Expanding the field to 72 or 80 teams

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

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

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


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

[Harrison]

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

[Final Four or Bust]

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

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

[mu_hilltopper]

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

Not so much.

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

[NavinRJohnson]

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

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

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

[caltruda]

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

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

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

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

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

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

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

[CWSKeith]

Syracuse was 10-6 in one of the major conferences in the country.  That alone should be sufficient. 

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

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

[augoman]

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

[Eye]

Chicos,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

But Eye, remember the NCAA is against gambling.




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

[StillAWarrior]

When you get to 72 teams (and certainly by 80) then there is no more room to gripe.  Each year there are 6 to 10 teams that have legitimate gripes so why not fix it.

I don't think I'd like to see the field expanded, but I'm not deadset against it either.  But, if you think expanding the field will stop the griping, you're absolutely kidding yourself.  It will just change the teams that are griping each year.  Down here, people are griping that Akron didn't get an NIT bid.  Where ever the line is drawn, there will be teams on the wrong side of the line.  Those teams and their fans will gripe.  Guaranteed.

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

[MilTown]

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

[Sweenz]

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

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

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

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

[Wade for President]

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

[IAmMarquette]

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

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I like the field in its current format.

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

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

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

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

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

[Final Four or Bust]

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

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

[mu_hilltopper]

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

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

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

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

CONFERENCE TOURNAMENTS ARE THE EXPANDED NCAA TOURNAMENT.

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

I like the field in its current format.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Harrison]

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


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

[ZiggysFryBoy]

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


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

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