PDA

View Full Version : Expanding the NCAA Tournament?


milkman
03-18-2008, 10:10 PM
There's been discussion by some in the media that the NCAA Tournament should be expanded.

Bob Knight suggested it should be expanded to 128 teams.

Why?

At this point in time, a 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed, and if IRCC, the lowest seed to win the tournament is 11.

What would be the point of expanding?

It would be smarter to contract it back to a 48 yeam field.

Demonpenz
03-18-2008, 10:13 PM
it would be smart to expand it to make more money

BWillie
03-18-2008, 10:23 PM
I think expanding the tournament is the stupidest thing ever. I know everybody loves the tournament and the crapshoot it is but it kind of takes away what you do in the regular season. They need a nice blend between college football and the big dance as it is right now. My suggestion is have a committee at the end of the year put together the top 16 teams. Instead of one game and you are out, they should do it best out of 3. One game is just retarded. A team can just get hot from three and beat a good team.

If it was in format I described KU would of won about three national championships in the last 20 years instead of one. Suprisingly though the last three years one of the best teams has one it, but expect that to change soon.

milkman
03-18-2008, 10:40 PM
it would be smart to expand it to make more money

Yeah.

But from a competitive point of view, any expansion would be ridiculous.

KcMizzou
03-18-2008, 10:45 PM
64 is plenty, thank you. I'd say it was too many, if it weren't for the fact that the first couple of days of the tourney are so entertaining.

But no... expanding from here would be silly.

Discuss Thrower
03-18-2008, 10:46 PM
Yeah.

But from a competitive point of view, any expansion would be ridiculous.

I like Knight's idea, but I think that making all 15 and 16 seeds a play-in-game might be worth it.

milkman
03-18-2008, 10:47 PM
I like Knight's idea, but I think that making all 15 and 16 seeds a play-in-game might be worth it.

Well hell, why don't we just let every team in?

Extra Point
03-18-2008, 10:49 PM
The NIT has its purpose. Put it back to 64. Winning a Tuesday game so you can get slaughtered a few days later is asinine.

Discuss Thrower
03-18-2008, 10:49 PM
Well hell, why don't we just let every team in?

Hence why I suggest making the lower seeds a play-in game if there should be any expansion. As of now, you get the talking heads and coaches bitching when the committee doesn't let them in the tournament. Adding seven more play-in games gives teams that might get snubbed a chance to prove that they belonged.. Instead of the NIT or the CBI.. Heh.

milkman
03-18-2008, 10:57 PM
Hence why I suggest making the lower seeds a play-in game if there should be any expansion. As of now, you get the talking heads and coaches bitching when the committee doesn't let them in the tournament. Adding seven more play-in games gives teams that might get snubbed a chance to prove that they belonged.. Instead of the NIT or the CBI.. Heh.

And my point is that 16 seeds have never advanced, so why the hell should we even add any teams?

The play in game is a joke.

Baconeater
03-18-2008, 10:59 PM
Worst. Idea. Ever.

Thig Lyfe
03-18-2008, 11:18 PM
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/128347380320000000conservativecat.jpg

tk13
03-18-2008, 11:32 PM
I'm all for dropping an at-large bid and just opening a spot for the two play-in teams. People would complain about the big conferences losing an at-large bid... these 11 and 12 seeds probably aren't winning the whole thing anyway.

At least you're rewarding the teams who actually won their conference, which I like, and you'll still get your first round upsets from time to time. There are two things we usually like about the tourney... watching the small schools earn their one shot to take on the big boys in the 1st round... and then beyond that, watching the conference leaders like UNC, Kansas, UCLA etc meet in the later rounds. Not sitting here figuring out a bunch of average teams in major conferences that you can barely tell apart.

Fruit Ninja
03-18-2008, 11:37 PM
get 8 possible 16 seeds and let them all play a game for a chance to play the number 1 team.

alnorth
03-18-2008, 11:38 PM
IRCC, the lowest seed to win the tournament is 11.

Nope. 1985 Villanova Wildcats (#8) was the lowest seed to win. This was such an outlier, that a #7 seed has never even made it to the championship game.

ChiefsCountry
03-19-2008, 12:00 AM
They wouldnt be expanding it to include more 16 seed types, it would be to include more #11 and #12 teams type teams.

KCChiefsMan
03-19-2008, 12:18 AM
that's one of the worse ideas I've ever heard.

Valiant
03-19-2008, 12:19 AM
Dumbest idea ever..

And the fact that some want the teams to play best of three is even more retarded.. It eliminates the chance for the upsets almost to zero.. That and the tournament would take over a month..

