[Cracked Sidewalks] NCAA exploring the expansion of bids to NCAA tournament

[muwarrior69]

What makes those schools or any school mediocre? What makes college BB so superior to college football is that every D1 school has a shot at becoming National Champions, which is determined by PLAYING THE GAMES on the court, not some coaches' or sports writer's poll telling us who the best two teams are; and if a Rider or Monmoth College or any school should win six or seven Tournament games in a row they are the best team in the country and deserve the title of National Champion. If not, why have a tournament? I think expanding the tournament to 96 or 128 would be a good thing.

[asdfasdf]

Crazy idea - why put a limit on the number of teams invited to the tournament at all? why not just focus on giving at large bids to schools that are good enough to realistically add something to the NCAA tournament?  The number of teams invited would probably exceed the current limit of 65, but I doubt it would reach into the 80s or 90s. Some years there would be more, some years there would be less, but you wouldn't have quality teams (like Creighton last year) left out, and the committee wouldn't have to fill the final 5-10 (if the tournament did expand) slots with teams that don't really deserve to be there.

[CTWarrior]

What makes those schools or any school mediocre? What makes college BB so superior to college football is that every D1 school has a shot at becoming National Champions, which is determined by PLAYING THE GAMES on the court, not some coaches' or sports writer's poll telling us who the best two teams are; and if a Rider or Monmoth College or any school should win six or seven Tournament games in a row they are the best team in the country and deserve the title of National Champion. If not, why have a tournament? I think expanding the tournament to 96 or 128 would be a good thing.

Basically every college basketball team already has two chances to make the NCAA tournament.  First, by their accomplishments during the regular season and second, by winning their conference tournament.  In the current NCAA basketball system, any team with so much as a glimmer of hope of winning the tournament is in the tournament.  Why do we need more?

In football, have a big injury early and lose two games in September and your championship shot is gone, regardless of the rest of your season.

If you're going to expand the tournament that much, what's the point of the regular season?

[Nukem2]

Agreed.  Duke's coach K. says much the same.  As he says, if the NCAAs were expanded to 96 or more, the conference tourneys should be ended.  But, in the end, this will all come down to $$$$$$$$$$ rather than any common sense.

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

Comparisons with the bowls are spot on, at least in terms of BCS control.

37 of 65 teams were from BCS conferences in the 2009 NCAA Tournament.
45 of 68 Bowl teams were from BCS conferences in the 2009-10 Bowl Season (Assuming an Army loss against Navy).

Expanding the Tournament would be the basketball equivalent of the Yankee Bowl (starting next year pitting the 4th place team from the Big East against the 7th best team in the Big 12), and like the Yankee Bowl would be nothing more than a naked money grab for the biggest schools.

Does anyone really honestly believe that these extra spots will be taken up by Tennessee-Martin (2009 OVC Regular Season champs), Jacksonville (2009 Atlantic Sun regular season champs), Weber State (2009 Big Sky regular season champs), or Bowling Green (2009 MAC regular season champs)?

Or are they just going to go to the team that finishes 7-11 in the Big Ten? or 8-10 in the Big East? Come on. That's an easy call for the NCAA money-changers.

[LAZER]

I think a huge issue here is that there are 340+ teams in D1 basketball.  That is wayyyy too much stratification.  140 of those should be put into an entirely different division.  Secondly, I feel the 96th best team in the country(or whereever that team may fall) just simply doesn't deserve to play for a championship.  They have an entire season and a conference tourney to prove it.  I agree it is practically ineveitable, but it's going to ruin the best sporting event and it's going to hurt the later rounds of the tourney, much like the already overloaded bowl season does.  I wish they would focus on a BCS playoff instead, but the money must not be there.

[GGGG]

These same arguments were made when they expanded in the past, and the tournament is fine.

I believe the comparison to the bowl games is way off base. 

There are 34 bowl games for FBS schools which means 68 teams go to bowl games....there are only 120 FBS schools, so more than HALF go to a bowl game.

MORE THAN HALF.  That is ridiculous.

Why?  People want to stage bowls...fans want to watch their team play....let them play.  It does no harm.

[Big Papi]

Yuck.  Keep it as is.  Everyone has a chance of making the dance by winning their conference tourny.  That is why I love the setup right now.  You start adding more teams and games between November and February become meaningless.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

So we have to add these mediocre teams and 24 more?  The 72 example would include adding a group like this which is bad enough.  Baylor went 5-11 in their conference.  Penn State's out of conference schedule had 0 anywhere near quality wins, 2 losses, and they finished 10-8 in a conference where they won a game 38-33 and lost to Iowa.  Team like these, that can't even go .500 against respectable, much less good opponents, don't deserve the excitement or the gratification of the NCAA tournament if making the tournament is going to continue to be any sort of accomplishment.    

