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.
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?
Has the amount of quality teams increased?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.
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.Has the amount of quality teams increased?
Awesome. Do it.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.Awesome. Do it.