IF anything get rid of the extra game and just leave it tothe 64 teams..

shyguyms
03-19-2008, 12:19 AM
they should expand it because there is better teams not in then alot of the teams that are in. Or forget about the automatic bids for all those small leagues.
Maryland,Minnesota,VCU,Va Tech,Fla st., Umass, Arizona st., Syracuse are all better than atleast 20 of the 64 teams in it now.
the only reason a 16 never wins is because it's a small school all the time
Maryland isn't in and they already beat Carolina at the dean dome.
make it 96 teams, the top 32 get a bye the others all play a first round game with them advancing to the round of 64 and in the second round we would have teams that i mentioned above playing the larger schools and teams like Coppin st,MT St Mary's,UMBC and S. Alabama would be home watching the rest of the tourney.
play the first round games at 4 sites on tuesday live the play in game now
4 games each at 4 sites and entertain the fans, make everyone happy and make money

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2008, 12:26 AM
they should expand it because there is better teams not in then alot of the teams that are in. Or forget about the automatic bids for all those small leagues.
Maryland,Minnesota,VCU,Va Tech,Fla st., Umass, Arizona st., Syracuse are all better than atleast 20 of the 64 teams in it now.
the only reason a 16 never wins is because it's a small school all the time
Maryland isn't in and they already beat Carolina at the dean dome.
make it 96 teams, the top 32 get a bye the others all play a first round game with them advancing to the round of 64 and in the second round we would have teams that i mentioned above playing the larger schools and teams like Coppin st,MT St Mary's,UMBC and S. Alabama would be home watching the rest of the tourney.
play the first round games at 4 sites on tuesday live the play in game now
4 games each at 4 sites and entertain the fans, make everyone happy and make money

Good plan.

Thig Lyfe
03-19-2008, 01:11 AM
If you want to make sure you'll get in the tournament, win every game.

Otherwise, shut the f*ck up and take your NIT berth.

CrazyPhuD
03-19-2008, 02:22 AM
Actually is this really a bad idea? I mean really it could just be an extension of how kids play sports today. Every team should make the NCAA tourney, and everyone gets to play 6 games. No score will ever be kept and at the end of the two weeks everyone is national champion. It's a win win situation and this way no school has to every feel snubbed or feel like losers again!:)

HolyHandgernade
03-19-2008, 02:58 AM
I don't think it needs to be expanded, but here is my plan if they did:

The odds are that the top 16 seeds are going to produce your Final Four members, so the committee selects them first and they receive a bye into the bracket portion of the Tourney.

The committee then selects "the Field" of 96 teams, conference tourney winners who were not selected as a top 16 team get automatic qualification to "the Field". Committee ranks them 1-96 and then pairs them 1 vs 96, 2 vs 95, etc. Better seed gets to host the game.

Committe then takes the top four winners who become the "5 seeds" for the bracket, on down the line. The NIT expands to a 48 team format to form a consolation tourney for the losers (top seeded losers are the one seeds, and so on)

This way, you get an NCAA Tourney that really has the top 64 teams, every team is guaranteed a tourney format, confrence tourney winners are still rewarded but so are quality regular season teams who might have stubbed their toe in their tournament. This format would allow roughly the upper third of all Div. 1 teams the chance at the Big Dance, keep the 64 team bracket, not punish teams who have a good regular season from mid majors, and still give the favorites the best chance of advancing.

-HH

WilliamTheIrish
03-19-2008, 04:30 AM
Same topic every year at this time. So here is the answer I keyed in last year. And the year before. And the year before.

There is no need to expand the field. It's already open to every team, no matter the record. By way of something called the conference tournament. If you have a losing record, and get hot for a week, win the conference tourney...BAM! You're in.

See you all in this topic next season.

milkman
03-19-2008, 06:30 AM
Same topic every year at this time. So here is the answer I keyed in last year. And the year before. And the year before.

There is no need to expand the field. It's already open to every team, no matter the record. By way of something called the conference tournament. If you have a losing record, and get hot for a week, win the conference tourney...BAM! You're in.

See you all in this topic next season.

The conference tournament sucks ass.

A 12-16 team shouldn't be rewarded for getting hot at the end of the season, and a smaller conference regular season champion gets screwed.

It renders the regular season meaningless.

Dartgod
03-19-2008, 06:57 AM
I think expanding the tournament is the stupidest thing ever. I know everybody loves the tournament and the crapshoot it is but it kind of takes away what you do in the regular season. They need a nice blend between college football and the big dance as it is right now. My suggestion is have a committee at the end of the year put together the top 16 teams. Instead of one game and you are out, they should do it best out of 3. One game is just retarded. A team can just get hot from three and beat a good team.

If it was in format I described KU would of won about three national championships in the last 20 years instead of one. Suprisingly though the last three years one of the best teams has one it, but expect that to change soon.
Those losses to Bucknell and Bradley still stinging a bit, are they? ROFL

luv
03-19-2008, 07:28 AM
I say put it back to 64 teams. As it is, I don't see the point of having one stupid play in game that no one pays attention to anyway.

RockChalk
03-19-2008, 08:31 AM
Those losses to Bucknell and Bradley still stinging a bit, are they? ROFL

I hope he's not referring to those KU teams. Even if they had beat Bucknell and Bradley, those teams were not winning the national championship

Brock
03-19-2008, 08:33 AM
Is Peterson moving to NCAA basketball?

FD
03-19-2008, 08:44 AM
Terrible idea. The only reason people discuss it is because this time a year talking heads on sports shows talk up very mediocre teams into tourney "contenders" so they have to complain of the injustice of leaving them out. The tournament doesn't need those extra couple shitty big conference schools.

