52 auto bids and play-in for the rest.
Gross.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-to-expand-march-madness-mens-and-womens-college-basketball-tournaments-to-76-teams-in-2027/
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 28, 2026, 05:52:32 PM52 auto bids and play-in for the rest.
Gross.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-to-expand-march-madness-mens-and-womens-college-basketball-tournaments-to-76-teams-in-2027/
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 28, 2026, 05:52:32 PM52 auto bids and play-in for the rest.
Gross.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-to-expand-march-madness-mens-and-womens-college-basketball-tournaments-to-76-teams-in-2027/
Never ending money grab.
Quote from: 79Warrior on April 28, 2026, 05:54:10 PMNever ending money grab.
Don't let anyone tell you how great this is. It isn't.
<shrug>
I like it.
Just let 'em all in. That way no coach will be fired for missing the tournament.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 28, 2026, 06:19:23 PMYou're a certified monster
[/quoteQuote from: Uncle Rico on April 28, 2026, 05:54:40 PMDon't let anyone tell you how great this is. It isn't.
Exactly. This is a complete disaster. Unless MU gets in among the final 8 teams one year.
I started a thread on this very topic some weeks ago. Feel free to read through the rest of the discussion.
Quote from: K1 Lover on April 03, 2026, 08:29:56 PMhttps://x.com/yahoosports/status/2040201723243888683?s=46
This was brought up in the college hoops thread but it warrants its own discussion.
The NCAA tournament is all but set to include 8 additional at-large teams from here on out. Consequently, the First Four will become a "First Twelve" of sorts, as the tourney will feature a new opening round in which 24 teams compete in 12 play-in games over two days. The 12 winners then join the other 52 teams already safely in.
Putting it simply, the main bracket field of 64 teams remains the same, but the bubble widens significantly from both ends.
Other than disgust for financial greed and the downstream effects of conference supersizing, how are we feeling about this?
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 28, 2026, 06:19:23 PMYou're a certified monster
Fair point. 76 teams? Please.
I now project us as a bubble team for 2026-27!!
The first 4 games suck. Now we get more!
Grab your nitroglycerin pills
It's bad enough for the men's tournament. There's already just about nothing close to legit upsets in the women's tourney ... and now 8 more bad teams will be part of it.
Quote from: MU82 on April 28, 2026, 08:10:32 PMIt's bad enough for the men's tournament. There's already just about nothing close to legit upsets in the women's tourney ... and now 8 more bad teams will be part of it.
Yes. Good grief. Why??
Quote from: MuggsyB on April 28, 2026, 08:17:38 PMYes. Good grief. Why??
$$$. That's what every postseason expansion comes down to.
Quote from: The Sultan on April 28, 2026, 08:20:57 PM$$$. That's what every postseason expansion comes down to.
There's way more to life than money. This is so stupid.
The Crown is screwed
Chance to log an extra W.
Quote from: NCMUFan on April 28, 2026, 08:49:37 PMChance to log an extra W.
Yep. Though it might be vs. the Podunk College Bubbas from Hicksville, Mississipi.
Quote from: MuggsyB on April 28, 2026, 08:17:38 PMYes. Good grief. Why??
I told my wife about this expansion, and she said: "Jee-sus! Money money money!"
Quote from: MU82 on April 28, 2026, 09:08:52 PMI told my wife about this expansion, and she said: "Jee-sus! Money money money!"
Great. Let's play 7 out of 13 for the World Series. Or a 36 hole Sunday at the Masters. And why don't we expand the NFL playoffs to 20 teams? This is beyond stupid. No one wants this garbage.
QuoteInstead of four games with eight teams in Dayton for the men's tournament, there will be 24 games with 12 teams at two sites.
Best of 4 play in I guess, lol
Elam ending for play ins.
Quote from: MU82 on April 28, 2026, 09:08:52 PMI told my wife about this expansion, and she said: "Jee-sus! Money money money!"
NCAA needs more cash to pay off every time they get sued.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 28, 2026, 05:52:32 PM52 auto bids and play-in for the rest.
