NCAA Tournament Expansion

[Niastri]

They could reserve some number of at large bids for "quality low major teams," however they want to define that... But it allows for a little better sharing of the wealth, and rewards a top notch low major that loses in their conference tournament for a good overall season. Maybe call it the "Golden Bid" or something similar. It would generate interest among fans of programs that otherwise would be checked out the week leading up to the selection show.

To ESPN's benefit, it would allow them to create fake controversy and outrage for 48 hours.

 

[RandygoCuse]

The reason I generally oppose expansion is because I hate the play in concept. I believe legitimate expansion means expansion to 128 which is patently ridiculous. I suppose maybe 96. But anything less than that I do not support. And I agree 96 is way too many so I dont support any I guess

If it were up to me, I'd go back to 64.

 

[JeffCuse]

If it were up to me, I'd go back to 64.

I think 64 is best but with some guardrails. I have a problem with 64 in a setting where one conference can get 1/5 of the bids.

My ideal scenario

64 bids
31 auto bids
Remaining 33 at larges can be divided with the following parameters

1- Regular season conference champions of ANY conference who have an RPI in the top ~40 or so automatically get in. If not, they are just viewed as another at-large
2- No one that finishes in the bottom half of a conference's regular season standings can be granted a ticket unless that team wins the conf tourney.
3- No team with a losing record, or losing conference record, in any conference can be granted a ticket.
4- Any team with an RPI in the top 30 must get in if space allows IF they finish in the top half of their conference and have a winning record and a winning conference record. If space then allows, the top 40 are the next tier. Then top 50 etc.
5- Once a conference has 8 teams, regardless of size, they cannot get an additional at large spot over another conferences 2nd team if that 2nd team has a better RPI. If they get to 9, then we look at 3rd place teams...etc.

There are probably some nuances here. But my goal is... more conferences have more opportunities to qualify a 2nd or even 3rd team. No conference should ever have more than, say, 9 teams in. Maybe 10 if there is something crazy.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I think 64 is best but with some guardrails. I have a problem with 64 in a setting where one conference can get 1/5 of the bids.

My ideal scenario

64 bids
31 auto bids
Remaining 33 at larges can be divided with the following parameters

1- Regular season conference champions of ANY conference who have an RPI in the top ~40 or so automatically get in. If not, they are just viewed as another at-large
2- No one that finishes in the bottom half of a conference's regular season standings can be granted a ticket unless that team wins the conf tourney.
3- No team with a losing record, or losing conference record, in any conference can be granted a ticket.
4- Any team with an RPI in the top 30 must get in if space allows IF they finish in the top half of their conference and have a winning record and a winning conference record. If space then allows, the top 40 are the next tier. Then top 50 etc.
5- Once a conference has 8 teams, regardless of size, they cannot get an additional at large spot over another conferences 2nd team if that 2nd team has a better RPI. If they get to 9, then we look at 3rd place teams...etc.

There are probably some nuances here. But my goal is... more conferences have more opportunities to qualify a 2nd or even 3rd team. No conference should ever have more than, say, 9 teams in. Maybe 10 if there is something crazy.

love this! I'd need to look closely at RPI criteria, but I've long been a proponent that if you didn't win half your conference games, you shouldn't get in. And I know that these teams often win a game or two in the tourney. But I've also held the belief that it's not about who has the most talented team. It should be the teams that have had successful season.