NCAA Tournament expansion idea

[Bulldog Bruce]

The NCAA owns both the NIT and the NCAA tournament. I have an idea that could give the NIT a little boost. Expand the play-in games to 4 games and have the last 4 in and the first 4 out play these games on Tuesday. The 4 winners go to the NCAA and the 4 Losers are the 1 seeds in the NIT. The play-in winners would go in as 12 or 13 seeds since I am sure they do not want these teams to go into the 16 slot.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

The NCAA owns both the NIT and the NCAA tournament. I have an idea that could give the NIT a little boost. Expand the play-in games to 4 games and have the last 4 in and the first 4 out play these games on Tuesday. The 4 winners go to the NCAA and the 4 Losers are the 1 seeds in the NIT. The play-in winners would go in as 12 or 13 seeds since I am sure they do not want these teams to go into the 16 slot.

 

[rugbdawg]

all conferences and you fix the problem.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Why?

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

It would give some expansion, but those last few teams like MSU and Florida this year, would have a chance to play in, instead of the committee picking one over the other

 

[GloryDawg]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">But if you are going to change things this is what I would do. There are over 300 schools playing division I Basketball. I say break it down like football and have a big division and small division. Let the NCAA Tourney decide the big division and the NIT decide the small division. Two national champion just like Div I football.</p>

 

[lawdawg02]

I think it would make for good TV - bubble teams playing for their tournament lives. For the last couple of weeks of the season, lots of talk centers on these teams, so people know who they are.

This lets you keep the tourney at 64 and keep the conference auto-bids, which I think are great.

 

[615dawg]

but the last four in/four out should be the 12s and 13s (or thereabout). Those playing in the playin games should be the current 15 and 16 seeded minor conference tournament winners.

 

[mstateglfr]

but the last four in/four out should be the 12s and 13s (or thereabout). Those playing in the playin games should be the current 15 and 16 seeded minor conference tournament winners.

Terrible because if you win your conference tournament, then you should be in the damn tournament. You win it, then you are in.

Play in game(s) need to be for those that arent automatically in the tournament.

If the NCAAT is going to continue to the a tournament that prides itself on allowing neutral court matchups where David takes on Duke and Syracuse, and they keep the autobids from each conference, then each conference must be allowed to play in the actual tournament...not in some game that gets 1 of them to the tournament.

 

[RebelBruiser]

If you hypothetically had it down to about 150 teams, there would be no need for a 64 team tournament. 32 would be all you'd need, and teams like the ones we both fielded this year would still be on the bubble likely watching from home.

 

[mstateglfr]

The NCAA owns both the NIT and the NCAA tournament. I have an idea that could give the NIT a little boost. Expand the play-in games to 4 games and have the last 4 in and the first 4 out play these games on Tuesday. The 4 winners go to the NCAA and the 4 Losers are the 1 seeds in the NIT. The play-in winners would go in as 12 or 13 seeds since I am sure they do not want these teams to go into the 16 slot.

There is no need to expand the tournament. There may be desires by multiple areas(fans, coaches, players) to expand and therefore make the tournament, but there is no need.

Does anyone actually think that a team left out of the tournament has a chance to win it? Ever?
I dont think Illinois, MSU, Az State, OM, UNC, UCONN, etc etc actually had a chance to win the title. Its a tournament comprised of the conference winners and the remaining best 20ish teams after those conference winners. Anyone below that isnt going to win it all. Since they arent going to win it all, there is no need to expand.
There may be a desire, but no need.

Coaches may want to expand so they can save their job and claim NCAA bids.
Players may want to expand because making the tournament is pretty much everyone's baseline season goal.
Fans may want to expand because they want to see their team play more.

But there is no actual need to expand.
Expanding will just lessen what making the NCAAT means. It will become more watered down and the watered down part that was added isnt going to result in a sudden influx of 12 seeds making the Final Four.