Comparing all bowl games to the NCAA tournament isn't apples to apples either.  With the total postseason play 129 teams get to play in the postseason.  Plus there's a conference tournament for everyone except the Ivy League instead of a single championship game for less than half of the conferences.

It comes down to the old argument of playing in a tougher conference vs a weaker conference.  Would Baylor have won or finished second in the WCC vs the Big 12?  How would Gonzaga do in the Big East?  Etc, etc. Just because a team finishes 8th in a conference (say the Big East or Big Ten) doesn't make them a mediocre team if that conference is absolutely loaded. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

No.  MU might have to play UWGB or UWM.

[MUSF]

These same arguments were made when they expanded in the past, and the tournament is fine.

It's more than fine now.  That is the point.  The current format is ideal, IMO.  I don't know how you could improve on the most exciting and watchable four days in American sports.

I understand that this will probably happen due to $$$, but I wouldn't be surprised if expansion eventually waters the product down to the point that the cash benefit deteriorates.  Will conference tourneys be as exciting?  What about the end of the conference seasons?  How exciting is conference play in the Big Ten if basically every team except IU makes the tourney?  

They better proceed with caution here and consider diminishing returns as well as the second and third order effects. As I said before...

DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!!

[77champs]

I think the issues is there are so many poor teams from the weak conferences and yet some bubble teams from the large conferences could clean their clock.   I think if you add the 12 teams that are next in line and then play the weaker conference teams against each other early, you have an exciting tournament.   They are not going to knock off first seeds, but good teams with little size playing against each other is entertaining and then let the normal top teams play on the normal weeks with the winners of the earlier rounds in their normal seeding positions.   That does create some excitement and good basketball.   Makes it harder for the committee to do the seedings but that might be fun too.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have to disagree with you here.  Your comparison is totally irrelevant.  The NCAA basketball tournament is the national championship tournament.  In CFB, the BCS championship game is the NCAA championship tournament and only 2 teams make the tournament (1.7% of all teams if 120 is correct).  The balance of the bowls are a bunch of NITs with better publicity.

Your argument supports expanding the NIT, not the NCAA tournament.

Of those teams you mentioned who nearly missed out, any one of them might have won a game or two, but none of them would have won the tournament if you played it 1,000 times or 100,000 times, so it serves no purpose other than money to invite them.

I didn't bring up the bowl game comparison, someone else did.... I simply showed the comparison of the two is not appropriate.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think a huge issue here is that there are 340+ teams in D1 basketball.  That is wayyyy too much stratification.  140 of those should be put into an entirely different division.  Secondly, I feel the 96th best team in the country(or whereever that team may fall) just simply doesn't deserve to play for a championship.  They have an entire season and a conference tourney to prove it.  I agree it is practically ineveitable, but it's going to ruin the best sporting event and it's going to hurt the later rounds of the tourney, much like the already overloaded bowl season does.  I wish they would focus on a BCS playoff instead, but the money must not be there.

Yes, but the problem is that it isn't the 96th best team in the country being left out, it's sometimes the 28th best team in the country.  At least according to the ratings.  Look at some of the programs that were left out in the last 6 years ranked in the top 40 but didn't go because 7 guys in a room said no.  Or maybe 4 guys in the room said no and 3 guys said yes, but lost by 1 vote.

It's going to happen fellas.  I'm sure there will be screams, etc.  My guess is that it happens, people will love it, it's an extra week of upsets since the best part of the tournament is the first two rounds anyway....this adds another "upset" potential  round.

The bowl games suck because you have 6-6 teams going that didn't beat anyone but travel well.  The expanded NCAA tournament is going to put 20+ win teams into the field that have major, marquee wins and can knock off anyone.

[MUSF]

Yes, but the problem is that it isn't the 96th best team in the country being left out, it's sometimes the 28th best team in the country.  At least according to the ratings.  Look at some of the programs that were left out in the last 6 years ranked in the top 40 but didn't go because 7 guys in a room said no.  Or maybe 4 guys in the room said no and 3 guys said yes, but lost by 1 vote.

It's going to happen fellas.  I'm sure there will be screams, etc.  My guess is that it happens, people will love it, it's an extra week of upsets since the best part of the tournament is the first two rounds anyway....this adds another "upset" potential  round.

The bowl games suck because you have 6-6 teams going that didn't beat anyone but travel well.  The expanded NCAA tournament is going to put 20+ win teams into the field that have major, marquee wins and can knock off anyone.