Gross.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-to-expand-march-madness-mens-and-womens-college-basketball-tournaments-to-76-teams-in-2027/
52 auto slots, not bids in the 64 team bracket
It's an improvement over 64 or the current 68. 80 would be better.
Marquette still won't make it in.
Quote from: MuggsyB on April 28, 2026, 08:26:47 PMThere's way more to life than money. This is so stupid.
You're not required to watch.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 28, 2026, 09:53:11 PMIt's an improvement over 64 or the current 68. 80 would be better.
https://youtu.be/cxyPeME9TbI?si=j-_Dqw89kH0YsfUh
Getting to 80 would be helpful getting another 2-3 Big Ten and SEC teams in. Pretty ridiculous Indiana and USC were left out last year
More women's tourney games that end with a 40+ point differential -- awesome!
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 28, 2026, 09:53:11 PMIt's an improvement over 64 or the current 68. 80 would be better.
Agree, each pod would get 2 "first four" games.
Quote from: JakeBarnes on April 28, 2026, 08:36:31 PMThe Crown is screwed
That explains King Charles' trip to the US.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 29, 2026, 06:10:22 AMhttps://youtu.be/cxyPeME9TbI?si=j-_Dqw89kH0YsfUh
Getting to 80 would be helpful getting another 2-3 Big Ten and SEC teams in. Pretty ridiculous Indiana and USC were left out last year
This is where I am on the expansion. I
get the scoopers who dislike the additional games, but the structure of the existing format left out some worthy teams. The only thing I want to add is that some good BE teams often have been left out as well, not just the Big and SEC.
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on April 29, 2026, 09:21:55 AMThis is where I am on the expansion. I get the scoopers who dislike the additional games, but the structure of the existing format left out some worthy teams. The only thing I want to add is that some good BE teams often have been left out as well, not just the Big and SEC.
No good teams have ever been left out from any of the big boy conferences. They simply weren't good enough.
They'll be some polish applied to this turd about expanded opportunities and financial reward but the games and teams themselves? Come on.
But that's the American mindset with playoffs of any kind. Expand, expand, expand. There are a variety of reasons from financial, creating more storylines, keeping more teams alive but the product becomes diluted.
Will there be great moments? Undoubtedly, but the drive to expand playoffs across all leagues is really making regular seasons, divisions and conferences irrelevant.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 29, 2026, 09:27:47 AMNo good teams have ever been left out from any of the big boy conferences. They simply weren't good enough.
Fair, but I was thinking of the teams from what Bill Walton once called "Truckstop conferences" that fill up the 68 team limit by simply winning their conference championships, leaving no room for better teams from the P5.
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on April 29, 2026, 09:37:24 AMFair, but I was thinking of the teams from what Bill Walton once called "Truckstop conferences" that fill up the 68 team limit by simply winning their conference championships, leaving no room for better teams from the P5.
The truck stop conferences built the modern tournament along with TV. And gambling, sweet, sweet gambling
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 29, 2026, 10:34:09 AMThe truck stop conferences built the modern tournament along with TV.
TV? yes.
Truck stop conferences? Eh. I think their role has been much exaggerated. I think what makes the tournament is compelling games, particularly those that come down to an improbable ending.
1992 is remembered for Duke v. Kentucky with the last second Laetner shot. Not Eastern Tennessee beating Arizona.
2026 will be remember for UConn's last second heave. Not High Point beating Wisconsin.
Quote from: The Sultan on April 29, 2026, 10:41:00 AM2026 will be remember for UConn's last second heave. Not High Point beating Wisconsin.
Speak for yourself, bub. Eff becky.
(p.s., *remembered)
Quote from: The Sultan on April 29, 2026, 10:41:00 AMTV? yes.
Truck stop conferences? Eh. I think their role has been much exaggerated. I think what makes the tournament is compelling games, particularly those that come down to an improbable ending.
1992 is remembered for Duke v. Kentucky with the last second Laetner shot. Not Eastern Tennessee beating Arizona.