 

[topdawg.sixpack]

He proposed breaking basketball up into D-1 and 1-AA, doing away with conference tournaments, and allowing everyone to make the national tournament.

 

[615dawg]

I'm not talking about the Sienas and George Masons and such, I'm talking about Arkansas Pine Bluff and Morgan State. Take the eight lowest RPIs, seed those suckers, and let the winners play the 1 seeds. This gives three more spots to at-large teams.

I think having one play-in game is stupid. One one seed (not always the #1 overall seed, just the one closest to Dayton, Ohio) gets the advantage of playing a team that played two days ago.

 

[rugbdawg]

VERY rarely does a 15 seed team win. All teams should be on an equal playing field with regards to tournament selection. If you have the resume, you get in. If you don't, you don't. You want more of the best teams in the tourney? This is the way to do it without expanding the tournament. You want the 1 seed to have to be on their toes in the first round? This is the way to do it. You want more excitement and less blowouts in tourney games? This is the way to do it. You want every game in the regular season to have a greater impact? This is the way to do it.

Shockingly, I heard this view being PROMOTED by the announcer during the Big Sky tournament championship game. I'd never heard that view before from a talking head. But if we are honest with ourselves, it is the right way.

And forget the little guy. The little guy (14-16 seed) will never make a big run in the tourney.

<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Edited to add</span>: Even giving an auto bid to the Big 12 or Big East winner is asinine. If they don't have the resume after making that run, then they REALLY don't deserve to be in the tournament. You shouldn't award a three or four day run with a tourney bid. The conference tourneys are NOTHING like the NCAA tourney.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I am not for expansion either. This is not really an expansion since all these teams are going to one tournament or the other. It is just a better event and eliminates or at least calms the "we was robbed" arguments.

As to the "do any of these teams have a chance to win it all?" question, that is a false premise. With 64 teams there are usually only 8 to 12 teams that have a real chance to win it all. So with that logic, the tournament should be just 16 teams.

 

[mstateglfr]

I'm not talking about the Sienas and George Masons and such, I'm talking about Arkansas Pine Bluff and Morgan State. Take the eight lowest RPIs, seed those suckers, and let the winners play the 1 seeds. This gives three more spots to at-large teams.

I think having one play-in game is stupid. One one seed (not always the #1 overall seed, just the one closest to Dayton, Ohio) gets the advantage of playing a team that played two days ago.

Right...having'play-in games' means they arent actually in thedamn tournament yet. They won their conference tournament, but they arent evenfor sure in theNCAAT. Thats BS.

If the NCAA isnolonger going toguarantee conference champs a spot in theNCAAT, then they need to scrap it and just go with the best 64 teams in the country.

Either let the conference winners in, or scrapit. Letting all but a few in and making them play yet another game just to get in is total horseshit.

The NCAAT is about conference winners and the rest being filled byat large teams who were picked. Since they arent guaranteed a spot, THEY should have to play those play in game(s).

 

[MeridianDog]

Don't the Pro Hockey playoffs last about 16 months each year?

Sarcasm detector beeping.

Leave it like it is for all the reasons already stated.

 

[dickiedawg]

Don't the Pro Hockey playoffs last about 16 months each year?

Sarcasm detector beeping.

Leave it like it is for all the reasons already stated.

The NHL playoffs occupy the exact same time frame as the NBA playoffs.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Those games are a reward in 2 ways.

1) They reward that small conference team with a shot to say they played against the big boys in the dance.

2) They reward the teams like Kansas and Kentucky who had great seasons by essentially giving them a warm up scrimmage when their next opponent is having to face a tough game. In that way, it keeps the value of the regular season. It's not just about making the tournament, but it's about getting a high seed to give yourself that easier road.

It's short-sighted to say the 14, 15, and 16 seeds don't serve a purpose. They serve a very good purpose, not the least of which is eliminating mediocre teams like yours an mine from participating. The point is that you DON'T want the No. 1 seed to have to be on its toes for the opener. They've earned that right to have a gimme game.

