NCAAT Expansion

[IthacaMatt]

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?

The NBA's reffing also seems borderline rigged to keep games close into the 4th quarter.
How many times do teams blow out to a big 1st quarter lead, then the 2nd quarter is a bunch of calls against the team that's ahead to get the margin down to single digits by halftime.

Third quarter they let the players play, and then the refs tighten it up again for the 4th quarter. The NBA players are more skilled, but in the playoffs, the games almost always go down to the 4th quarter.

 

[FireballPhil]

The simple answer is if this is truly a tournament for the championship, then we take the 32 conferences, the winners of each regular season and the winners of the tournament. If there is no tournament we take the top two regular season finishers. Granted this may not mean the best overall are not included but it would be what it is supposed to be. To do otherwise is to depend upon flawed metrics, flawed rankings, and bias to form the field.

 

[Orangezoo]

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?

This is all a get off my lawn argument. The non expansion arguments like this just don’t hold much water. I get it and wish things were the same as they were 20 yrs ago too but they aren’t

 

[Orangezoo]

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?

Making the playoffs and making the NCAA tourney are progressive goals that programs and franchises share and matter. Everyone wants to win a title but milestones matter to programs and fans alike. I think people dismiss that too quickly. The point I was making is that with the play in- the NBA has taken the directional step to expansion. That’s the comparison. Folks are taking this too deep. You have casual fans and hardcore fans but the analysis of casual fans on here is biased towards their own preferences vs rooted in the bigger picture.

The transfer portal has illuminated just how much talent there is outside the top 50 programs in the country. So the talent is there even if it’s a couple years behind making the jump to a P5 as we see many doing. This, with clearly a wider base of talent, the trends in the sport highlighting more post season participation and the fan support behind it render the argument for not expanding stale at this point. Not to mention the more we encourage consolidation the more it’s likely that collegiate sports die off more rapidly into the sunset into semi pro leagues.

Adding more teams adds to the randomness. I’d love to see this get bumped when expansion is approved and folks are enjoying the extra games and an entire extra week of madness.

 

[Orangezoo]

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.

Point me to where I called your opinion snobby . I’ll wait. You must be confusing me with someone else.

As for helping the game - let’s be honest until we fix AAU - basketball isn’t getting fixed anytime soon. If we want to discuss the product on the court we have to go way beyond the college post season format.

I also am not here to advocate for expansion without some logic behind it but the movement for expansion is sensible within the current environment. There are too many problems I would argue at this point to fix. So you have to go with the flow of change whether it peaks the interests of those of us who cherish the glory days. It will never be what it was. But progress where it can be made to adjust to the current landscape is sensible and bucking against it is only pushing us further to not having cbb at all.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Making the playoffs and making the NCAA tourney are progressive goals that programs and franchises share and matter. Everyone wants to win a title but milestones matter to programs and fans alike. I think people dismiss that too quickly. The point I was making is that with the play in- the NBA has taken the directional step to expansion. That’s the comparison. Folks are taking this too deep. You have casual fans and hardcore fans but the analysis of casual fans on here is biased towards their own preferences vs rooted in the bigger picture.

The transfer portal has illuminated just how much talent there is outside the top 50 programs in the country. So the talent is there even if it’s a couple years behind making the jump to a P5 as we see many doing. This, with clearly a wider base of talent, the trends in the sport highlighting more post season participation and the fan support behind it render the argument for not expanding stale at this point. Not to mention the more we encourage consolidation the more it’s likely that collegiate sports die off more rapidly into the sunset into semi pro leagues.

Adding more teams adds to the randomness. I’d love to see this get bumped when expansion is approved and folks are enjoying the extra games and an entire extra week of madness.

Like is said earlier the extra games are two 16 vs 16 games and two 11 vs 11. I usually don’t watch those games now. Adding more won’t change that.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Like is said earlier the extra games are two 16 vs 16 games and two 11 vs 11. I usually don’t watch those games now. Adding more won’t change that.

That’s you. Ratings for the first 4 were up this year and beat some NBA markets for the playoffs.

 

[Orangezoo]

That’s you. Ratings for the first 4 were up this year and beat some NBA markets for the playoffs.

