March Madness expanding?

msstatelp1

All-Conference
Aug 21, 2012
2,019
1,145
113
I hope not. I wasn’t really a fan of adding the play in games and don’t think we need more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dorndawg

QuaoarsKing

All-Conference
Mar 11, 2008
5,915
2,555
113
From an objective perspective, this is a pointless cash grab, but I won't say I oppose it because I suspect the 8 extra bids will mostly go to mediocre power conference teams. This year, it would have been West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio State, Boise State and ... SMU? Villanova? Cincinnati? Nebraska?

I could see us being a beneficiary of this expansion. Stansbury got 6 bids in 14 seasons, but under a 76 team format, he would have had 10 or possibly 11.
 
Nov 16, 2005
27,544
20,524
113
It needs to stay the way it is. Just adding teams for eyeballs because those teams in that 64-76 area aren’t getting anywhere in the tournament.
 

QuaoarsKing

All-Conference
Mar 11, 2008
5,915
2,555
113
It needs to stay the way it is. Just adding teams for eyeballs because those teams in that 64-76 area aren’t getting anywhere in the tournament.
Agreed in principle, but I will point out that in 14 years of the "First Four," 2 of those teams have made the Final Four, so who knows.
 

bulldoghair

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2013
2,502
1,966
108
Only one more round across the board and you can double the field to 128. Play in games are dumb. Just do one extra game for everyone and be done with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoDawg.sixpack

John Deaux VII

All-Conference
Jun 7, 2024
958
2,411
93
I haven’t seen this discussed yet unless I missed it but apparently there’s talk of going to a 76 team field.

Dumb idea, but I have said this before - nothing gets smaller when money is the driving force. I decreases the significance of the regular season. The NBA playoffs last almost two months, and that is ridiculous.