The auto-bids are the single best part of the tournament in my opinion, and they are the reason the tournament is so successful and the reason basketball this time of year is so much fun. And I say that as a fan of a team that would have received NCAA bids 3 of the past 4 seasons if all 64 bids were at large bids. Plain and simple, we didn't deserve bids any of those years. We deserved our NIT fate, and we deserve it again this year. If you can't get in the top 40 or 45 in the country and you didn't win your conference tourney, you don't deserve to be in. It's that simple. You know that in advance.

 

[RebelBruiser]

That's essentially what you're saying, and I disagree. All the best teams are already in the field. If you missed out, it's your own fault. You didn't get jobbed. You did it to yourself. If players are upset about it, they need to blame themselves. If fans are upset about it, blame your coach or your team. They're the ones that didn't do enough.

 

[rugbdawg]

I see it as a boring waste of a potentially, another great tourney game.

 

[SilentDog]

32 auto bids (seeds 1-8)
64 team playoff to determine who plays 32 auto bids consisting of bubble teams that didn't make top 32 and teams that won their conference tournamentsand weren't in top 32.
seeding:
auto 1 vs play in 8/9
auto 8 vs play in 1/16
etc.

 

[mstateglfr]

Those games are a reward in 2 ways.

1) They reward that small conference team with a shot to say they played against the big boys in the dance.

The auto-bids are the single best part of the tournament in my opinion, and they are the reason the tournament is so successful and the reason basketball this time of year is so much fun. And I say that as a fan of a team that would have received NCAA bids 3 of the past 4 seasons if all 64 bids were at large bids. Plain and simple, we didn't deserve bids any of those years. We deserved our NIT fate, and we deserve it again this year. If you can't get in the top 40 or 45 in the country and you didn't win your conference tourney, you don't deserve to be in. It's that simple. You know that in advance.

So the auto-bids are the single best part of the tournament, yet you support makingtwo auto-bid teams play a game before the tournament to see which one will actually get to play in the tournament?
Are you kidding me?...how does that make sense?

If the auto-bids really are the single best part, then ALL auto-bids should be AUTOMATICALLY in the tournament. Two shouldnt have to play yet another gamejust to get in. And one shouldnt be left out of the tournament since they won their conference tournament in order to get an AUTO-BID.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Those games are a reward in 2 ways.

1) They reward that small conference team with a shot to say they played against the big boys in the dance.

The auto-bids are the single best part of the tournament in my opinion, and they are the reason the tournament is so successful and the reason basketball this time of year is so much fun. And I say that as a fan of a team that would have received NCAA bids 3 of the past 4 seasons if all 64 bids were at large bids. Plain and simple, we didn't deserve bids any of those years. We deserved our NIT fate, and we deserve it again this year. If you can't get in the top 40 or 45 in the country and you didn't win your conference tourney, you don't deserve to be in. It's that simple. You know that in advance.

So the auto-bids are the single best part of the tournament, yet you support makingtwo auto-bid teams play a game before the tournament to see which one will actually get to play in the tournament?
Are you kidding me?...how does that make sense?

If the auto-bids really are the single best part, then ALL auto-bids should be AUTOMATICALLY in the tournament. Two shouldnt have to play yet another gamejust to get in. And one shouldnt be left out of the tournament since they won their conference tournament in order to get an AUTO-BID.

When did I say I supported the way the play-in game is structured? I've always thought the play-in game needed to be for the last at-large spot and a 12 seed or 13 seed depending on where that last at large spot falls in the seeding structure. The reason they have the play-in game is because the tourney rules stated all conference tourney winners and 34 at large bids. When a 31st conference got an automatic bid, they had to go to 65 to still have 34 at large spots. I think the play-in should definitely be between two at large teams though. In this year's tourney, it should be UTEP and Utah State playing for the last 12 seed with the winner taking on Butler or Texas A&M.