NCAAT Expansion

[Cappy3]

The NCAA is apparently offering three options to the Division 1 Commissioners, one with 72 teams, one with 76, and the current 68. All would require play-in games to cut the field to 64.

 

[Brooky03]

Ew

 

[PeteCalvin]

Yeah, let’s just water this thing down even more. Now we can talk about the bubble to make the bubble to make the Tourney. Why not turn the NIT into a play-in tourney for the NCAA's?

 

[Cusefan0307]

Yeah, let’s just water this thing down even more. Now we can talk about the bubble to make the bubble to make the Tourney. Why not turn the NIT into a play-in tourney for the NCAA's?

I would say it’s the opposite of watered down. There’s 90 more schools playing Division 1 basketball than there was in 1985 when it expanded to 64. 18% of schools make the tourney.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I would say it’s the opposite of watered down. There’s 90 more schools playing Division 1 basketball than there was in 1985 when it expanded to 64. 18% of schools make the tourney.

Has the amount of quality teams increased?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Thunderdome !!

 

[Cusefan0307]

Has the amount of quality teams increased?

I’d say yes. Pitt made it as a 12 seed at 17-12 in 1985 and lost by 24 in its opener. BC was 18-10. This year they would have been lucky to make the NIT with those records.

 

[miamicuse]

So basically the bubble itself is expanding.

 

[Charbroil]

I’m against tournament expansion. In all honesty they should go back to 64 teams (although that will never happen).

But I would at least respect the NCAA a little bit if they’d just be honest and admit it was to make more $$. Don’t feed us the BS that it’s because the level of competition/parity is better than ever before. It’s not.

 

[swish7]

The NCAA is apparently offering three options to the Division 1 Commissioners, one with 72 teams, one with 76, and the current 68. All would require play-in games to cut the field to 64.

Awesome. Do it.

 

[Orangezoo]

I’m against tournament expansion. In all honesty they should go back to 64 teams (although that will never happen).

But I would at least respect the NCAA a little bit if they’d just be honest and admit it was to make more $$. Don’t feed us the BS that it’s because the level of competition/parity is better than ever before. It’s not.

The smallest pct of teams in any major sport at the collegiate level or higher make the Cbb post season. Tradition ways heavily but the tourney probably is overdue for expansion with over 350
3 eligible teams.

 

[Cappy3]

The smallest pct of teams in any major sport at the collegiate level or higher make the Cbb post season. Tradition ways heavily but the tourney probably is overdue for expansion with over 350
3 eligible teams.

And how many of those teams are legitimate National Champion caliber? Let’s not forget this isn’t set up to be a let's make everyone feel good thing, it’s supposed to be a National Championship event. Adding more 17-14 major teams, or more West Podunk State level low major teams won’t increase the qualityof the tourney.

 

[upperdeck]

we could back to only the Conf winners get in.

if you are going to go one beyond 64 which they have then it should be so that each quad has the same results from play. Let all the 1 seeds play against a team that has played a game then and then do the same for the other play in game.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Why shouldn’t college basketball follow the lead of baseball and undermine itself? Why not weaken the best event in American sports?

 

[jncuse]

I would say it’s the opposite of watered down. There’s 90 more schools playing Division 1 basketball than there was in 1985 when it expanded to 64. 18% of schools make the tourney.

In theory that seems like a valid assertion. But if you dig deeper it doesn't really end up as a good reason for expansion.

Those 90 schools are almost all in one bid conferences, so they are never a threat for an at-large bid anyway (I'm sure we can find an exception or two, but not many). So they have not made it harder for any existing pre-1985 team to get an at-large bid.

When you expand the tournament, its not for those new 90 schools to get at-larges (they aren't that good), its for the pre-existing schools (pre-85) that were in power conferences at the time or consolidated into one since, to get more at-larges than they did before.

If the number of auto bids had increased significantly then I can see validity to expansion. But its only increased from 31 to 32, as small conferences just get more teams.

I'll try to analyze post 1985 schools in a further post, to make sure my assertion above is correct.

 

[Cusefan0307]

In theory that seems like a valid assertion. But if you dig deeper it doesn't really end up as a good reason for expansion.

Those 90 schools are almost all in one bid conferences, so they are never a threat for an at-large bid anyway (I'm sure we can find an exception or two, but not many). So they have not made it harder for any existing pre-1985 team to get an at-large bid.

When you expand the tournament, its not for those new 90 schools to get at-larges (they aren't that good), its for the pre-existing schools (pre-85) that were in power conferences at the time or consolidated into one since, to get more at-larges than they did before.

If the number of auto bids had increased significantly then I can see validity to expansion. But its only increased from 31 to 32, as small conferences just get more teams.

I'll try to analyze post 1985 schools in a further post, to make sure my assertion above is correct.

Mid Major conferences are better now IMO. The schools that used to be low major have likely moved up. Hopefully this helps the teams like Indiana State get in.