Bingo

 

[Cheriehoop]

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

Agree. Look at how many of the top teams are poaching lower D1 program players from the portal. The same people who seeded NCSt as an 11 seed, kept programs like SHU and Indiana St out of the NCAA tournament also made Kentucky a 3 seed, who lost to Oakland, an amazing #14 seed winner in the first round this year. Six #11 seeds have made the Final 4, three of them since 2018 - a reflection of greater parity? Heck SU made the final 4 in 2016 as a #10 seed. Three #15 seeds have made the Sweet 16 - Princeton (2023), St Peter’s(2022) and Oral Roberts (2021) in the last 4 years with #15 St Peters even making the Elite 8 in 2022. Florida Coast a #15 seed was the first to make the Sweet 16 but in 2013 - never had occurred before that. Upsets by lower seeded teams have become more frequent for a reason.

 

[swish7]

Blows my mind that anyone has an issue with expansion.

Let everyone in, just like the old Indiana HS playoffs. The best team is gonna win anyways, so who cares?

 

[IthacaMatt]

This is all a get off my lawn argument. The non expansion arguments like this just don’t hold much water. I get it and wish things were the same as they were 20 yrs ago too but they aren’t

Look, what made the NCAA tournament popular was the 64 team bracket.
That's what gets non-fans to enter a bracket in the company pool.
Fiddle with that and you hurt the product.
A three weekend tournament has always had a great rhythm to it.

I remember when College Football ended on New Year's Day with about 6 big bowl games that would decide the national champion, or at least fuel the debate for the final poll.
That was all lost when they moved the Championship game to the week after New Year's. It's never been the same drama, watching a full day of games, wondering how each result will impact the final rankings, and who is crowned champion. I never watch any of the bowl games anymore, unless Syracuse is playing in it.

 

[Charbroil]

Blows my mind that anyone has an issue with expansion.

Let everyone in, just like the old Indiana HS playoffs. The best team is gonna win anyways, so who cares?

Blows my mind that people want to try and fix something that isn’t broken.

 

[Orangezoo]

Blows my mind that people want to try and fix something that isn’t broken.

That sounds like someone who hates change. Which I understand but it doesn’t mean it’s correct.

 

[Orangezoo]

Look, what made the NCAA tournament popular was the 64 team bracket.
That's what gets non-fans to enter a bracket in the company pool.
Fiddle with that and you hurt the product.
A three weekend tournament has always had a great rhythm to it.

I remember when College Football ended on New Year's Day with about 6 big bowl games that would decide the national champion, or at least fuel the debate for the final poll.
That was all lost when they moved the Championship game to the week after New Year's. It's never been the same drama, watching a full day of games, wondering how each result will impact the final rankings, and who is crowned champion. I never watch any of the bowl games anymore, unless Syracuse is playing in it.

Matt your perspective is aged. Everything has changed plain and simple. That’s not to say it wasn’t perfect for a long time but it just isn’t anymore.

 

[Charbroil]

That sounds like someone who hates change. Which I understand but it doesn’t mean it’s correct.

I supported changes like shortening the shot clock, players getting paid, moving the 3 point line back, etc. I’m not opposed to change.

But I am definitely resistant to needless, stupid change. Expanding the tournament falls into that category.

 

[Orangezoo]

I supported changes like shortening the shot clock, players getting paid, moving the 3 point line back, etc. I’m not opposed to change.

But I am definitely resistant to needless, stupid change. Expanding the tournament falls into that category.

As everyone you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree as I feel do many others. There is logic behind it.

 

[Cappy3]

Matt your perspective is aged. Everything has changed plain and simple. That’s not to say it wasn’t perfect for a long time but it just isn’t anymore.

C’mon man. The only thing that’s driving the NCAAT expansion is greed, pure and simple. The NCAA wants more, the leagues want more, and the individual schools want more. No on really thinks this will improve the product, just their bottom lines. And, as Matt and others have pointed out, what brings in the casual fan is the simplicity of a 64 team bracket. (Most don’t include the First Four, giving you those winners automatically). But expand that into multiple sheets, it will NOT increase casual participation.

