Expanding the tourney

T

TheFied

2,500+ Posts
No. So there are 65 teams and 34 are at-large. Obviously some of the 31 automatic bids are teams like KU, UNC, UCLA.... so to act as if Virginia Tech was one of the best 34 teams is not right. KU, UCLA, UNC ... are up there. The committee said that Va Tech was not better than the 34 other at-large teams. Basically Va Tech was not better than say #40. If you are not that good, I'm sorry time for NIT.

I will say Va Tech was a good team and has a good argument to be in over say Baylor or Arizona but they can only blame themselves.
 
To what, all Div I teams??? Stop bitching Va Tech, someone has to b the last one out unless the tournament includes everyone, so suck it up and play better next year.
 
I'm so tired of hearing the VTech's, ASU's, ISU's and etc whine and whine about not making into the tournament. First off, none of these teams did anything spectacular all year. None of these teams really deserve to be in the top 34. Lastly, none of these teams would make it the Sweet 16. The current system is fine, the teams that'll make impacts in the dance are already in there, expanding the field is idiotic. Making the tournament is something you earn, these other bozos didn't earn it.
 
Bob Knight was saying the tourney should be expanded to 128 teams. He had an interesting concept, he said have the top 64 teams host the next 64 teams, just one extra game.

I think that would be a great idea, IF you get rid of the conference tourneys. Just think, you could have selection Sunday one week earlier, everybody plays everybody on Wednesday or Thursday night, 32 games Wednesday night, 32 games Thursday night. No brackets yet at all. Just pairing down the 128 to 64. Play all games on campus, #1 overall would host #128, #2 against #127, etc.

Then the committee meets again on Sunday, which this year would have been today. They know who the 64 teams are, they just have to seed the teams into the four regionals.

Then the tournament continues just like it does now.

This plan eliminates all of the problems associated with playing three games in three days, or in the SEC, two games in one day because of bad weather. It also reduces the impact of the surprise team with a losing record getting in because it won three games in a row for the first time all year.

What's not to like?
laugh.gif
 
The tournament has enough teams. The teams that are out have virtually no shot at winning many games, much less the national title. Expanding it only punishes the better teams by making them play more games. It waters down the field. Besides, if you have 128 teams in the tournament the 129-135 teams will whine that they were left out. Unless every single team is included someone will whine about being left out.

This isn't a preschool class of 2-3 year olds where everybody wins and gets a prize.

Also, now they are in the NIT and have an actual chance to win something. Playing 2-3 games in the NIT would be more fun than getting wasted in the first round in the NCAA tourney.
 
Coaches love to talk about expanding the tournament to 96 or 128 teams, because they feel like their jobs are on the line, and if you dilute the field, it creates more job security.

Fortunately, they're not the ones in charge. As a fan, not as a coach, expanding the field does nothing for me. As a 64 team event, it includes enough teams to have a legitimate champion. None of those 64 teams the event would add are true contenders.

The only expansion I would support is adding 3 more "play in games" (even though we're not supposed to call them that any more). Have all four play on the same day, and create an event out of it, rather than the current outlier it represents. These teams simply don't have much of a shot at winning an NCAA game otherwise, but as it stands, the two programs in the play in game have a tendency to think of themselves as lepers.

I also think it might help a 16 seed beat a 1 seed, if all the 1/16 games are played on Friday. The 16 seeds would have less "rust" so to speak, and the confidence of winning a game against another conference tournament team and quality opponent before going several rungs up in weight class.

That would get 4 more at large teams into the tournament instead of the current 1 extra. There would still be bitching, but guess what? There's going to be bitching with 128 teams, because someone is still going to get left off, and now we'd start having bitching about all these stupid teams that have no business being in the tournament, now playing on. It would be like the bowl system, which is absolutely ludicrous.

Fortunately, I don't see the presidents changing the current format any time soon.
 
i thought Ariz St was the last team out.
i do think VT should have been in over Arizona.
i though it was very wiered that Usc wa #6 and Kst #11 with pretty much the same record and Big 12 being the better conf.
 
I normally don't agree with Vitale much, but his response to an expanded field was right on. Increase it to 128 and you will still have #'s 129 & 130 bitching about being left out. The solution? Win more games.
 
If you have the 128 teams without the conference tournaments, that would take out some of the March Madness. We wouldn't have had the story of Georgia this year. All the schools in the smaller conferences wouldn't have had any hope for the last month or so. With the conference tournaments, everyone in the country has a chance to get to the Big Dance.

If you have the 128 AFTER the conference tournaments, it would take away from the sense of urgency for the top 100 or so schools because they would know they are already in the Dance.
 
I think they should shrink the field. If you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be able to win the national championship.

But that's just me.
 
I think adding a play-in game in each region is the way to go and would take care of a lot of the bitching and moaning.

The one seed in each region would play the play-in winner.
 
When a 16 seed wins the tournament, you'll have an argument for exapnding the playoff. Since no #16 seed has even won a game in the 64/65 team tournament, I think it is safe to say that expansion is a dumb idea.
 
Bob Knight is absolutely correct. The field should be the best 64 teams in the country with no automatic bids. It's a disgrace 20 loss Coppin State is playing while VT or ASU sits at home. If anything, the tournament needs to be contracted. No more play-in games. America needs to stop being pussified where everyone is a winner.
 
I think the seeds given to USC & KSt were manipulated so they could pit Beasley against Mayo. No way is USC a 6-seed, no way is KSt an 11.

I'd be okay expanding the field by 15 and having 16 "play-in" games on Tuesday. 13th seed vs. 20th, 14th vs. 19th, etc. While you're always going to have a team whining about being the last one out, it does give us all more basketball to watch. And you can't tell me any of the teams in the NIT or CBI wouldn't jump at a chance to play even a "play-in" game in the Big Dance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top