2026 will be remember for UConn's last second heave. Not High Point beating Wisconsin.
I'm not going to argue that, but people like watching the first two days to see the truck stop conference teams beat the big boys
Now that the tournament will include 76 teams, coaches and supporters of the 77th team will whine that they've been hosed. If Auburn is #77, Bruce Pearl again will cry that his nepo-baby's team got hosed.
If it expands to 80, coaches and supporters of the 81st team will whine that they've been hosed.
Maybe win another game or three and you won't get hosed. I know. A crazy notion.
Or just expand it again and again. I'm cynical but I'm really not upset about the expansion. It doesn't affect me at all. I'll continue to watch the games I want to watch and ignore the games I want to ignore, regardless of how many teams are invited. Who knows? It could even help my alma mater's team. Besides, there's nothing more American than a money grab!
76 spots for 365 teams is just under 21%. Is there another major sport where an even smaller % of the overall field makes the playoff?
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on April 29, 2026, 09:21:55 AMThis is where I am on the expansion. I get the scoopers who dislike the additional games, but the structure of the existing format left out some worthy teams. The only thing I want to add is that some good BE teams often have been left out as well, not just the Big and SEC.
NO worthy teams were left out. Many unworthy teams were included. By worthy I mean a team, through its play, that earned the right to play for the national championship.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on April 29, 2026, 12:31:54 PM76 spots for 365 teams is just under 21%. Is there another major sport where an even smaller % of the overall field makes the playoff?
The 79 percent have an opportunity to win their conference tournament for an NCAA bid.
For all intents and purposes, conference tournaments are the opening rounds of the NCAA.
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 29, 2026, 12:48:21 PMThe 79 percent have an opportunity to win their conference tournament for an NCAA bid.
For all intents and purposes, conference tournaments are the opening rounds of the NCAA.
Exactly, the number is more like 98 or 99% than 21%. Except for four teams in the Ivy League and a few teams that just joined D 1 or are independent, all of the NCAA D-1 teams make the "playoffs".
I will become more adamant that my arbitrary "no at-large teams with under .500 conference record in the NCAA" get implemented for an expanded tournament.
Can't win half your conference games? Do NIL and all of basketball better.
"But 8-10 power conference team is better than mid-major team X because stat geeks said so."
Don't care. The power team gets major resources and still sucks at their level of peer competitiveness.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on April 29, 2026, 12:31:54 PM76 spots for 365 teams is just under 21%. Is there another major sport where an even smaller % of the overall field makes the playoff?
/wanking motion
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 29, 2026, 12:48:21 PMThe 79 percent have an opportunity to win their conference tournament for an NCAA bid.
For all intents and purposes, conference tournaments are the opening rounds of the NCAA.
I guess that's not an unreasonable way to look at it.
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 29, 2026, 01:12:01 PMI will become more adamant that my arbitrary "no at-large teams with under .500 conference record in the NCAA" get implemented for an expanded tournament.
Can't win half your conference games? Do NIL and all of basketball better.
"But 8-10 power conference team is better than mid-major team X because stat geeks said so."
Don't care. The power team gets major resources and still sucks at their level of peer competitiveness.
I don't hate your arbitrary rule, but it makes me think about extreme cases. Imagine a Big East season that finished:
UConn: 20-0
All 10 other teams: 9-11
Big East getting the same number of bids as the SWAC.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on April 29, 2026, 12:31:54 PM76 spots for 365 teams is just under 21%. Is there another major sport where an even smaller % of the overall field makes the playoff?
This is why they should be lowering the number of division 1 schools, not increasing the size of tournaments.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 29, 2026, 01:41:33 PMThis is why they should be lowering the number of division 1 schools, not increasing the size of tournaments.
This, it's getting time to do an FBS FCS style split for D1 Basketball.
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 29, 2026, 01:12:01 PMI will become more adamant that my arbitrary "no at-large teams with under .500 conference record in the NCAA" get implemented for an expanded tournament.
Can't win half your conference games? Do NIL and all of basketball better.
"But 8-10 power conference team is better than mid-major team X because stat geeks said so."
Don't care. The power team gets major resources and still sucks at their level of peer competitiveness.
"Peer competitiveness" should never be a factor in these discussions.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on April 29, 2026, 01:40:43 PMI guess that's not an unreasonable way to look at it.
I don't hate your arbitrary rule, but it makes me think about extreme cases. Imagine a Big East season that finished:
UConn: 20-0
All 10 other teams: 9-11
Big East getting the same number of bids as the SWAC.
10 teams each had eleven chances to win two more games. Don't suck at basketball if you want to make the tournament.
Quote from: The Sultan on April 29, 2026, 01:50:46 PM"Peer competitiveness" should never be a factor in these discussions.
Why?
Beat the teams you play.
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 29, 2026, 01:52:56 PMWhy?
Beat the teams you play.
Because beating the teams you play, without any indication of the quality of those teams, makes no sense to me. Teams should not be punished for being in stronger conferences. Nor should teams benefit from being in weaker ones.
You end up judging teams on different standards, which has never really been done when it comes to selecting at-large teams.
Quote from: The Sultan on April 29, 2026, 02:00:03 PMBecause beating the teams you play, without any indication of the quality of those teams, makes no sense to me. Teams should not be punished for being in stronger conferences. Nor should teams benefit from being in weaker ones.
You end up judging teams on different standards, which has never really been done when it comes to selecting at-large teams.
The power conference teams get the benefits/money/exposure of being in a stronger conference and lots of opportunities to beat really good teams, which they didn't.
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 29, 2026, 02:12:03 PMThe power conference teams get the benefits/money/exposure of being in a stronger conference and lots of opportunities to beat really good teams, which they didn't.
But they've always had that. Nothing has changed from that perspective.
The current environment certainly amplifies those differences, but power conference teams have always had a resource advantage.
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 29, 2026, 02:12:03 PMThe power conference teams get the benefits/money/exposure of being in a stronger conference and lots of opportunities to beat really good teams, which they didn't.
Except that sometimes these teams did beat really good teams. Last year you would've left out Arkansas, who went 8-10 in the SEC. They had 7 Q1 wins and 0 Q3/4 losses. They had a net of 35 and NET SOS of 23. They had 5 Q1A wins.
Meanwhile you'd be good with UNC making the NCAA Tournament despite having a Q1 record of 1-13 and having a Q3 loss because they were 13-7 in a different, much weaker conference.
It makes no sense at all.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 29, 2026, 02:30:56 PMExcept that sometimes these teams did beat really good teams. Last year you would've left out Arkansas, who went 8-10 in the SEC. They had 7 Q1 wins and 0 Q3/4 losses. They had a net of 35 and NET SOS of 23. They had 5 Q1A wins.
Meanwhile you'd be good with UNC making the NCAA Tournament despite having a Q1 record of 1-13 and having a Q3 loss because they were 13-7 in a different, much weaker conference.
It makes no sense at all.
Leave 'em out and feed the staff to the wolves.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 29, 2026, 01:41:33 PMThis is why they should be lowering the number of division 1 schools, not increasing the size of tournaments.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on April 29, 2026, 01:49:11 PMThis, it's getting time to do an FBS FCS style split for D1 Basketball.
I don't disagree....though I would be nervous about where exactly that split would occur.
Maybe the high majors are playing 5D chess right now. Expand the tournament, make everyone hate it, announce that they are kicking out the bottom 16 conferences, and bring back a 64 bid tournament to the cheers of all. You would lose 12 bids....but convert 16 autobids to at large bids, netting an additional 4 spots for high major teams.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on April 29, 2026, 02:53:22 PMI don't disagree....though I would be nervous about where exactly that split would occur.
Maybe the high majors are playing 5D chess right now. Expand the tournament, make everyone hate it, announce that they are kicking out the bottom 16 conferences, and bring back a 64 bid tournament to the cheers of all. You would lose 12 bids....but convert 16 autobids to at large bids, netting an additional 4 spots for high major teams.
