NCAAT Expansion

[HRE Otto IV]

There’s zero question to address. Either expand or some/all power conference teams are going to create their own tournament where they have absolute power

You have changed your premise like 5 times on this. You went from we need to expand so we get the Indiana States of the world in the NCAAT to we need to expand to appease the P5 otherwise they leave. So which is it?

Even if it is the latter (which completely contradicts your other posts), will you admit that expansion is...

-not about making a better product
-not about making things fairer for the little guy
-not in the interest of making for a better Champ
-all about money and power

Then we are in agreement and there is nothing else to discuss.

 

[Cusefan0307]

You have changed your premise like 5 times on this. You went from we need to expand so we get the Indiana States of the world in the NCAAT to we need to expand to appease the P5 otherwise they leave. So which is it?

Even if it is the latter (which completely contradicts your other posts), will you admit that expansion is...

-not about making a better product
-not about making things fairer for the little guy
-not in the interest of making for a better Champ
-all about money and power

Then we are in agreement and there is nothing else to discuss.

I haven’t changed anything. You’re just mad they’re expanding. Multiple things can be true. There’s 90 more schools playing D1 hoops. Worse teams got in during the 80’s then now. This will get regular season champions in who are deserving and save the tournament from a Power 5 breakaway.

If there was social media around in 1984 fans would have complained about going from 48 to 64.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

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?

Your premise is wrong. The winner is not the best team in the country. They are the winners of a one and done tournament.
Sometimes the best regular season team wins the tournament. Sometime they don’t.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I haven’t changed anything. You’re just mad they’re expanding. Multiple things can be true. There’s 90 more schools playing D1 hoops. Worse teams got in during the 80’s then now. This will get regular season champions in who are deserving and save the tournament from a Power 5 breakaway.

If there was social media around in 1984 fans would have complained about going from 48 to 64.

Again you are avoiding the questions.

No, worse teams did not get in as at larges in the 80s. If you have more at larges now (and a ton more if you expand), how can you have worse teams in the 80s? It was harder to make the NCAAs back then.

Saying we need to expand for Indiana State is the complete opposite of saying we need to expand to appease the P5. So you are now saying we need to expand for the P5 (which you did NOT start out with) and while we are at it we can throw a bone to the little guys?

No matter what you premise is, one can opine that expanding is worse for the sport. Even if you accept that 68 teams is dead as a truth, one can still feel that expanding is worse for the sport. It won't be better even though it is a requirement to move forward. So why argue against that? Why say it is inevitable and one cannot dislike that fact?

And I think you are way overstating the threat of a P5 only tournament. There are only 79 teams you cannot have a 64 team field that way.

Personally I rather see a 40 team P5 only tournament than see a 96 team NCAAT where last year's FSU team gets an at large bid. So saying expand or die, I chose death.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Again you are avoiding the questions.

No, worse teams did not get in as at larges in the 80s. If you have more at larges now (and a ton more if you expand), how can you have worse teams in the 80s? It was harder to make the NCAAs back then.

Saying we need to expand for Indiana State is the complete opposite of saying we need to expand to appease the P5. So you are now saying we need to expand for the P5 (which you did NOT start out with) and while we are at it we can throw a bone to the little guys?

No matter what you premise is, one can opine that expanding is worse for the sport. Even if you accept that 68 teams is dead as a truth, one can still feel that expanding is worse for the sport. It won't be better even though it is a requirement to move forward. So why argue against that? Why say it is inevitable and one cannot dislike that fact?

And I think you are way overstating the threat of a P5 only tournament. There are only 79 teams you cannot have a 64 team field that way.

Personally I rather see a 40 team P5 only tournament than see a 96 team NCAAT where last year's FSU team gets an at large bid. So saying expand or die, I chose death.

It was not harder to make the tournament in the 80’s. There were 90 less teams. Look at the records of some of the BE and SEC schools that made it in the mid to late 80’s. Under .500 in conference. I’m done here. You aren’t even arguing with facts.

 

[Eric15]

Look at the records of some of the BE and SEX schools that made it in the mid to late 80’s.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Take a look at this year NIT seedings and get back to me. There needs to be some appeasance to power conference schools or eventually they are just going to create their own tournament with ZERO cinderellas.

They will continue to lose viewers if they do that. It's obvious.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

It was not harder to make the tournament in the 80’s. There were 90 less teams. Look at the records of some of the BE and SEC schools that made it in the mid to late 80’s. Under .500 in conference. I’m done here. You aren’t even arguing with facts.

You aren't good at math I guess.

The little conferences schools were not making at large bids in the past, they aren't now, and they won't in the future. So yes while the D1 pool was smaller in the 1980s than it was today, the at large pool is the same. Since there are more at large bids today than there were in the past, it is easier for the teams in the at large pool to make the NCAAT. BTW two years ago we had a 7-11 team get a 9 seed. Facts.

