NCAAT expansion to 76 teams

[18IsTheMan]

Of course, lots of chatter going on about the absolute necessity of expansion on the heels of Selection Sunday. The basic thrust behind every argument seems to be: no team in America should be caused to feel disappointment on Selection Sunday. It's kind of funny/sad to see grown men advocating so strongly that nobody should have their feelings hurt but rather should be fully affirmed in everything they think about themselves.

We are such a fragile society. How have people grown up so ill-equipped to deal with disappointment? This is something we are working hard to teach our kids: how to handle disappointment. Things aren't always going to work out in your favor. That's life. You might do everything the right way. You just have to be an emotionally strong person and deal with it. And, also, trying to teach them you can't just whine and accuse things of being unfair when things don't work out as you hoped.

Funny thing is, we're not talking about someone missing out on a 4 or 5 seed. It's teams who don't make the First Four or get a 12 or 13 seed. The fact that this goes on in sport only adds to the hilarity. Sports has winners and losers. Indeed, one of the main reasons to get kids involved in sports...at least it used to be...was to teach them about winning and, as importantly, losing. Everyone expects to win these days, even when they lose.

 

[Blues man]

I'm still trying to grasp why 14 in football. It's halfazz knowing the goal is likely 16. Then I see we still have the "first four" of the eventual 64. Why have two solid 16 seeds and two up for grabs. Might as well have all 16s up for grabs. If it were me, I'd fire the lot of the decision makers for being wishy washy.

 

[ToddFlanders]

I think this has less to do with saving some teams from feeling bad, and everything to do with money. And the one thing I know it has nothing to do with - making the tournament better.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I think this has less to do with saving some teams from feeling bad, and everything to do with money. And the one thing I know it has nothing to do with - making the tournament better.

I'd be curious to know how much the First Four has added financially to the NCAA coffers.

 

[Spinal Tap]

Monetary greed masquerading as inclusiveness.

The idea of expansion is nutz.

 

[DrMickeySC]

This is what happens when the two most powerful conferences crammed so many teams in for football. And now they think, hey, this might not be ideal for every other sport!

There is only one less automatic bid with the death of the PAC 12, but it just got harder to get high enough in the regular season of these giant conferences to get noticed for an at-large bid. That’s the price you pay to the football Gods, I guess. But I suspect the commissioners of the SEC and B1G would rather water down the NCAA tournament to get more bids than live with the consequences of realignment.

 

[Big JC]

Hell, just have another season of single elimination games that includes all teams playing nonconference opponents starting March 15th and going until May 1st. Every team can get a trophy for every game it wins in the second season with trophies getting progressively larger until the final championship trophy is 15 ft tall and weighs around 500 lbs.

In football, go to 64 teams in a playoff that lasts until March 1st. Football playoff could end 2 weeks before the basketball tournament started.

 

[Uscg1984]

I'm not in favor of any playoff expansion. But if they insist on doing it, make all expansion beyond the field of 64 a separate playoff. Perhaps you can call it something like, oh, "The National Invitational Tournament." Eliminate the conference tournaments (automatic qualifiers are regular season champs). Take that weekend to play a 32-team NIT where the final four teams advance to complete the NCAA tournament field of 64.

Four regional NIT sites, with 8 teams at each. Games are played on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, on consecutive days, just like conference tournaments. The final four teams from the NIT join the other 60 top 16 seeds.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

As the OP stated in his opening post, this is nothing but some conversations among those on various Sports publications.
One also needs to take in account, will there even be a NCAA after 5 years or so, as the BIG and SEC seem determined to pull away, and start their own championship formats.
Expanding makes for some good conversation, but that's about as far as it is right now.

 

[18IsTheMan]

As the OP stated in his opening post, this is nothing but some conversations among those on various Sports publications.
One also needs to take in account, will there even be a NCAA after 5 years or so, as the BIG and SEC seem determined to pull away, and start their own championship formats.
Expanding makes for some good conversation, but that's about as far as it is right now.