The SEC and Big 18 won't stop until all their teams are eligible for the tournament.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 29, 2026, 02:57:46 PMThe SEC and Big 18 won't stop until all their teams are eligible for the tournament.
One of my bigger "fears" is that at some point the B1G, SEC, and B12 cannibalize the top of the ACC and BEast, get to a combined 64 teams, set up a new league, and declare that everyone in their league qualifies for March Madness and the regular season is just for seeding.
I sincerely doubt it will happen, but it would suck. Unless of course we're included in which case I welcome our new P3 overlords!
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on April 29, 2026, 09:37:24 AMFair, but I was thinking of the teams from what Bill Walton once called "Truckstop conferences" that fill up the 68 team limit by simply winning their conference championships, leaving no room for better teams from the P5.
Interesting that both Bill and his beloved Pac12 are dead. I guess the Pac12 is still technically alive, but it is going to be populated by schools that Bill once referred to derisively.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on April 29, 2026, 04:14:36 PMInteresting that both Bill and his beloved Pac12 are dead. I guess the Pac12 is still technically alive, but it is going to be populated by schools that Bill once referred to derisively.
Yeah, his "the Conference of Champions" chant for the Pac 12 got old really quick. When he stuck with talking about bball, he was interesting, but some of his wacky side stories were entertaining. I remember during covid Bilas and another announcer were stationed way up in the stands in one arena and Bilas said "we're higher than Bill Walton ever was".
I never thought I would see the day that the Pac 12 would be gobbled up and hope that I never see the Big East meet the same fate.
Pac-12 = Truckstop conference
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on April 29, 2026, 03:04:00 PMOne of my bigger "fears" is that at some point the B1G, SEC, and B12 cannibalize the top of the ACC and BEast, get to a combined 64 teams, set up a new league, and declare that everyone in their league qualifies for March Madness and the regular season is just for seeding.
I sincerely doubt it will happen, but it would suck. Unless of course we're included in which case I welcome our new P3 overlords!
The ultimate goal is to squeeze the small conferences out. The Big 18, SEC and to a lesser extent the Big XIIIIII and ACC don't want the other kids in their sandbox. It kills the Big 18 and SEC to have to share dollars the tournament makes them with the smaller leagues. It kills them.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 29, 2026, 02:30:56 PMExcept that sometimes these teams did beat really good teams. Last year you would've left out Arkansas, who went 8-10 in the SEC. They had 7 Q1 wins and 0 Q3/4 losses. They had a net of 35 and NET SOS of 23. They had 5 Q1A wins.
Meanwhile you'd be good with UNC making the NCAA Tournament despite having a Q1 record of 1-13 and having a Q3 loss because they were 13-7 in a different, much weaker conference.
It makes no sense at all.
Don't be in a 16-team conference with 10 teams better than you.
Expanded tournament fields feed the mega conferences. At the very least beat half of your schedule in one.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 29, 2026, 05:50:42 PMThe ultimate goal is to squeeze the small conferences out. The Big 18, SEC and to a lesser extent the Big XIIIIII and ACC don't want the other kids in their sandbox. It kills the Big 18 and SEC to have to share dollars the tournament makes them with the smaller leagues. It kills them.
Exactly, they will get tons of bids without putting sub .500 teams in the tournament.
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 29, 2026, 06:13:34 PMDon't be in a 16-team conference with 10 teams better than you.
Expanded tournament fields feed the mega conferences. At the very least beat half of your schedule in one.
Again that's just punishing teams for being in a good conference. No thanks.
Quote from: MU82 link=msg=1811579 :-\ date=1777499411Pac-12 = Truckstop conference
Go big with that and get Buc-ees as the corporate sponsor.
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 29, 2026, 06:13:34 PMDon't be in a 16-team conference with 10 teams better than you.
Expanded tournament fields feed the mega conferences. At the very least beat half of your schedule in one.
