NCAA tournament may expand
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
Getting the tournament means you have to get big wins except we give golden tickets to Akron (best win: Bradley), High Point (best win: UNC Greensboro), Charleston (best win: St.Joe's), Eastern Washington (best win: Weber State), etc.
Match them up with a "dreck" bubble team and let them earn their way by actually beating someone.
Match them up with a "dreck" bubble team and let them earn their way by actually beating someone.
The funny thing is that what everyone loves about the tournament are the cinderella runs. It all makes little sense. Agreed it would be way better if we had a few better mid majors in rather than P5 also rans
some years are better than others. I mean last year we can say RU got screwed based on body of work but in all honesty RU in that incarnation without Mag was not a ncaa tourney team. People forget how bad those games vs Northwestern and Michigan were at the rac...those were the RU chances to make a statement...also the games RU did win at Wisc/PSU were not exactly the type of confidence building wins the way they happened.
Nevada likely did not deserve to go last year. Just like Wyoming didnt deserve the previous years. I would say its generally 66-68. I dont think there are that many raw deals every year..maybe 1 or so.
I dont think any of the 8 currently out of the field today can really say oooh i deserve to be in.
because the cinderalla aspect of the tourney exists. Akron might have a better shot at a 3 seed than playing a bloated out of conference school.
I bet RU would have beat St Peters a couple years back in the first round.
i think eventually with all the consolidation of the power 6..soon to be power 5, that we will have a breakoff. Money talks and despite the enormous popularity of the ncaa tourney and cinderalla runs, if more money can be made holding a different kind of tourney, people will eventually accept what they are offered
just like we know get piped in music over the band, things change, games are now on peacock not btn, we pay players hundreds of thousand to play a college sport, if you do not like it find something else to watch
There will still be Cinderellas! St. Peter's beat Kentucky, Murray State, and Purdue. All we'd be asking them to do now is to beat Eastern Kentucky first.
VCU was a Cinderella but they were one of the last four at-larges their year. One of the so-called dreck.
am i missing something but you are adding 8 schools which are the drek...there are 68 now so why call VCU drek they are in the 68....to me yes there is a difference between Oklahoma right now and Memphis
plus you know full well your scenario of mid majors isnt why they are doing this
Right, so the 12 and the 13 and spilling onto the 14 lines would be the next eight out. That just means more play-in games between tiny conference tournament champions. Cinderellas like VCU would be unaffected (they were in the field already). George Mason, unaffected. FAU, unaffected up on the 9 line.
What am I missing?
i dont think that is how it would be done... 2 games added to the 16 seed play ins, 2 games added to the 11 seed play ins.
likely 8 seeds all playing each other.......then we have 8 11 seeds playing each other
still adding 8 schools at large so maybe that line is actually going to be 12 seed play ins rather than 11
Dayton hosts 4 games on Tuesday
Vegas hosts 4 games on Wednesday.
They wouldn’t. But the change itself probably wouldn’t be as bad as your describing.
Think about it - let’s say they bump it to 76 teams - for simplicity 8 new at large teams (they might make all 16 seeds play in too though) - every one of those teams is in a play in game. 4 of their opponents are the current first four 4 teams. The other four are the last 4 byes. All 16 teams playing in these games were bubble teams. A few would’ve been “safer” in the field - I’d be okay with canning Dayton and giving the better seed a home game to be fair. In the end the main bracket of 64 doesn’t really change.
because the 8 schools being added are Colorado, Providence, Texas A&M, Utah, Pittsburgh, Memphis, Iowa, and Wake Forest...they will go on the 12 line as play in games
the 15 seeds move to the 16 line to play play in games
who says they are abandoning 16 seed playin games...do you think the power 6 wants 16 of their schools playing each other
If the Tournament was expanded to 72 last year, that means the "First 4 Out" (OK St, Rutgers, UNC, Clemson) would have been in. I'm not sure those schools were drek, and certainly based on your bracketology last season, you thought some were less drek than schools that were in the bracket.
I don't really have an objection to expanding the bracket. I am concerned about the slippery slope. Going from 64 to 65 to 68 might be OK. Even going to 72 or 76 might be OK. But where do you stop? 88? 96? 144?
North Carolina, Ok St, and Clemson did not deserve to go in any reality...I believe OK St wa 18-15 and UNC may have had zero or 1 Q1 win. Clemson had a dreadful resume. Eye test monday morning qb would say RU didnt really deserve a bid....flip with Nevada if you want, thats the only one i got wrong and Nevada had another weak resume. Pitt had a very marginal resumeIf the Tournament was expanded to 72 last year, that means the "First 4 Out" (OK St, Rutgers, UNC, Clemson) would have been in. I'm not sure those schools were drek, and certainly based on your bracketology last season, you thought some were less drek than schools that were in the bracket.
I don't really have an objection to expanding the bracket. I am concerned about the slippery slope. Going from 64 to 65 to 68 might be OK. Even going to 72 or 76 might be OK. But where do you stop? 88? 96? 144?
just bringing this pic up doesnt mean much if you dont also bring up their team sheets
Soon there won’t be an ncaa tourney anyway. Really what purpose do they serve? NIL has made them irrelevant. Soon it will be pro, base salaries for the kids. CBA. That tv money should go to the schools to pay the athletes. Agree with bac it will all be money driven. That may just push the Cinderella’s out. But the p6 will drive the process.
If you start with how the bracket is now…you could just expand from 68 to 76 and mandate that the additional 8 teams be 4 matchup games each between one Power 6 and one “mid-major”, and that would decide who is drek and who is not and also be compelling. You would have highly-ranked-by-NET Power 6 drek playing against mid-majors who won their leagues but lost in their conference tournament for example.
