow by the same amount of teams.
NCAA president Charlie Baker has been open in talking publicly about tournament expansion, telling reporters at a Big 12 meeting in May that the NCAA is having
"good conversation" with its media partners.
Baker said at the time: "Our goal here is to try to sort of get to either yes or no sometime in the next few months because there's a lot of logistical work that would be associated with doing this. If we were to go down this road, you just think about the opening weekends, who has to travel the longest, it gets complicated."
One of the logistics would be the expected addition of at least one additional site, such as Dayton in the men's NCAA tournament. ESPN reported in February that a location would be expected to be outside the Eastern Time zone.
Quote from: The Sultan on June 19, 2025, 02:40:12 PMWhy do you think that expansion of the tournament, or any other playoff expansion, means that a sport doesn't care about their fans?
Who wants this? If Marquette snuck in as the 70th team, it would not do anything for me. And those are the kind of extra teams that are going to be added, teams in the bottom 40% of the big conferences. I guess I just don't see the appeal.
Quote from: CTWarrior on June 26, 2025, 02:12:11 PMWho wants this? If Marquette snuck in as the 70th team, it would not do anything for me. And those are the kind of extra teams that are going to be added, teams in the bottom 40% of the big conferences. I guess I just don't see the appeal.
Sorry, but this is preposterous. If Marquette made a Sweet 16 or Final Four run from the 70 spot, no Marquette fan would be turning off the games or apologizing for the run because it started on the bubble.
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 26, 2025, 02:37:20 PMSorry, but this is preposterous. If Marquette made a Sweet 16 or Final Four run from the 70 spot, no Marquette fan would be turning off the games or apologizing for the run because it started on the bubble.
I would because it would be embarrassing to be a Cinderella with a wide gap between us and the rest of the schools
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 26, 2025, 02:37:20 PMSorry, but this is preposterous. If Marquette made a Sweet 16 or Final Four run from the 70 spot, no Marquette fan would be turning off the games or apologizing for the run because it started on the bubble.
do Miami Heat fans not recognize their run to the Finals in 2023 since they came from the play in tournament?
Shaka doesn't recognize his Final Four run at VCU for that exact reason.
Quote from: tower912 on June 26, 2025, 04:11:13 PMShaka doesn't recognize his Final Four run at VCU for that exact reason.
Some MU fans don't recognize that at all point out other coaches that have made a Final Four while ours hasn't.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 26, 2025, 04:17:43 PMSome MU fans don't recognize that at all point out other coaches that have made a Final Four while ours hasn't.
Like McDermott
Quote from: CTWarrior on June 26, 2025, 02:12:11 PMWho wants this? If Marquette snuck in as the 70th team, it would not do anything for me. And those are the kind of extra teams that are going to be added, teams in the bottom 40% of the big conferences. I guess I just don't see the appeal.
I like it. I would be fine if it were even larger.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 26, 2025, 03:04:15 PMI would because it would be embarrassing to be a Cinderella with a wide gap between us and the rest of the schools
I don't think it's polite to discuss Cinderella's wide gap.
Edit: maybe I read that wrong.
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 26, 2025, 02:37:20 PMSorry, but this is preposterous. If Marquette made a Sweet 16 or Final Four run from the 70 spot, no Marquette fan would be turning off the games or apologizing for the run because it started on the bubble.
Yep he says this now but if they would make a run to the sweet 16 or elite 8 he'd be loving it just like in 2011 when MU.....the 26th rated team on pomeroy.....snuck in as an 11 seed.
This whole idea that a team shouldn't be in the tournament if they can't win it all is also strange.......when St Peter's beat Kentucky and Purdue on the way to an Elite 8 were fans complaining because they weren't going to win it all? I don't think so.
The great thing about the tournament is each round is its story........sweet 16 means something.......so does elite 8 and final 4..........only a real kill joy would just call them all losers ........the journey is the reward not only for the players and coaches but the fans.
https://x.com/davidworlock/status/1952429183209963860?s=61&t=6XPB8f4sAKmJIzxgMcsCjw
Quote from: MuMark on August 04, 2025, 01:13:33 PMhttps://x.com/davidworlock/status/1952429183209963860?s=61&t=6XPB8f4sAKmJIzxgMcsCjw
Welp, there goes MU's chances this season.
The more pressing issue is, given the apparently imminent demise of a certain Badger-hosting bar, will there be MAJOR GOOLSBY's expansion as early as next season?
Yeah, Big Ten teams with 8-12 conference records in the tournament. That will be awesome!
Quote from: Badgerhater on August 15, 2025, 10:39:34 PMYeah, Big Ten teams with 8-12 conference records in the tournament. That will be awesome!
How about 6-12 SEC teams like last year? Didn't even need expansion.
Quote from: wadesworld on August 16, 2025, 06:17:19 AMHow about 6-12 SEC teams like last year? Didn't even need expansion.
Which brings me back to my opinion that no at-large team with a conference record under .500 should be in the tournament.
Quote from: Badgerhater on August 16, 2025, 07:03:32 PMWhich brings me back to my opinion that no at-large team with a conference record under .500 should be in the tournament.
Conference records should have no bearing on tournament qualification. Punishes teams from strong conferences and weakens the tournament field.
Quote from: Badgerhater on August 16, 2025, 07:03:32 PMWhich brings me back to my opinion that no at-large team with a conference record under .500 should be in the tournament.
Why? The SEC was by far the best conference in the country. There's no reason someone like Villanova should've made the Tournament over someone like Arkansas just because they play in a much worse conference.