Even if folks here agreed with you, making a .500+ conference record a condition of receiving an NCAAT bid is never ever ever gonna happen.
You might as well propose that only teams with 4.0 cumulative GPAs be allowed in the NCAAT. That's equally likely to happen.
Quote from: MU82 on April 29, 2026, 09:37:31 PMEven if folks here agreed with you, making a .500+ conference record a condition of receiving an NCAAT bid is never ever ever gonna happen.
You might as well propose that only teams with 4.0 cumulative GPAs be allowed in the NCAAT. That's equally likely to happen.
I did say in my original post that my rule was arbitrary.
College football has a general guide (violated from time to time) of .500 or better for a bowl game.
It adds a basic eye-test standard of performance in face of over-reliance of metrics. Metrics are boring and tedious.
And it was a topic where the board wasn't trashing on an individual.
The biggest problem is that when the P4 say they aren't getting enough money from the NCAA Tournament, they're right.
In 2015, the NCAA & NBA TV revenue was about equal, and had been since the early 1970s. Emmert negotiated an 8-year status quo contrast that didn't meaningfully increase the value of NCAA units. But while the NCAA value remained flat, the NBA nearly tripled their contract value in 2016.
Over the years, as streaming came to dominate and moments no longer captured the cultural zeitgeist like The Sopranos fading to black, the Red Wedding, and Breaking Bad's Ozymandias had just a few years before, Live sports remained the one spectator event that would still bring mass audiences for appointment television. So what did the NCAA do? Voluntarily extend their 2016-2024 contract another 8 years to 2032 while the NBA doubled revenue again.
No one is getting fair market value for NCAA performance. Not the high majors, not the low majors, not admitting stuck in between. And the NCAA still has to fund the bulk of their non-revenue sports using NCAAT dollars.
This is why the breakaway tournament is a real threat. The P4 could negotiate a deal worth 3-5 times as much as the current NCAA deal in their sleep but instead of having to share it with low majors & non-revenue sports, could pocket the vast majority themselves. Probably do so while following the NCAA women's model of having protected seeds host, allowing them to further protect revenues by putting ticket sales in their own pockets.
Expansion is the only hope of keeping the P4 around long enough to negotiate a new deal that hopefully increases the NCAAT contract value by 5-10 times in 2032.
I truly don't think fans and media recognize how existential the need for expansion and added revenue paths are.
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 30, 2026, 06:16:18 AMI did say in my original post that my rule was arbitrary.
College football has a general guide (violated from time to time) of .500 or better for a bowl game.
It adds a basic eye-test standard of performance in face of over-reliance of metrics. Metrics are boring and tedious.
And it was a topic where the board wasn't trashing on an individual.
You're overstating the football rules. A path for sub .500 teams is clear in the rules and happens all the time, not 'violated time to time').
Moreover, it looks at a BIZARRE metric -- APR to select teams from the ranks of the losers.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 30, 2026, 06:40:53 AMThe biggest problem is that when the P4 say they aren't getting enough money from the NCAA Tournament, they're right.
In 2015, the NCAA & NBA TV revenue was about equal, and had been since the early 1970s. Emmert negotiated an 8-year status quo contrast that didn't meaningfully increase the value of NCAA units. But while the NCAA value remained flat, the NBA nearly tripled their contract value in 2016.
Over the years, as streaming came to dominate and moments no longer captured the cultural zeitgeist like The Sopranos fading to black, the Red Wedding, and Breaking Bad's Ozymandias had just a few years before, Live sports remained the one spectator event that would still bring mass audiences for appointment television. So what did the NCAA do? Voluntarily extend their 2016-2024 contract another 8 years to 2032 while the NBA doubled revenue again.
No one is getting fair market value for NCAA performance. Not the high majors, not the low majors, not admitting stuck in between. And the NCAA still has to fund the bulk of their non-revenue sports using NCAAT dollars.