 

[Cheriehoop]

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.

You don’t think that refusing to expand probably has the exact same motivation you mention - greed etc? More for us, less for them, why share and why not restrict competition and favor the favored? Why should we let the outsiders “in” and have to share? Isn’t that the entire motivation behind these mega conferences - chose the winners, make the losers irrelevant? Greed not competition is the main motivator. Why let competition and the actual games determine the winners? The favored refuse to play the assumed losers unless the winners have a big edge, why take the chance of losing, sharing, or making them relevant even in a short period of time?

 

[Cusefan0307]

They will continue to lose viewers if they do that. It's obvious.

No they won’t. The first four ratings were up this year. They beat NBA playoff games.

 

[Cusefan0307]

You aren't good at math I guess.

The little conferences schools were not making at large bids in the past, they aren't now, and they won't in the future. So yes while the D1 pool was smaller in the 1980s than it was today, the at large pool is the same. Since there are more at large bids today than there were in the past, it is easier for the teams in the at large pool to make the NCAAT. BTW two years ago we had a 7-11 team get a 9 seed. Facts.

One team. 18 teams from the ACC/BE/SEC made it from 85-90 that were .500 or worse including 7 below .500. I didn’t even care to look at the PAC 10 or Big 10 from that time.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Since going to 68 teams the 4 extras bids have gone to (by current conferences):

31 - P5 (ACC, Big East, B1G, B12, SEC)
17 - Mid-Majors (AAC, A10, MWC, WCC)
4 - Little Guys (CUSA, MAAC, MVC)


So nearly 60% of the extra at large bids went to the P5. I think you will see similar with any expansion of at large bids. Nearly 33% went to your so called mid-Majors (although one can argue that MVC is a Mid-Major). An expansion would benefit them. If you count the MVC as a Mid-Major, the little guys have gotten zero at large bids since 2013, and only 2 out of 52 overall. They aren't likely to get at large bids in an expanded field. And if you include regular season conference champs, they will get 0.0 at large bids going forward.

 

[IthacaMatt]

No they won’t. The first four ratings were up this year. They beat NBA playoff games.

And the final was the 2nd lowest rated EVER, despite UConn going for a repeat championship against the two-time player of the year.

Men's March Madness final draws 14.82m but viewership trails women’s game for first time - SportsPro

Audience for men’s showpiece is second-lowest ever as over four million more viewers tune in for women’s finale.

www.sportspromedia.com

 

[HRE Otto IV]

One team. 18 teams from the ACC/BE/SEC made it from 85-90 that were .500 or worse including 7 below .500. I didn’t even care to look at the PAC 10 or Big 10 from that time.

It happens every year. We are diverging from the main point.

There are currently 79 Power 5 schools.

-Right now those 79 schools get 5 auto bids and make up the majority of the 36 at large bids.

-If you expand to 76 NCAAT teams, those 79 schools get 5 auto bids and will make up the majority of the 44 at large bids. Is that not easier?

-If you expand to 96 NCAAT teams, those 79 schools get 5-10 auto bids and will make up the majority of the 32-64 at large bids. Is that not even easier?

-I am not going to go back and look at every year so let us use 1987 for the fun of it. The 79 current P5 schools combined for 35 NCAAT bids. That is about the same amount (some years are more, some years are less) of teams that they get under the 68 team NCAAT. So it is on par. Not harder, not easier. But it was certainly harder than a 76+ NCAAT will be. BTW last year they combined for only 33 bids. So that means 1987 was easier, as was 1985 when they combined for 34 bids.


I get that the entire D1 universe is a lot bigger than it used to be. But the realistic at large universe is basically the same in the 1980s as it is today. So there is no reason to add at large teams.

If one wants to argue that adding regular season conference champs is needed to be more inclusive of the entire D1 universe, I would applaud that. But that is not realistic as the P5 would completely block it. They would want an equal amount of at larges bids to offset that expansion. And that I am against.

 

[MSOrange]

And the final was the 2nd lowest rated EVER, despite UConn going for a repeat championship against the two-time player of the year.

Men's March Madness final draws 14.82m but viewership trails women’s game for first time - SportsPro

Audience for men’s showpiece is second-lowest ever as over four million more viewers tune in for women’s finale.

www.sportspromedia.com

I'm not sure that refutes his point. People lose interest once their team is eliminated is what some could take from that.

 

[Cusefan0307]

And the final was the 2nd lowest rated EVER, despite UConn going for a repeat championship against the two-time player of the year.

Men's March Madness final draws 14.82m but viewership trails women’s game for first time - SportsPro

Audience for men’s showpiece is second-lowest ever as over four million more viewers tune in for women’s finale.

www.sportspromedia.com

That’s because it was UConn and no one cares about them.

 

[Cusefan0307]

It happens every year. We are diverging from the main point.

There are currently 79 Power 5 schools.

