NCAAT Expansion

[HRE Otto IV]

How well does the First Four do in TV ratings? Personally I am not in NCAAT mode yet and only tune in at the end if it is close. The real NCAAT for me is an all day event on Thursday. If we have the below, are people really going to care much? And how can you really pick a bracket in that case?

Tuesday
7pm
East 16 vs 16
Midwest 11 vs 11

930pm
East 11 vs 11
Midwest 16 vs 16

Wednesday
7pm
South 16 vs 16
West 11 vs 11

930pm
South 11 vs 11
West 16 vs 16

 

[miamicuse]

Crazy ideas...create three bubbles to have three pre-madness tournaments to be held in NYC, Las Vegas and Orlando at the same time. The winner of the NYC tournament aka NIT gets a sweet sixteen spot (so it can actually play at the same time as first/second rounds). The Las Vegas tournament champion gets slotted into one of the 32 teams on the second round. The Orlando tournament's final 2 gets the 63 & 64 first round spots. You get three more tiered tournaments to watch and NCAA keeps the 64 team structure.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

If I mathed this right...

Of the 79 Power 5 teams (ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC), 33 made the NCAAT last year (41.8%). The prior year it was 37 teams (46.8%). In 1985 those schools had 34 combined bids. So not much has changed. If we add 8 more at larges that percentage could go over 50%. Using 351 teams is false narrative when 95% of the non P5 schools have zero shot at an at large. So yes, expanding the NCAAT will water it down.

 

[FrancoPizza]

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.

I'd only be ok with this if they cut down on the number of regular season games. There's too many games! They don't mean anything anymore.

 

[Cappy3]

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.

It ruins the product by making the regular season less and less relevant. When power leagues (and don’t fool yourself that they won’t get the lions share of the expanded bids) send 10 or 11 teams, the regular season is basically a joke. Personally, I’d like to go back to 64 (never gonna happen) and req teams to be over (not at) .500 in league play, or win their league tournament. Again, it’s a championship tournament, you should have to actually accomplish something to qualify.

 

[Cappy3]

I'd only be ok with this if they cut down on the number of regular season games. There's too many games! They don't mean anything anymore.

So I guess you’d be happy with no season, just a tournament with everyone in it? The regular season is actually more meaningful than a one and done tournament when it com to determining who the best teams are.

 

[Cappy3]

Crazy ideas...create three bubbles to have three pre-madness tournaments to be held in NYC, Las Vegas and Orlando at the same time. The winner of the NYC tournament aka NIT gets a sweet sixteen spot (so it can actually play at the same time as first/second rounds). The Las Vegas tournament champion gets slotted into one of the 32 teams on the second round. The Orlando tournament's final 2 gets the 63 & 64 first round spots. You get three more tiered tournaments to watch and NCAA keeps the 64 team structure.

And what, like 100 teams overall? Why not just give up and invite everybody.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

If I mathed this right...

Of the 79 Power 5 teams (ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC), 33 made the NCAAT last year (41.8%). The prior year it was 37 teams (46.8%). In 1985 those schools had 34 combined bids. So not much has changed. If we add 8 more at larges that percentage could go over 50%. Using 351 teams is false narrative when 95% of the non P5 schools have zero shot at an at large. So yes, expanding the NCAAT will water it down.

So using 2023's NCAAT and Top 8 NIT seeds, the Power 5 would have had 43 of 79 schools (54.4%) make a 76 team NCAAT.

By conference:
Big Ten 13 of 18 schools (72.22%)
Big 12 10 of 16 schools (62.50%)
SEC 9 of 16 schools (56.25%)
Big East 5 of 11 schools (45.45%)
ACC 6 of 18 schools (33.33%)

 

[Eric15]

This beautiful three week six round masterpiece of a sporting event that captivates America is perfect, as is.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

This would give the bettors more opportunities to play and more games to watch.
Shrink the regular season/tournament by one week.
Go to 96 teams. Announce the AQs and at large. Seed all non-AQ teams (64) to play the first weekend.
Once done, have a second “seeding” show, where the AQs and the 32 winners get seeded for the field of 64.

 

[Cappy3]

This would give the bettors more opportunities to play and more games to watch.
Shrink the regular season/tournament by one week.
Go to 96 teams. Announce the AQs and at large. Seed all non-AQ teams (64) to play the first weekend.
Once done, have a second “seeding” show, where the AQs and the 32 winners get seeded for the field of 64.

I’ve yet to have anybody explain to me why a team that finished 8, 9, or 10 in its own league should be competing for a national championship. Kind of college’s version of participation trophies.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I’ve yet to have anybody explain to me why a team that finished 8, 9, or 10 in its own league should be competing for a national championship. Kind of college’s version of participation trophies.