Have those four winners enter the bracket at the bottom of the at-larges and then have them play another round against the other “weakest” at-larges to decide the 64 teams. Gotta play Tuesday and Wednesday if you’re gonna advance in through the mini-play-in tourney.
Have those four winners enter the bracket at the bottom of the at-larges and then have them play another round against the other “weakest” at-larges to decide the 64 teams. Gotta play Tuesday and Wednesday if you’re gonna advance in through the mini-play-in tourney.
Last edited:
I'm glad everyone understands that I was just reporting the item, not taking a side. I think I'm inclined to @bac2therac 's side. Even 68 is too many. (Heck, I thought 64 was too many!) But, to quote Bob Dylan, "money doesn't talk, it swears." The same forces that have led to expansion of the baseball and NFL playoffs are at work here. Live sports are the only programming that makes money, and so TV wants all the sports it can get.
Hopefully the powers that be understand that the casual fan loves it when teams like Western Kentucky upset the Big Boys in the early rounds.
This logic doesn't really follow.
Also 15 seeds are worse than any of the teams that would be added.
Worse according to math models.
The implied degree of accuracy of the NET rankings and other models is actually laughable (but I agree they should still exist).
But yes, the teams added would likely be better than the 15 seeds based on the models.
Every year teams with 25 or more wins lose their conference tournaments and some get left out while others don’t.
I mean they aren’t even close to at large levels. There’s little doubt that the 15 seeds would be significant underdogs to the last at-large teams on a neutral court.
They won’t abandon those. I think at most they would make all 16 seed games play in amongst autobids and I’d be okay with that. I personally think only those games should be Dayton games. There are several new D1 conferences since the tournament was formed. A couple extra I don’t have a problem with. I really don’t think they would make 15s play in.
Instead, you’d just have those 2-3 or so 15 loss teams you aren’t happy about being in the conversation possibly make the field playing a play in game against teams that would currently be in the first bye line. And that may not always even be the case. Would it really be so bad (hypothetically) if 19-10 Pitt got a crack on the road against 19-10 TCU (I’m picking from Lunardi’s last bye line and next 4 out lines).
If they are going to do this I really hope they make it make sense and actually make the bottom seeds play in the first round. Having at larges play into higher spots on the bracket is a bizarre but workable concept when there are only four of them, it becomes even stranger if there are more.
That would change the flavor of the tournament too much I think. It wouldn’t happen.
Why does the whole bracket need to be announced Sunday night? The Sunday night bracket “reveal” could just be seeds 1-8 placed in the actual bracket and 16 seed match ups for Dayton.
They could instead just reveal a list of 8 play in at large games and who gets the home games - all to be played Monday. Bottom half of the bracket revealed Tuesday or something like that. There are ways to make it work. All of them seem awkward because they are new. Once a change is made - you get used to it.
Ivys get hosed. Yale, Princeton and Cornell all deserve a shot. Two won’t.
Appalachian State and JMU both great years. Like to see both get a shot.
FAU and South Florida
Drake or ISU
OSU and Iowa
Washington State and Colorado
Providence, St John’s and SHU.
Rutgers last year. We were royally screwed and proved we could win without Mag.
If RU home loss to Michigan was so bad than later winning on neutral court over Michigan without Mag should have mattered. Committee did not look at whole body of work. Mag excuse doesn’t fly.
BAC is wrong on impressiveness of PSU wins. We were hosed and the 2nd win @ PSU was ridiculously undervalued.
We swept a tourney team.
PSU went on a great run last getting to B1G final losing to Purdue by 2.
PSU won 7 of 8 to get there. The one loss…. RU at home. Don’t let BAC tell you it wasn’t a big win.
OSU game. Ridiculous.
All teams capable of winning a game or two.
No dilution of product. With parity lots of decent teams get left out.
Don’t think it’s horrible at all.
Last edited:
I think the "Cinderella" aspect is overrated personally - I'd rather the best teams play each other.
Are we sure "Cinderella" isn't more a function of Seeding than "conference affiliation"?
If they did the seeding correctly and made the at large teams the lower 16 seeds:
Last year a #16 Rutgers upsetting a #1 Alabama isn't "magical"?
Just because we are in the Big Ten.
I would assume most people just see the # and don't actually consider the conference.
Was SDST a "Cinderella" as a #5 seed?
Are we sure "Cinderella" isn't more a function of Seeding than "conference affiliation"?
If they did the seeding correctly and made the at large teams the lower 16 seeds:
Last year a #16 Rutgers upsetting a #1 Alabama isn't "magical"?
Just because we are in the Big Ten.
I would assume most people just see the # and don't actually consider the conference.
Was SDST a "Cinderella" as a #5 seed?
Do all conferences play a round robin schedule?
Is there any reason they couldn't get of them and just award any AQ bids to the regular season champ of a conference?
Why should winning 4 games in March beat a season long resume of winning against conference peers?
Sorry but you're the expert so you get all questions.
Is there any reason they couldn't get of them and just award any AQ bids to the regular season champ of a conference?
Why should winning 4 games in March beat a season long resume of winning against conference peers?
Sorry but you're the expert so you get all questions.
That’s how it should be. Conference tourneys just TV and Money.
B1G playing tourney dead last doesn’t help any B1G team.
Haha I meant to tag @bac2therac as the postseason expert but deleted it.
I would assume all conferences play a full round robin regular season conference schedule but not certain about it.
I meant at least play everyone else once.
But good point.
Less conference games!
Play everyone once and determine a winner that way.
Or divisions with a "champion game" like CFB - not a whole tournament.
Come on Bac, calm down. They’re proposing 8 teams, not 80.
I’d rather see the team that may not have the best resume or some bad early losses but put it together down the stretch make it rather than get left out. Could you really tell the difference between teams 3-12 in the B1G last year.
Many don’t even think about the play in games.
Similar threads