 

[Cappy3]

Blows my mind that anyone has an issue with expansion.

Let everyone in, just like the old Indiana HS playoffs. The best team is gonna win anyways, so who cares?

Even now, I don’t know that everyone thinks the “best” team wins. Sometimes yeah, sometimes the hottest, or the luckiest. Most people would think a 31 game season proves more than a 6 game tournament.

 

[Orangezoo]

C’mon man. The only thing that’s driving the NCAAT expansion is greed, pure and simple. The NCAA wants more, the leagues want more, and the individual schools want more. No on really thinks this will improve the product, just their bottom lines. And, as Matt and others have pointed out, what brings in the casual fan is the simplicity of a 64 team bracket. (Most don’t include the First Four, giving you those winners automatically). But expand that into multiple sheets, it will NOT increase casual participation.

The reasons have been clearly pointed out some of you choose to ignore them and only accept the explanations for not expanding. Like I said disagree all you want that’s what we do plenty of here. There is logic behind the expansion paired with the state of the game today. To say it’s the same as it was when 64 worked perfectly is naive.

 

[kcsu]

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.

I dont agree. I think that the polls, the strange weighting system and the committe are all flawed. The proof always takes place on the court. I believe that each year well over a dozen deserving teams especially teams from lower conferences that might get upset in their conference tournament are left out.
I think 76 given the competitive nature of college basketball and the significant number of upsets that we see each post season is warranted.

 

[Orangezoo]

I dont agree. I think that the polls, the strange weighting system and the committe are all flawed. The proof always takes place on the court. I believe that each year well over a dozen deserving teams especially teams from lower conferences that might get upset in their conference tournament are left out.
I think 76 given the competitive nature of college basketball and the significant number of upsets that we see each post season is warranted.

Another good take for expansion.

 

[MSOrange]

I dont agree. I think that the polls, the strange weighting system and the committe are all flawed. The proof always takes place on the court. I believe that each year well over a dozen deserving teams especially teams from lower conferences that might get upset in their conference tournament are left out.
I think 76 given the competitive nature of college basketball and the significant number of upsets that we see each post season is warranted.

12 is a big stretch. There's probably about 4 each year that have a legitimate argument. I'd like to see Syracuse get back in this version of the tournament again, if we even can, before we go to "everybody gets to play."

 

[grepal]

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 go nuts, no seeds, a blind draw for all four regions. Only rule is all games except the final four must be at least 500 miles from yout home state.

 

[Eric15]

Change is a beautiful thing, when there is a problem. This is a "solution" in search of a problem.

The conference tournaments already serve as a de facto extension of the NCAA tournament. There is no sport more forgiving than college basketball. 0-30 in the regular season? All good. You're still alive.

To each their own, but when I watch the tourney, I never for a nanosecond have said to myself, "ya know this thing is pretty good, but what it REALLY needs is more Dayton."

I wonder if deep down the reason why some here want expansion is because we have sucked so much over the past decade and it will increase our chances of stumbling into the tourney. I just don't think lowering the bar is the answer. Let's get back to being an actual tourney-caliber program instead of Lori Loughlining our way in.

 

[Orangezoo]

Change is a beautiful thing, when there is a problem. This is a "solution" in search of a problem.

The conference tournaments already serve as a de facto extension of the NCAA tournament. There is no sport more forgiving than college basketball. 0-30 in the regular season? All good. You're still alive.

To each their own, but when I watch the tourney, I never for a nanosecond have said to myself, "ya know this thing is pretty good, but what it REALLY needs is more Dayton."

I wonder if deep down the reason why some here want expansion is because we have sucked so much over the past decade and it will increase our chances of stumbling into the tourney. I just don't think lowering the bar is the answer. Let's get back to being an actual tourney-caliber program instead of Lori Loughlining our way in.

Personally has nothing to do with us for me.

The original purpose of moving to 64 was money, 68 was money etc. More fans watching equates to more money no matter what the traditionalist view is. We all got used to that number but it’s not like it statistically is proven to be a better number than 72, 76 etc.

Since $$ is driving everything for both athlete and program naturally this is just following the trends. Pair that with the talent pool being much larger too.