Lzen
03-19-2008, 09:18 AM
they should expand it because there is better teams not in then alot of the teams that are in. Or forget about the automatic bids for all those small leagues.
Maryland,Minnesota,VCU,Va Tech,Fla st., Umass, Arizona st., Syracuse are all better than atleast 20 of the 64 teams in it now.
the only reason a 16 never wins is because it's a small school all the time
Maryland isn't in and they already beat Carolina at the dean dome.
make it 96 teams, the top 32 get a bye the others all play a first round game with them advancing to the round of 64 and in the second round we would have teams that i mentioned above playing the larger schools and teams like Coppin st,MT St Mary's,UMBC and S. Alabama would be home watching the rest of the tourney.
play the first round games at 4 sites on tuesday live the play in game now
4 games each at 4 sites and entertain the fans, make everyone happy and make money

This idea is something similar to what I have suggested. Either that or keep it at 64 and do away with the stupid automatic bids for conference tournament champs. I think it is ridiculous that a crappy team like Coppin State gets in with a losing record while playing in a piss ant conference while other teams don't because they had a bad game in their conference tourney.

And why on Earth do they do a play in game? That is retarded, IMO.

Lzen
03-19-2008, 09:26 AM
....the lowest seed to win the tournament is 11....

64-team field began in 1984.

Lowest seeds to win the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship:
1985: Villanova - #8 Southeast regional
1988: Kansas - #6 Midwest
1997: Arizona - #4 Southeast
1989: Michigan - #3 Southeast
2003: Syracuse - #3 East
2006: Florida - #3 Midwest
4 champions seeded #2
13 champions seeded #1

milkman
03-19-2008, 09:27 AM
64-team field began in 1984.

Lowest seeds to win the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship:
1985: Villanova - #8 Southeast regional
1988: Kansas - #6 Midwest
1997: Arizona - #4 Southeast
1989: Michigan - #3 Southeast
2003: Syracuse - #3 East
2006: Florida - #3 Midwest
4 champions seeded #2
13 champions seeded #1

I've already been corrected on that.

I'm old, damnit!

Give me a break.

sedated
03-19-2008, 09:43 AM
The beauty of the tournament is its simplicity.

No byes, no series, no altering brackets. Leave it as is.

ROYC75
03-19-2008, 10:51 AM
As WTI said, this is the same topic every year.

A case can be made for expanding the tourney for the teams left out or for the smaller schools to have that dream of playing in an NCAA tournament.To do this, you must allow all to have that chance. You can't include all, even if you expand it to 128, somebody somewhere is going to feel left out and expanding to 128 kills the oldest tournament of them all, the NIT. The confrence tournaments each year seems to affect some other team, this year Georgia killed the chances for AZ State, So.Il, etc. I'm all for a confrence tourney to give your team a test, a pre NCAA tourney test, but many times a top team falls to a team that wants to keep playing longer, the underdog that has to play their way in. This is what makes it exciting..... the David vs Goliath matchups.

My take, do away with the play in game....... IMHO, it does not serve a purpose. Leave it at 64, save the NIT for teams that need it. Teams that are probably not good enough to advance far in the NCAA that can use it to build their program for the next year.

Drop 1 game and Leave it alone .....................

Lzen
03-19-2008, 11:31 AM
I've already been corrected on that.

I'm old, damnit!

Give me a break.

Oops, I missed that post. Still, an 11 seed (George Mason) did make the Final Four just a couple years ago. That was impressive.

Coach
03-19-2008, 11:49 AM
They should make a new rule stating that if your conference record isn't good, (Below .500) then you shouldn't be in. (See Arizona) Especially if you lost to an opponent twice who has a better conference record, regardless of SOS/RPI (See Arizona St.)

The only way you can get in with a shitty conference record if you win the conference tournament (See Georgia)

POND_OF_RED
03-19-2008, 12:37 PM
I think it would be fun to throw in the top 4 high school teams from the year. Have them play in the play in game against the low D-1 school. A great high school basketball team is going to have some of the top recruits meaning they will make that game against the #1 much more enjoyable to watch than a team filled with 2 and 3 star recruits. I know it will never happen because they can't be part of collegiate athletics but it sure would make the play in game more entertaining.

ROYC75
03-19-2008, 04:19 PM
I think it would be fun to throw in the top 4 high school teams from the year. Have them play in the play in game against the low D-1 school. A great high school basketball team is going to have some of the top recruits meaning they will make that game against the #1 much more enjoyable to watch than a team filled with 2 and 3 star recruits. I know it will never happen because they can't be part of collegiate athletics but it sure would make the play in game more entertaining.

One of these days, MU might qualify to play in that play in game. :D

chiefsfan987
03-19-2008, 07:56 PM
Shrink this tourney and enlarge the NIT. Do you really deserve a shot at playing for a National Title when you lose 10 or more games?

chiefsfan987
03-19-2008, 07:59 PM
The beauty of the tournament is its simplicity.

No byes, no series, no altering brackets. Leave it as is.

I think they should re-seed when they get to the final four.