-Right now those 79 schools get 5 auto bids and make up the majority of the 36 at large bids.

-If you expand to 76 NCAAT teams, those 79 schools get 5 auto bids and will make up the majority of the 44 at large bids. Is that not easier?

-If you expand to 96 NCAAT teams, those 79 schools get 5-10 auto bids and will make up the majority of the 32-64 at large bids. Is that not even easier?

-I am not going to go back and look at every year so let us use 1987 for the fun of it. The 79 current P5 schools combined for 35 NCAAT bids. That is about the same amount (some years are more, some years are less) of teams that they get under the 68 team NCAAT. So it is on par. Not harder, not easier. But it was certainly harder than a 76+ NCAAT will be.


I get that the entire D1 universe is a lot bigger than it used to be. But the realistic at large universe is basically the same in the 1980s as it is today. So there is no reason to add at large teams.

If one wants to argue that adding regular season conference champs is needed to be more inclusive of the entire D1 universe, I would applaud that. But that is not realistic as the P5 would completely block it. They would want an equal amount of at larges bids to offset that expansion. And that I am against.

Yes, if you expand some P5 schools will get more bids and some mid majors will get more bids. You have to appease power conference teams a bit if you want more mid major teams in. You apparently want to blow it up and just go all P5 which takes the allure of the tournament away to a lot of people which is pulling for mid majors.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Yes, if you expand some P5 schools will get more bids and some mid majors will get more bids. You have to appease power conference teams a bit if you want more mid major teams in. You apparently want to blow it up and just go all P5 which takes the allure of the tournament away to a lot of people which is pulling for mid majors.

I rather have 64 teams than 68 teams. I rather have 68 teams than 76 teams. I rather have 76 teams than 96 teams. I rather have 40 Power 5 only teams than anything over 76 teams. I think anything over 76 is a complete farce of an NCAAT and makes the regular P5 conference season/tournaments meaningless.

I also think they need to take a page from the Women's game and give the Top 4 seeds home games in the first two rounds. The point of the NCAAT is to crown a worthy champ. That happens when a greater percentage of the Top 25 is in the Sweet 16. Having a team outside the Top 25 get hot for two weeks, makes your champ more random. The Power 5 would be all for this.

Really the Men's game is the only one that doesn't give you a home court/field advantage in the early rounds. A protected seed on a neutral court does not offer the same benefit.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I'm not sure that refutes his point. People lose interest once their team is eliminated is what some could take from that.

That happens every year. Overall ratings for March Madness are trending down.

Overall ratings for the entire men's tournament are down about 8-9% versus 10 years ago.

 

[IthacaMatt]

That’s because it was UConn and no one cares about them.

Yeah, who cares about a team with 6 national championships? Sheesh.
And who cares about the 2 time player of the year? Only Purdue fans, I guess.

 

[Cappy3]

If you win your conference tournament as the 9th seed, you still get in the NCAA tournament.

And then you earned it. Otherwise, no.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Yeah, who cares about a team with 6 national championships? Sheesh.
And who cares about the 2 time player of the year? Only Purdue fans, I guess.

I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make. You can’t look at one game in a vaccuum. There’s a lot of intelligent people in this thread including yourself cherry picking small data points because you are against expansion. Sports ratings are down overall across the board. The NBA probably has been down the most.

 

[Charbroil]

Who says anything about fixing? This is all about more money. More games = more money. Simple as that

Money is absolutely the rationale for the NCAA trying to expand the tournament. But the posters on this board arguing for expansion are using other reasons. It’s not like they are going to see a dime from the $$ an expanded tournament brings in.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Yes, if you expand some P5 schools will get more bids and some mid majors will get more bids. You have to appease power conference teams a bit if you want more mid major teams in. You apparently want to blow it up and just go all P5 which takes the allure of the tournament away to a lot of people which is pulling for mid majors.

I do think with the transfer portal/nil that P5 teams will only get stronger as time passes so including more low or mid majors in the NCAA’s may become more of a moot point. There has been more parity in talent but as mid majors are poached for their players who have produced to replace P5 players recruited with potential but who still need development, the dynamics will change. $ will only become more important in retaining P5 talent and luring mid major talent to P5 programs. It will be interesting to see how P5 teams balance development of players with the increasing use of the transfer portal to fill their rosters. The results may change the dynamic too as time goes by too. Changing times for sure.

 

[Cappy3]

I’m sorry. I fail to see how adding 4 or 8 more mediocre, barely over .500 teams adds anything of value. So there are more D1 teams now. So what. There really aren’t more good teams. Every year before the tourney Bilas lists 8 or so teams and guarantees the winner will be one of them. And he’s always right. In reality, there are maybe at most 20 (and that’s being generous) teams that have a reasonable chance of winning. Right now there are more than enough teams with no shot playing in what’s billed as a National Championship. Adding more chaff to the wheat won’t improve anything.