NCAA Tournament Expansion good idea???
by upstateNYYFan1984 on Mar 2, 2010 1:13 PM EST
Email
Print
The lead story on SI.com today is that the expansion of the NCAA to 96 teams looks certain. I for one think this is a terrible idea, it will just water down the tournament even more. I know this format would have given the 'Cuse a few more bids in the past, but this format would add more undeserving teams rather than saving decent bubble teams. I would be fine with a 68 team tournament, add a play-in game in each bracket. Then you could stick some of the really bad automatic qualifiers there, and add some better bubble teams. Also, you could eliminate some "bid stealers" by making automatic bids go to the regular season champs only. It appears to be more of a money grab than any concern for quality of March basketball. These are just my thoughts, feel free to chime in.
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Agreed
Why not just expand it to four play-in games? That opens things up for six more teams from the bubble.
Once you start getting into the 70’s and 80’s and even the 90’s, you’re talking about teams that don’t deserve it.
Troy Nunes Is An Absolute Magician - The Syracuse blog that cares.
by Sean Keeley on Mar 2, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You could say
the last 4 or 5 bubble teams getting in this year don’t deserve it. It’s going to get ugly with 96 teams. Coaches looking out for coaches. That’s all this is.
Imagine a world...
with ESPN and ABC as the broadcast partners of the NCAA tourney. The opening two days with 32 games on 4 differnet channels for 36 hours of awesomeness. ABC can carry the ‘local’ game and the ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU can carry all other games. I want to cry just thinking how beatiful a world that will be. Dinsey please make this happen. As far a expansion goes 68 makes sense to me, but I would still watch if it went to 96.
The Hoyas shuffled off with their twin cocktails of discontent - Dana O'neil 2/18/10
that's why the expansion is happening whether we like it or not
no matter how poor the quality of the first set of games, people will watch it anyway.
I think you're probably right
but i really think 96 teams takes something away from the tourney, especially the build-up. Say goodbye to any tough bubble discussion. Its going to amount to every team that is .500 in a major conference getting in, beating up on small conference tourney champions, and then those decent major teams getting beat by the elite teams. No more shocking upsets, and no more teams going on a run at the end of the season just to make it it.
Blame it on fans
For being stupid and getting coaches fired for not making the Big Dance. Boeheim wins a national championship in 2003 and people were pulling their hair out two years ago.
Steve Alford was run out of town. Looks like he learned how to be a good coach. New Mexico to the tourney, but not Iowa? So it goes.
People are just going to have to accept that, if 10% of teams get an at-large bid, going to the NIT is no longer a complete embarrassment.
That being said… I think that expansion is a huge mistake. What makes March great is not the basketball fans following it… but the casual fans and non-fans filling out brackets. When you are Marge from accounting can go head-to-head because she picked teams with purple uniforms. Try doing that with a 96-team bracket… there goes the mystique.
And we thought Seton Hall/Rutgers was intense
Get ready for some real games.
Just think of the crazy, intense, exciting, and entertaining games that everyone will be talking about!
Norfolk State vs Quinnipiac
Montana State vs Charleston Southern
How about Woffard vs Stephen F Austin?
Just think of everything that will be riding on these games! The chance to get brutally destroyed by the #1 seeds!
If Rutgers goes to the Big 10
The new intense rivalry will be Rutgers/Iowa. Look out UNC/Duke…
NO!
65 teams is more than enough. Even if bubble teams feel like they should have gotten in, there has never been a situation where people feel the champion was illegitimate because a qualified team was not allowed to play (ahem, BCS).
GO CUSE, BLUE, AND EAGLES!
So the 9-to-24 seeds in each bracket have to win 7 games for the National Championship. The top 8 seeds still need 6 wins. Has any team ranked lower than 8 won the NC since the 64 or 65 team expansion?
Ranked lower than 8? Yeah? Seeded worse than 8? No.
I mean, the first is outside the top 8, which clearly has happened (if anyone worse than a 2 seed wins, they’re outside the committee’s top 8). But I think no one seeded worse than 8 has ever won the thing, and very, very few worse than a 3.
Wait. I think your misunderstood what I was trying to say…
I meant the “top 8 seeds” as the 1-8 seeds in each bracket (so the top 32 teams), not actually the top 8 teams (the 1 and 2 seeds). And by lower than 8, yeah, I mean seeded worse than 8 (so a higher ranked seed than 8). Guess I should have written that part a little better.
So what I was trying to ask is have any 9-16 seeds (in each bracket) won the NC? (that’s a big no). Some have made the FF (George Mason). I think ’Nova won the NC in ’85 as the 8 seed.
The NCAA looks at it like this: This expansion doesn’t really hurt the chances of the teams seeded 1 through 8. They still have to play 6 games for a NC. It’s already a long shot for the 9-to-16 seeds (now 9-to-24 seeds) so why not make them play and extra game for a NC.
by Matthew Ventolo on Mar 2, 2010 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
No, I understood
It’s just you didn’t write what I thought you meant (and you’ve just proved I was correct about that), so I clarified.
I like the conference tournaments giving automatic bids
Its undeniable that those championship games are intense with guys playing their hearts out, its just good TV. If anything I would like to see regular season and conference champions for all the conferences get in. I don’t think one extra round of games would take too much time or be to uncompetitive to watch. Plus if your last four out versus last four in are a bunch of teams that are sub .500 major conference teams and a third place mid major, the decision becomes a little easier.
by Rocket Ship Science on Mar 2, 2010 11:05 PM EST reply actions
Eh, if the BET had fewer moments of Orange Awesomeness
… then I’d be completely against conference tournaments. Single-elimination tournaments really aren’t appropriate for basketball.
The fun of March Madness is lost if the NCAAs go to 96
I’m all for finding a way to include more of the mid-majors as clearly, politics has a hand in seedings for the bigger named schools. But the Madness comes from the chances of these unknown teams to surprise in the 1st 2 rounds of the tourney!! Hey, a #1 seed has never lost to a #16 seed, so how does adding 30 more teams increase the competition?? I hate to make the comparison, but it seems obvious that this turns the Mens tourney to closer to the Womens, where many of the games are complete blowouts and not at all exciting to watch.
65 teams going to 96…. if there is expansion to be done, shouldn’t we ease into it with says… 12 more and gradually increase it over a period of years? We aren’t just talking about bubble teams…this is 30+ teams! What happens to the NIT?!?!?!?
Greed. And its seems destined to backfire with so many lopsided scoring games. Who is gonna pay attention before the 3rd round?
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Mar 4, 2010 11:58 AM EST reply actions
For one...
Every one of those 31 new at-large teams will be better than every 15 or 16 seed already in the tournament, and probably better than every 13 or 14 seed. 13+ seeds generally won conferences that really shouldn’t be in division I, or very rarely, are bad teams that got hot and won a so-so conference tournament (like Georgia won the SEC tournament few years back with a losing record and got a #13).
I like the idea
Nothing wrong with expansion. The only big argument I hear against it is always “there will be too many non-deserving teams in the field”. Well if they don’t deserve to be there then they won’t be around in the second round anyway
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