Does that "28th ranked" team have a chance in hell of winning the tournament?  If no, then who cares?  The only people a team has to blame for not making the tourney is themselves.  The elite teams aren't being left out, conference champs aren't being left out.  So really, who cares?  Let the Coastal Carolinas of the world have their moment and forget about the under achieving bubble teams who haven't managed to turn their talent into wins.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Does that "28th ranked" team have a chance in hell of winning the tournament?  If no, then who cares?  The only people a team has to blame for not making the tourney is themselves.  The elite teams aren't being left out, conference champs aren't being left out.  So really, who cares?  Let the Coastal Carolinas of the world have their moment and forget about the under achieving bubble teams who haven't managed to turn their talent into wins.

Well using that logic, we should only invite the top 8 teams to the tournament.  Did Marquette have a chance to win the tournament last year?  Of course not.  Did UCLA?  No.  Wisconsin?  No.  Why bother inviting us then?  Did George Mason a few years ago....No....wait....they made the Final Four and damn near had a shot.  We don't know what we don't know if they don't get in.

32 years ago when Marquette was the last team in, were we supposed to win the tournament?  Hell, many experts argued we shouldn't even have been invited but we were gifted in out of respect for Al's last year.

It will happen, at some point it will happen and people will bitch and then everything will be fine and people will forgot what the bitched about.

[MUSF]

Well using that logic, we should only invite the top 8 teams to the tournament.  Did Marquette have a chance to win the tournament last year?  Of course not.  Did UCLA?  No.  Wisconsin?  No.  Why bother inviting us then?  Did George Mason a few years ago....No....wait....they made the Final Four and damn near had a shot.  We don't know what we don't know if they don't get in.

32 years ago when Marquette was the last team in, were we supposed to win the tournament?  Hell, many experts argued we shouldn't even have been invited but we were gifted in out of respect for Al's last year.

It will happen, at some point it will happen and people will bitch and then everything will be fine and people will forgot what the bitched about.

No, you're missing the point.


In any given year, there are about 16-20 teams with a legitimate shot to win the title, and that is being generous.  So, my point is, why get worked up if the last few bids go to the 28th best team in the country or the 70th best team in in the country.  They both have an equal shot of winning the title... ZERO.  I would rather see the George Masons of the CBB world make their run than see a major conference bubble team get in.

Here's what you are really missing.  The major conference teams got their shot during the season.  They played the top teams and didn't make the cut.  The MAAC champ earns their one shot by winning their conference.

As I said before, I think they have the right mixture right now and I would rather see them stick with it.  I get it.  This will probably happen, as you like to point out in every post, but I think that the product will suffer for no benefit to the fan.  It is unfortunate.

[MUEng92]

Hold on a minute.  Today's paper said they are also discussing moving the tournament to cable TV.  I am sorry if this was mentioned earlier, but this changes the whole issue for me.  As an over-the-air viewer this would force me to consider swearing a curse on the heads of the committee members.  College bball is pretty much the only sport that I can watch games that don't involve my team from beginning to end.  I will watch any game in any sport but my interest will fade in and out. 

Not cool!

[muwarrior69]

I would'nt worry. I am sure a local OTA station would be able to pick up the games for a local school. Having said that I would have missed every MU game in the tournament except the final 4 game in 2003 if I only watched on a OTA station, since I live in New Jersey and not Milwaukee. Thank God for March madness on DirecTV, the only sports pak worth paying for.

[GGGG]

Hold on a minute.  Today's paper said they are also discussing moving the tournament to cable TV.  I am sorry if this was mentioned earlier, but this changes the whole issue for me.  As an over-the-air viewer this would force me to consider swearing a curse on the heads of the committee members.  College bball is pretty much the only sport that I can watch games that don't involve my team from beginning to end.  I will watch any game in any sport but my interest will fade in and out. 

Not cool!

You don't have cable television?  How quaint.

[MUEng92]

How quaint.

That's a nicer response than I usually get around here when I mention I don't have cable.  Typically, cheapskate, idiot, etc.

[RawdogDX]

I say 68 or 72.  Either every 1/16 match up has a play in game.  I think this wouldn't negativly effect anything.

or 8 play in games for every 1 and 2 seed match up.  More than that and you have too much crap playing in march.

[GGGG]

That's a nicer response than I usually get around here when I mention I don't have cable.  Typically, cheapskate, idiot, etc.

My grandmother doesn't have cable either.  She's 90 and very sweet.

[MUEng92]

Wow, you just leapfrogged "cheapskate" and went mean on me.  Ouch

If it makes you feel better, my 76 year old Mom does have cable.

[GGGG]

Wow, you just leapfrogged "cheapskate" and went mean on me.  Ouch

Hey...I compared you to my grandmother!  Is there something wrong with that????