This is why the breakaway tournament is a real threat. The P4 could negotiate a deal worth 3-5 times as much as the current NCAA deal in their sleep but instead of having to share it with low majors & non-revenue sports, could pocket the vast majority themselves. Probably do so while following the NCAA women's model of having protected seeds host, allowing them to further protect revenues by putting ticket sales in their own pockets.
Expansion is the only hope of keeping the P4 around long enough to negotiate a new deal that hopefully increases the NCAAT contract value by 5-10 times in 2032.
I truly don't think fans and media recognize how existential the need for expansion and added revenue paths are.
Brother, that ship has sailed
Quote from: Jay Bee on April 30, 2026, 06:46:30 AMYou're overstating the football rules. A path for sub .500 teams is clear in the rules and happens all the time, not 'violated time to time').
Moreover, it looks at a BIZARRE metric -- APR to select teams from the ranks of the losers.
And the football bowl landscape is just vibrant and enriched by that rule.
Brew's post is very interesting and I did not know that side of the story.
The So-called Opening Round should be called the Children's Bracket — just like the kid's table at grandma's house at Thanksgiving. The 7-13 P4 conferences record teams should play there and kept away from the adults. They are like that middle cousin who can sit at the adult table if an older cousin doesn't show up, otherwise they are hanging with cousin Timmy eating mashed potatoes like Ralphie in the Christmas Story.
Broke "nonprofit" scummy organization
Quote from: jfp61 on April 30, 2026, 11:21:15 AMBroke "nonprofit" scummy organization
Who are its members?
Quote from: Uncle Rico on April 29, 2026, 05:50:42 PMThe ultimate goal is to squeeze the small conferences out. The Big 18, SEC and to a lesser extent the Big XIIIIII and ACC don't want the other kids in their sandbox. It kills the Big 18 and SEC to have to share dollars the tournament makes them with the smaller leagues. It kills them.
Just like life. Those with money make the rules. The rules aren't there to help everyone - they are there to further the aims of the rich. In reality, they destroy life and destroy the college basketball landscape.
The goal is to eliminate cinderellas so that the money funnels only to the large conferences. Same purpose as NIL. The big boys have decided that Mid-Majors should be a minor league that supplies players to the rich. As a result, cinderellas will no longer exist.
Gosh, I would love to go back to the time when money didn't matter in college sports.
When was that exactly?
Quote from: The Sultan on April 30, 2026, 12:07:04 PMGosh, I would love to go back to the time when money didn't matter in college sports.
When was that exactly?
Back when the likes of "Dynamic" Dukes Duford and "Quick" Dick Quinn were our captain & leading scorer (old time nicknames are my own embellishment)
Quote from: The Sultan on April 30, 2026, 11:31:22 AMWho are its members?
Gross people who are willing to spend time in Indiana
Quote from: jfp61 on April 30, 2026, 12:18:26 PMGross people who are willing to spend time in Indiana
No. Those are its employees.
Who are its members?
Quote from: Jockey on April 30, 2026, 12:05:58 PMJust like life. Those with money make the rules. The rules aren't there to help everyone - they are there to further the aims of the rich. In reality, they destroy life and destroy the college basketball landscape.
The goal is to eliminate cinderellas so that the money funnels only to the large conferences. Same purpose as NIL. The big boys have decided that Mid-Majors should be a minor league that supplies players to the rich. As a result, cinderellas will no longer exist.
Sultan is right, money has always ruled college sports. Always been haves and have nots.
Difference now, haves are really flexing their muscles without much fear of backlash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B83KCWSRY8
Interesting discussion that talks about tournament expansion.
Norlander explains (starting at 5:24) it's happening because the NCAA is strapped for cash after all the lawsuits and settlements, with the men's tournament being the only thing keeping the organization solvent. By the way he frames it, the financial move here is less so about greed and more so about desperation from the NCAA.
I don't know if the NCAA is at any real risk of becoming insolvent anytime soon, but while I didn't love the idea of expansion being purely a cash grab at first, I'm all for it if it means keeping the ship afloat and preventing the possibility of the B1G and SEC taking over.