The posts that get me are saying teams with bad records will now get in isn't really based in truth. There were schools with pretty putrid records on the bubble that got in during the mid to late 80's.

 

[jordoo]

I would like a 96 team tourney that seed 1-8 teams with a first round buy.
Tue-Wed is 8-24 seeds set up like Thu-Fri are currently
Winners from Tue-Wed transition into Thu-Fri with the 1-8 seeded teams
Basically everything remains the same but two more full days a 8 games a piece and there is a real advantage of one less game to play if you are on the top 8 seed line.

(BTW 96 is about 27% of D1 schools)
Even though you will still have teams with no difference that you are picking between in the last handful of spots you will be sure to have included every team that has the capability of beating good teams IMO.

 

[Charbroil]

The smallest pct of teams in any major sport at the collegiate level or higher make the Cbb post season. Tradition ways heavily but the tourney probably is overdue for expansion with over 350
3 eligible teams.

A previous response to your comment refuted your argument better than I could. That the additional bids would go to middling major conference teams with underwhelming resumes.

But I’ll just add the question of why does it matter how many teams other college sports allow in their postseason tournaments? Every sport is different.

I would argue that basketball being a more flukey sport where 1 good or bad shooting night can dictate a team’s fate is a good argument that basketball should have a smaller % of teams participate in the postseason.

 

[FrancoPizza]

The NCAA is apparently offering three options to the Division 1 Commissioners, one with 72 teams, one with 76, and the current 68. All would require play-in games to cut the field to 64.

Let's continue to make individual regular season games more and more meaningless. At the same let's dilute the only thing that gives the sport relevancy while the portal and pay-for-play continues to alienate the fans.

 

[cusefan88]

Expansion should only be bubble teams. Let the AQ be in the main bracket. And please do mid-major vs power 5 matchups when possible.

 

[jncuse]

I did want to validate my statement above, as I could have been off.

Thanks to College Basketball Reference I was able to easily scroll through the teams that were added to D1 post 1986. (Just sort the schools under the "From" category to see year of inception)

List of all the College Basketball Schools | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Get the list of all the College Basketball Schools and more about College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

Schools added to the NCAA post 1986 that are now in a typical multiple bid conference (P5, BE, MWC, A-10) **
None or maybe one **
** Florida Atlantic has made the biggest jump up in any conferences of any team added since 1985, It has now reached the AAC. Is the AAC still a typical multi-bid conference after its been dismantled in recent years? Maybe.


Schools added to the NCAA post 1985 that have received an at-large bid or had an auto bid at the 11 seed or above
Belmont (start 2000) - 2019-11 (At-large), 2013-11 (Auto)
Winthrop (start 1987) - 2007-11 (Auto)
College of Charleston (Start 1992) - 1999-8 (Auto)
Wofford (start --_ - 2019-7 (Auto)
Florida Atlantic (Start 1994) - 2024-9 (At-Large), 2023-8 (Auto)

So they have received 2 at-larges over the years, and would have received 3 others if teams didn't get auto bids.

 

[jncuse]

Random thing I noticed when scanning post 1985 additions to D-1 ... there have been 5 schools that started D-1 since 1985 that have folded shop and no longer exist.

Anybody that can name any of them wins the Trivia Contest for the day... don't expect glamourous prizes.

 

[Orangezoo]

A previous response to your comment refuted your argument better than I could. That the additional bids would go to middling major conference teams with underwhelming resumes.

But I’ll just add the question of why does it matter how many teams other college sports allow in their postseason tournaments? Every sport is different.

I would argue that basketball being a more flukey sport where 1 good or bad shooting night can dictate a team’s fate is a good argument that basketball should have a smaller % of teams participate in the postseason.

Your last paragraph is also the counter argument too. With so many teams it’s much harder to fully analyze the field. There is no harm to expansion and all it can do is increase revenue and expand interest in the importance of making the tourney. More teams also helps with portal madness too (potentially) given part of the equation next to money is playing in the tourney.

If we want to save cbb, then to me we have to back off the snobby attitude towards having mediocre teams make the tourney from big conferences and see the bigger picture. Not to mention look at the NBA now with play ins. Just sticking with hoops as an example- the two extra seeds for play ins aren’t good teams and probably don’t deserve it, it’s not good hoops at times but it’s good for the sport. It also in both cases keeps the door open for teams that bloom extremely late or have a rough patch due to injury but could win a lot of games.

 

[BBQuse]

Awesome. Do it.

Totally agree. And I'd love to see more of the bubble teams in a play-in vs the auto qualifiers. If teams are going to just turn down NIT bids or have players opt-out, let them play in the only tournament that matters. There will absolutely be teams like this year's NCST that make a run at it. Not sure how anyone thinks it would ruin the product.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Whatever the expansion is, I’d like to see regular season conference champs get an auto bid, as well as the tourney champ. We should be rewarding season long excellence as well as a miracle run.