Why not? It’s about content and programming.
We have sub-.500 NFL teams competing for a championship.
Last year, no one was going to beat UCONN, so why have the tournament?

 

[djcon57]

I’ve yet to have anybody explain to me why a team that finished 8, 9, or 10 in its own league should be competing for a national championship. Kind of college’s version of participation trophies.

We finished 9th in the ACC in 2016 when we made the final four.

That team was deserving to be in the tourney if you know anything about basketball. No explanation needed

 

[Cusefan0307]

I’ve yet to have anybody explain to me why a team that finished 8, 9, or 10 in its own league should be competing for a national championship. Kind of college’s version of participation trophies.

The BE regularly had 9-11 teams in the late 2000’s/early 2010’s and every single team deserved to get in. That conference at the time was a gauntlet.

 

[Charbroil]

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.

I’m sorry, but this is such a simpleton response. “There is no harm to expansion…” is complete BS. The only thing about college basketball that is popular to the masses is March Madness. Why’s that…? Brackets and pools. How many people who don’t watch one second of college basketball during the season tune in to March because there’s some $$ or bragging rights on the line?

Do you think the average casual fan is going to keep filling out brackets if it becomes so convoluted with 96 or 128 teams that it can’t fit onto a single 8.5x11 sheet of paper?

I’m not being a snob for my opinion, actually the opposite. I’m literally advocating to keep the current format so casual fans who only care about the tournament stay interested in the sport. I will watch basketball in November/Decmeber (and March) regardless of the format. I love the current tournament because I can talk to just about anyone about brackets, upsets, Cinderella’s, etc.

 

[IthacaMatt]

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.

It should have stayed at 64. Play-in games and such dilutes the product.

 

[Orangezoo]

I’m sorry, but this is such a simpleton response. “There is no harm to expansion…” is complete BS. The only thing about college basketball that is popular to the masses is March Madness. Why’s that…? Brackets and pools. How many people who don’t watch one second of college basketball during the season tune in to March because there’s some $$ or bragging rights on the line?

Do you think the average casual fan is going to keep filling out brackets if it becomes so convoluted with 96 or 128 teams that it can’t fit onto a single 8.5x11 sheet of paper?

I’m not being a snob for my opinion, actually the opposite. I’m literally advocating to keep the current format so casual fans who only care about the tournament stay interested in the sport. I will watch basketball in November/Decmeber (and March) regardless of the format. I love the current tournament because I can talk to just about anyone about brackets, upsets, Cinderella’s, etc.

Simpleton response? lol. Don’t apologize and throw an insult. You qualify your response as better by countering your opinion with mine. Where did I say anything about 96 or 128? That’s not what I said.

The shift to 64 is almost 40 yrs ago. The college sports landscape is ready to collapse on itself to consolidate further so any way to counter that is a positive. The argument for non expansion to me is simple- cut the number of teams in half or down 40 pct and make it 68/200 for instance and the rest play in a lower league. We aren’t chasing casual fans away expanding - that’s get off my lawn logic and just disliking change.

The landscape has changed immensely. You didn’t even take into consideration half what a posted before slinging mud at it. I don’t know what the number is but claiming more than 68 will dilute it too much is hanging on to a past that no longer exists.

What sense does it make for the NBA to move to a model where 67 pct of the league plays in the post season but college hoops would be overly diluted to expand beyond 20 pct? Even in my example of being at 200 teams - 68 is still only 34 pct. I’m not counting the NIT here either .

 

[Orangezoo]

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.

I think you would have to sort out some kind of conference ranking and have a cutoff in terms of whether some can get both in. Otherwise you could have tanking just to get two bids for small conferences.

 

[Charbroil]

Simpleton response? lol. Don’t apologize and throw an insult. You qualify your response as better by countering your opinion with mine. Where did I say anything about 96 or 128? That’s not what I said.

The shift to 64 is almost 40 yrs ago. The college sports landscape is ready to collapse on itself to consolidate further so any way to counter that is a positive. The argument for non expansion to me is simple- cut the number of teams in half or down 40 pct and make it 68/200 for instance and the rest play in a lower league. We aren’t chasing casual fans away expanding - that’s get off my lawn logic and just disliking change.

The landscape has changed immensely. You didn’t even take into consideration half what a posted before slinging mud at it. I don’t know what the number is but claiming more than 68 will dilute it too much is hanging on to a past that no longer exists.

What sense does it make for the NBA to move to a model where 67 pct of the league plays in the post season but college hoops would be overly diluted to expand beyond 20 pct? Even in my example of being at 200 teams - 68 is still only 34 pct. I’m not counting the NIT here either .

