NCAA Tournament Expansion | Page 11 | Syracusefan.com
.

NCAA Tournament Expansion

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.
 
Last edited:
JeffCuse said:
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
Expand...
If it were up to me, I'd go back to 64.
 
RandygoCuse said:
If it were up to me, I'd go back to 64.
Expand...
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.
 
JeffCuse said:
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.
Expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
cusefan88 said:
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.
Expand...
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.
 
GHLF said:
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...
Expand...

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.
 
cliftonparksufan said:
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.
Expand...
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.
 
cliftonparksufan said:
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.
Expand...
more money always makes sense. From a fan perspective, i dont think anyone would be upset about more games.
 
cusefan88 said:
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.
Expand...

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.
 
I don’t like a whole bunch of play in games in general. We’ve seen it benefit the play in teams with respect to conference tournaments and the ncaa tourney ( even where we benefitted as well). The first four is enough. Or you have 4 16 seed games and 4 15 seed games and just go with 72 not 76 and get rid of the first four including the 11 seed matchups.

At least this way you get more smaller programs having a chance to win a game in the NIL era.
 
Honestly, I don’t think expansion impacts the tournament too much as far as my level of interest. But what it does do is make the regular season less meaningful (and worse).
 
Last edited:
They made a mistake letting the NIT be more power conference centric. Rebrand the NIT, have it start in round 2 of the ncaa tourney timeline and allow first round losers to receive and accept an invitation paired with 32 mid major and smaller conference teams. Expand it to 64 teams and make it closer to the Europa league to the NCAA being the champions tournament. Open the following season with an NIL tourney that includes the final four of both tournaments. This idea would make the totality of major post season play available to 96 teams minimum and more if NCAA losing teams accept the invite.

Of course this is just throwing out one idea but there are ways to expand revenue and fan interest.
 
Cappy3 said:
Well, I’m a huge fan and I’m totally against further dilution of what purports to be a “national championship”tournament. Really don’t need more 17-14 teams in.
Expand...
I buy that until Syracuse is the 17-14 with a few good wins and everyone thinks they’re better than 24-7 Stephen . Austin because of a weak strength of schedule
 

Forum statistics

Threads
174,494
Messages
5,162,521
Members
6,132
Latest member
gsmooth

Online statistics

Members online
32
Guests online
2,676
Total visitors
2,708
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom