Field of 65 might go to 96


#1

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/64263

GRAHRGGG says the monster of march madness


#2

that would be terrible. the tournament is perfect as is, every team has a legitimate chance to get in, and therefore a chance to win.

Unlike the horrible step-sister that is the BCS, where going undefeated means absolutely nothing - as proven by this season.


#3

soon it will be like football, with over half of teh teams getting an invite


#4

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:2, topic:436”]that would be terrible. the tournament is perfect as is, every team has a legitimate chance to get in, and therefore a chance to win.

Unlike the horrible step-sister that is the BCS, where going undefeated means absolutely nothing - as proven by this season.[/quote]

Craftsy, I agree with you. 100%. I’d like to pause for a moment to reflect on this momentous occassion. :wink:


#5

the play-in game is a complete joke.

I don’t like this idea, but the tournament as it is now is not perfect. Either keep it at 64 or bump it up to 72 (bottom 16 conference winners play each other to play #1 seeds).

But it sure as hell is better than college football!


#6

I’ve always been intriqued by “All in.”

Line 'em all up by RPI and play it off.


#7

[quote=“eric17, post:5, topic:436”]the play-in game is a complete joke.

I don’t like this idea, but the tournament as it is now is not perfect. Either keep it at 64 or bump it up to 72 (bottom 16 conference winners play each other to play #1 seeds).

But it sure as hell is better than college football![/quote]

So you would support having the bottom 16 automatic qualifiers play each other for the right to get blasted by the #1 and 2 seeds; just so more teams with mediocre records from the top six big conferences can get into the tournament?

Does PSU getting snubbed last season have anything to do with this line of thinking, or do you just hate the little guy?


#8

[quote=“eric17, post:5, topic:436”]the play-in game is a complete joke.

I don’t like this idea, but the tournament as it is now is not perfect. Either keep it at 64 or bump it up to 72 (bottom 16 conference winners play each other to play #1 seeds).

But it sure as hell is better than college football![/quote]

i hate it also - but it’s actually for the best. It prevents teams from just going off to start their own conferences to guarantee a bid. Not that this would happen a ton, but you never know. And maybe one of these small conferences will dissolve somehow,into D-1AA or merge into other conferences and we’ll get back to 64 one day.

For now - it’s not the worst thing in the world.


#9

[quote=“tjb, post:6, topic:436”]I’ve always been intriqued by “All in.”

Line 'em all up by RPI and play it off.[/quote]

it already is sort’ve that way though. With the exception of the Ivy league, everybody gets a conference tournament at the end to make the dance. And from there, it’s on like donkey kong.


#10

You start eliminating the opportunities for smaller conference teams to have a chance to make a difference, just so more 19-13 or 18-14 BCS teams make it in, and you will see college basketball go the way of college football. There will be little incentive for any team to play a tough schedule, leaving the public with a steady diet of the basketball equivalence of Penn State vs. Coastal Carolina and/or Penn State vs. Eastern Illinois each and every week.


#11

I think the play-in game is fine…IF there’s one in each region, and IF the participants are at-large teams, not automatic qualifiers.


#12
[quote="tjb, post:6, topic:436"]I've always been intriqued by "All in."

Line 'em all up by RPI and play it off.[/quote]

it already is sort’ve that way though. With the exception of the Ivy league, everybody gets a conference tournament at the end to make the dance. And from there, it’s on like donkey kong.

Not everybody. Some conference tournaments don’t included every team so some teams are left behind


#13

This is one of Boeheim’s long standing arguments (he’s a huge proponent of expanding) and I don’t think it applies. Yea, yea, yea…a bunch of very mediocre teams get to play in the postsesaon in football. But, they don’t get to play for the national title. It’s not like the selection commitee is picking the Final Four, Jim.

And, as it says later in this thread, it pretty much is a “play yourself to the title via tournaments” anyway. Only the Ivy doesn’t have the conference tournament, while nearly every conference and all the major ones have all inclusive tournaments with bids now. Sure, it’s a difficult, near impossible road…but it is an avenue for anybody (save the Ivy and the dregs of the Summit and maybe another league or two) to win the national title.

Above all that, the NCAA tournament is my far and away favorite sporting event and one I’ve followed religiously since I was seven-years old back in 1990 and discovered the joys when school was cancelled on the opening Thursday and Friday, so selfishly I like the three weekend setup and don’t want to see changes (even though it would have meant we’d have been in last year).


#14

[quote=“Captain Cranky, post:7, topic:436”]So you would support having the bottom 16 automatic qualifiers play each other for the right to get blasted by the #1 and 2 seeds; just so more teams with mediocre records from the top six big conferences can get into the tournament?

Does PSU getting snubbed last season have anything to do with this line of thinking, or do you just hate the little guy?[/quote]

PSU has nothing to do with my thinking.

I’m not sure which one I would support, honestly. I think 64 is the best choice now, but I would like to see if there’s a way we could get #1 seeds a tougher game than what they get now. What the hell is the point of the play-in game anyway and why does it exist? Didn’t the two teams that actually have to play the game already earn their right to be in the tournament by winning their conference? But if we are really going to make 2 small schools earn their right again, why single out just 2 teams when there are more like 8-10 teams that are of equal caliber?


#15
[quote="Captain Cranky, post:7, topic:436"]So you would support having the bottom 16 automatic qualifiers play each other for the right to get blasted by the #1 and 2 seeds; just so more teams with mediocre records from the top six big conferences can get into the tournament?

Does PSU getting snubbed last season have anything to do with this line of thinking, or do you just hate the little guy?[/quote]

PSU has nothing to do with my thinking.

I’m not sure which one I would support, honestly. I think 64 is the best choice now, but I would like to see if there’s a way we could get #1 seeds a tougher game than what they get now. What the hell is the point of the play-in game anyway and why does it exist? Didn’t the two teams that actually have to play the game already earn their right to be in the tournament by winning their conference? But if we are really going to make 2 small schools earn their right again, why single out just 2 teams when there are more like 8-10 teams that are of equal caliber?

The play in game exists because of the split of the Mountain West and WAC…or I guess I should say the MWC teams that left the WAC. Both kept their automatic bids, but they wanted to keep the number of at large teams the same, so they devised the Opening Round game (don’t dare call it play-in to the NCAA).


#16
[quote="tjb, post:6, topic:436"]I've always been intriqued by "All in."

Line 'em all up by RPI and play it off.[/quote]

it already is sort’ve that way though. With the exception of the Ivy league, everybody gets a conference tournament at the end to make the dance. And from there, it’s on like donkey kong.

Not everybody. Some conference tournaments don’t included every team so some teams are left behind

But at least those teams were eliminated from the conference tournament by a round robin (of sorts) regular season where they had a chance to play their way into position to make the tournament. In football, you can’t even go undefeated and be guaranteed a chance.


#17
[quote="eric17, post:5, topic:436"]the play-in game is a complete joke.

I don’t like this idea, but the tournament as it is now is not perfect. Either keep it at 64 or bump it up to 72 (bottom 16 conference winners play each other to play #1 seeds).

But it sure as hell is better than college football![/quote]

i hate it also - but it’s actually for the best. It prevents teams from just going off to start their own conferences to guarantee a bid. Not that this would happen a ton, but you never know. And maybe one of these small conferences will dissolve somehow,into D-1AA or merge into other conferences and we’ll get back to 64 one day.

For now - it’s not the worst thing in the world.

Is there a Div-1AA in college hoops? I didn’t think there was. Am I wrong about that?


#18

I also think the tourney is great at 65. But, as a PSU fan, I would gladly trade that in a second to see PSU in the tourney more often, maybe even frequently. We all have seen how hard it has been to get to a point where making the tourney every year is feasible, they have to basically be in the top 30 because of conference automatic bids and PSU’s reputation as a ‘football’ school. I’d love to think PSU eventually gets to a point where they are in that top 30 annually, but we know that is still an uncertain future especially with the dynamics of our conference and the recruiting territory. 96 would put Penn State in the tournament more often, so I like it.


#19
[quote="Captain Cranky, post:7, topic:436"]So you would support having the bottom 16 automatic qualifiers play each other for the right to get blasted by the #1 and 2 seeds; just so more teams with mediocre records from the top six big conferences can get into the tournament?

Does PSU getting snubbed last season have anything to do with this line of thinking, or do you just hate the little guy?[/quote]

PSU has nothing to do with my thinking.

I’m not sure which one I would support, honestly. I think 64 is the best choice now, but I would like to see if there’s a way we could get #1 seeds a tougher game than what they get now. What the hell is the point of the play-in game anyway and why does it exist? Didn’t the two teams that actually have to play the game already earn their right to be in the tournament by winning their conference? But if we are really going to make 2 small schools earn their right again, why single out just 2 teams when there are more like 8-10 teams that are of equal caliber?

I sometimes think back to the OLD days of the NHL when I hear/read talk of expanding the NCAA Tournament to more teams. Reminds me when 16 of the 21 NHL teams made the postseason and the regular season was rather meaningless, except for securing home ice by one lousy game over your less successful opponent. Despite the watering down of talent the NHL has seen since hey expanded to 30 teams, at least teams that make the playoffs are the better clubs from the entire league pool and not just those who avoided being the five worst that the sport could find.


#20
[quote="Captain Cranky, post:7, topic:436"]So you would support having the bottom 16 automatic qualifiers play each other for the right to get blasted by the #1 and 2 seeds; just so more teams with mediocre records from the top six big conferences can get into the tournament?

Does PSU getting snubbed last season have anything to do with this line of thinking, or do you just hate the little guy?[/quote]

PSU has nothing to do with my thinking.

I’m not sure which one I would support, honestly. I think 64 is the best choice now, but I would like to see if there’s a way we could get #1 seeds a tougher game than what they get now. What the hell is the point of the play-in game anyway and why does it exist? Didn’t the two teams that actually have to play the game already earn their right to be in the tournament by winning their conference? But if we are really going to make 2 small schools earn their right again, why single out just 2 teams when there are more like 8-10 teams that are of equal caliber?

I sometimes think back to the OLD days of the NHL when I hear/read talk of expanding the NCAA Tournament to more teams. Reminds me when 16 of the 21 NHL teams made the postseason and the regular season was rather meaningless, except for securing home ice by one lousy game over your less successful opponent. Despite the watering down of talent the NHL has seen since hey expanded to 30 teams, at least teams that make the playoffs are the better clubs from the entire league pool and not just those who avoided being the five worst that the sport could find.

It’s still 16 out of 30, or better than 50%. But it will never be less than 16 as long as that puts more money in the owners’ pockets. I don’t mind baseball having 8. But I wish they’d add two teams and make it 4 four team divisions and only division winners advance. Football is okay with 12, since they only play 16 games and they have to deal with a lot more injuries. So I’m fine with 12, but no more than that.