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.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[OrangeXtreme]

The NCAA is trending toward changing the one thing that actually makes sense

Why must we change the format of the best yearly event in sports!

keepingitheel.com

 

[cusefan88]

If they're going to do this crap and add more mediocre power teams then it would be nice to see the smaller conferences directly in the big bracket.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

If they're going to do this crap and add more mediocre power teams then it would be nice to see the smaller conferences directly in the big bracket.

I'm not opposed to that idea, but if the NCAA has an opportunity to get more teams advancing, would you think they want smaller bracket buster schools, or larger power conference schools. They want eyeballs and money.

 

[syrBossHogg]

Horrible

 

[Cusefan95]

I was def referring to Brooklyn, maybe it could have been made special. Fab bases would have traveled, even NC. I fully agree it would have been a hard sell as well to tobacco Rd...

There's a big optics issue with playing the ACC tournament in Brooklyn at the same time the Big East plays at MSG. It silently communicates to everyone the ACC is second class. I thought there was a lot of talk of a new arena in DC prior to them deciding to upgrade Capital One - that probably played into the ACC not securing a deal there. The only really baffling part is the decisions to stay in Greensboro, although I recall some pretty sound reasoning why that happened as well. Where the ACC ended up isn't ideal - but I'm not sure I could identify any specific decision and argue it was clearly a mistake.

 

[cusefan88]

I'm not opposed to that idea, but if the NCAA has an opportunity to get more teams advancing, would you think they want smaller bracket buster schools, or larger power conference schools. They want eyeballs and money.

I agree, I guess I'm saying I would rather see all 11 and 12 seed play-in games vs the 16 seeds play if that makes sense.

 

[Blanko97]

I'm not opposed to that idea, but if the NCAA has an opportunity to get more teams advancing, would you think they want smaller bracket buster schools, or larger power conference schools. They want eyeballs and money.

more money always makes sense. From a fan perspective, i dont think anyone would be upset about more games.

 

[NineOneSeven]

We might have a shot at this thing now!

 

[Cusefan95]

I agree, I guess I'm saying I would rather see all 11 and 12 seed play-in games vs the 16 seeds play if that makes sense.

The downside of that is you're giving #1 & 2 seeds easier matchups in the first round.

Personally I don't really care how they set up up. If they want to set up play-in games for large conference #11/12 seeds to give smaller conference teams more bids to the final 64, I'd be fine with that. But I'm not sure why anyone should prefer that over setting it up so the final 64 is stronger at the bottom.