Expanding the Tournament

I know the hot topic right now is the Beasley/KSU thing…but honestly…I’m a little worn out on it.

Just wanted to get your opinions on the move to expand the tourney by 6 more teams. This would give 4 play in games to play the number 16 team.

I’ll admit…When they first started the play in game…I hated it…but now I really think we are not that far from seeing a 16 beat a 1.

I say…If it ain’t broke…don’t fix it…but am I a minority?

There are enough teams already, but then again, what are 3 more now that we’re this far? Shoot, why don’t we make the whole season a tournament with scheduling randomly generated by computer?:huh:

Let do a play-in game for the play-in game for the play-in game for the…

i honestly dont think it would be a bad idea to have 4 play in games. The only thing is i wish they would do the play ins on wednesday and then let the 1s all play on friday because i hate having the games start like 2 days after the selection show. Regardless i dont think adding 6 teams would hurt but then you have to cap it at that before you get too carried away.

I just wish conference champs weren’t in the play in games.

That’s not fair to those kids.

[QUOTE=Powerbait;165944]I just wish conference champs weren’t in the play in games.

That’s not fair to those kids.[/QUOTE]
Ahh, expand the tournament-- I didn’t see that coming. It’s plain to see that they’re trying to relegate more teams to #17 seeds in order to make room for the Cincinattis and Marylands that get left out of the tournament. And you know they wouldn’t put Cinci in a play-in game. I agree, that would suck for the champions of the small conferences-- yet another championship game to play, for the right to get beat down by a #1 seed.

The tournament must not expand! That is what the NIT is for.

People argue this year that the NCAA tournament may not be the best way to select a champion because Duke and UConn are not in the final four.

How would those people feel if Cinci made the tournament and suddenly got hot and knocked off a top seed.

But even more problematic, it removes the chance for small conference teams because more big conference schools with the high RPIs will be making the tournament thus lowering the chances for a double digit team in the Sweet 16

I say....If it ain't broke...don't fix it

Quoted for truth.

65 Teams is plenty big for deciding a champion. Who really thinks that some ninth place team in a ‘big’ conference is being unfairly denied a shot at the national title?

KSU fans…

(not intended for you “KSU Wildcats” - you’re ok)

[QUOTE=HappyCamper49;165953]People argue this year that the NCAA tournament may not be the best way to select a champion because Duke and UConn are not in the final four. [/QUOTE]

F*** those people. I guess they would like to have this decided by a popularity poll instead of actual games. Then the dooks and u-cons would “win” every year. Elitist bastards!

The coaches try to site GMU as a reason to expand, but everyone knows extra picks would have went to big conference teams like FSU, Maryland, & Cincy, not small conference teams like Missouri St. & Hofstra.

There used to be 4 play in games back in the late 80’s.It only lasted a few years.The bottom eight conference tourney winners played on a tuesday night with the four winners advancing to the field of 64.

Either way, it won’t affect anything. No team in a play-in game will do anything in the tournament, so it won’t hurt anything, but it won’t really help anything either.

[QUOTE=Submarley734;166016]Either way, it won’t affect anything. No team in a play-in game will do anything in the tournament, so it won’t hurt anything, but it won’t really help anything either.[/QUOTE]

It could help us. Doesn’t more teams = more at large invitations? And wouldn’t more at large invitations mean we’d be more likely to get in?

**** it. Invite everyone!

Expanding by 3 more slots is going to happen, it’s just a question of when the big conferences break up.

Once you have the break up of the Big East into two separate leagues, that adds another automatic bid (remember, the play-in was the results of them adding auto bids a few years back).

They are not going to sacrifice an at-large bid spot next time there are more auto bids added; instead they will actually [B]add[/B] at-large spots by doing what is stated above, going to four play-in games. Two Wednesday, to play Friday’s #1’s, and Two Thursday, to play Saturday’s #1’s.

It only makes sense. The more leagues you have, the more chance of upsets. Obviously when people like Xavier are winning 1-bid league tournaments, the committee and the potential at-large schools want to find a way to get around that. :grin:

[QUOTE=Submarley734;166016]Either way, it won’t affect anything. No team in a play-in game will do anything in the tournament, so it won’t hurt anything, but it won’t really help anything either.[/QUOTE]

it could. say they invite a few more teams. and say those teams are probably from what packer refers to as the “major” conferences. and say they do not give those teams anything worse than an 11 seed even though they were the last teams in.

Another thing to consider:

The TV revenue generated by the Tournament is redistributed to the conferences based upon the success and # of conference members in the Tournament.

If additional at-large bids go to big-money teams, the bigger conferences get a larger share of the pie. That won’t effect those teams all that much. More importantly, it would reduce the share of the pie of mid-major conferences. That would be devastating to the athletic budgets of their members.

Just to repeat, the NCAA Tournament is supposed to be about 64 (or 65) potential national champions fighting it out. If some team goes 7-9 or 6-10 in their conference, they should not be in the mix.