A previous comment of yours insulted my opinion as “snobby.” So please don’t act all offended now that you received some pushback.

You say “the shift to 64 was 40 years ago” and “the landscape has changed immensely.” But none of those arguments for expansion actually address how it will improve the quality of the product or increase viewership.

I’m all for making changes that will actually help the game. Finding a long-term, sustainable solution to NIL and the broken transfer portal is the most important thing. Improving officiating and some rule changes (and better application of the current rules) will also help. Your proposal of adding more supply for a product that isn’t really in high demand is backwards.

And not sure what the NBA has to do with anything. Playing 82 games to only eliminate 33% of the teams from postseason play is actually insane. The playoffs and offseason drama might be compelling, but their regular season is garbage.

 

[kcsu]

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.

Lots just ask Loyola of Chicago and a bunch of schools since then.
At 76 teams the percentage is still less than when the current level was put in place.

 

[Cappy3]

We finished 9th in the ACC in 2016 when we made the final four.

That team was deserving to be in the tourney if you know anything about basketball. No explanation needed

Umm, no. I root for SU and certainly enjoyed that run. But again, it’s a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP tourney. If you finish 9th in your conference, how can you claim you should have a shot at being the best in the country? What was the regular season for, if not to determine who the best teams are?

 

[Cappy3]

Lots just ask Loyola of Chicago and a bunch of schools since then.
At 76 teams the percentage is still less than when the current level was put in place.

Whocares about the % of teams anyway. The goal isn’t to make everyone feel good, nor to keep every fan base (or gambler) happy. The goal is to determine the champion. If all rounds were a best of 7, it might be fine. But in a one and done, the moreundeserving (and teams that barely made .500 are undeserving imo)teams allowed in, the greater the chance that the best team will lose on a fluke. It makes great tv, but doesn’t advance the most deserving team.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Simpleton response? lol. Don’t apologize and throw an insult. You qualify your response as better by countering your opinion with mine. Where did I say anything about 96 or 128? That’s not what I said.

The shift to 64 is almost 40 yrs ago. The college sports landscape is ready to collapse on itself to consolidate further so any way to counter that is a positive. The argument for non expansion to me is simple- cut the number of teams in half or down 40 pct and make it 68/200 for instance and the rest play in a lower league. We aren’t chasing casual fans away expanding - that’s get off my lawn logic and just disliking change.

The landscape has changed immensely. You didn’t even take into consideration half what a posted before slinging mud at it. I don’t know what the number is but claiming more than 68 will dilute it too much is hanging on to a past that no longer exists.

What sense does it make for the NBA to move to a model where 67 pct of the league plays in the post season but college hoops would be overly diluted to expand beyond 20 pct? Even in my example of being at 200 teams - 68 is still only 34 pct. I’m not counting the NIT here either .

Can’t compare the NBA.

First the NBA is generally chalky. And if a lower team makes a run they have a star. Neither is the case in the NCAA, especially the P5 schools.

People like the NCAAs for the randomness. The NBA has a series. That makes it easier for the best teams to move on. Which helps crown a true champ. In a one off anything can happen. It is also easier for a team to get hot and make a run.

In the NBA everyone has to earn a playoff seed with their record within the same league. In the NCAAs only the conf tourney champs earn a spot. The rest are chosen by humans. Same with the seeding. If your conference is perceived to be better it helps you make it and your seeding.

The 12th best team in the ACC can make the NCAAs over the 9th best team. Or the 12th best can have a lower seed than the 9th but have a better path to the Final Four. Neither can happen in the NBA.

Lastly the NBA expanded purely for a money grab. Not as a better way to crown a champ. Also they know it will have little impact on who becomes champ. So there is little risk. Which is not the case in the NCAAs.

In a way the NCAAs start Tournament week. Everyone has the chance in a playoff to move on.


Edit

I forgot to mention in the NBA you have a home court advantage for the higher seed. How many upsets happen in the NCAAs if there were home court?

 

[Cusefan0307]

Whocares about the % of teams anyway. The goal isn’t to make everyone feel good, nor to keep every fan base (or gambler) happy. The goal is to determine the champion. If all rounds were a best of 7, it might be fine. But in a one and done, the moreundeserving (and teams that barely made .500 are undeserving imo)teams allowed in, the greater the chance that the best team will lose on a fluke. It makes great tv, but doesn’t advance the most deserving team.

Your idea is terrible. You want to turn the NCAAT to the Duke invitational like CFB is the Alabama invitational. If UVA was so good they should have beat us in 2016.

 

[Bayside44]

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

The country has 100 million more people plus international players. Just way more spread out talent out there than 1985.