The 2nd point is crucial. The NCAAT gives the mid-majors a moment in the spotlight, they would not otherwise get. It would be a crushing blow for them if the power conferences break away from the NCAA. Though they have not typically competed for the title, they are the source of the much of the chaos/excitement in the early rounds. The NCAAT has also served as a showcase for mid-major head coaches looking to move up the ranks.

It could ultimately be a good thing though. The mid-majors add a lot of excitement to the tournament, but a smaller, more concentrated tournament of the top teams would probably generate overall better basketball. I can't imagine they'd keep a 64-team tournament, as that would be just about every team. Or, shoot, maybe they would.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

The 2nd point is crucial. The NCAAT gives the mid-majors a moment in the spotlight, they would not otherwise get. It would be a crushing blow for them if the power conferences break away from the NCAA. Though they have not typically competed for the title, they are the source of the much of the chaos/excitement in the early rounds. The NCAAT has also served as a showcase for mid-major head coaches looking to move up the ranks.

It could ultimately be a good thing though. The mid-majors add a lot of excitement to the tournament, but a smaller, more concentrated tournament of the top teams would probably generate overall better basketball. I can't imagine they'd keep a 64-team tournament, as that would be just about every team. Or, shoot, maybe they would.

Who can deny that they didn't enjoy those runs by Florida Gulf Coast or St. Peters just to name a couple of teams that created all that excitement and angst at foiling so many brackets.

 

[will110]

The 2nd point is crucial. The NCAAT gives the mid-majors a moment in the spotlight, they would not otherwise get. It would be a crushing blow for them if the power conferences break away from the NCAA. Though they have not typically competed for the title, they are the source of the much of the chaos/excitement in the early rounds. The NCAAT has also served as a showcase for mid-major head coaches looking to move up the ranks.

It could ultimately be a good thing though. The mid-majors add a lot of excitement to the tournament, but a smaller, more concentrated tournament of the top teams would probably generate overall better basketball. I can't imagine they'd keep a 64-team tournament, as that would be just about every team. Or, shoot, maybe they would.

In theory this would be the case, but there's no way a postseason basketball tournament gets smaller. We're going to end up with expansion so more mediocre power 5 teams get in, not more deserving mid majors (like Indiana State, for example).

 

[18IsTheMan]

In theory this would be the case, but there's no way a postseason basketball tournament gets smaller. We're going to end up with expansion so more mediocre power 5 teams get in, not more deserving mid majors (like Indiana State, for example).

If the power conferences were to break away, there are only like 65 teams or something. So a 64-team tournament means essentially all teams would make it.

 

[will110]

If the power conferences were to break away, there are only like 65 teams or something. So a 64-team tournament means essentially all teams would make it.

That seems possible to me. The only thing that matters in these discussions is money, not quality of basketball. Otherwise we'd not be having this discussion at all.

 

[gamecock stock]

The only thing that matters in these discussions is money, not quality of basketball.

It always is only about money. While I have expressed support for the playoff expansion in football, I prefer to leave the NCAA Tourney as is. It all comes down to what's best for Carolina. I have confidence that Paris can annually get us into the playoffs, as is. I have absolutely no confidence in Beamer (except we have never had a Head Coach who claps better than Shane). Beamer, should you or a family member read this: Prove me wrong Shane. Prove me wrong, please.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Sankey is pushing hard for tournament expansion, presumably to help the smaller schools.

 

[LonghornsGamecocks]

Sankey is pushing hard for tournament expansion, presumably to help the smaller schools.

I think the mutation of the basketball tourney is going to be more interesting to watch over the next few years than the expansion of the football playoff has been over the last few years.

I don't have a clue which direction it will land.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I think the mutation of the basketball tourney is going to be more interesting to watch over the next few years than the expansion of the football playoff has been over the last few years.

I don't have a clue which direction it will land.

If you can pretend for a moment that's it's not about money and look at the history of the 64-team field, which has had 38 years, 33 titles have been won by seeds 1-3. The 4 seed has won 2x. One title each for 6, 7 and 8 seeds. The "expansion gives more teams a shot" argument simply isn't supported by the data. Based on 38 years of data, it doesn't make any sense to have anything beyond an 8 seed.

Of course, the tournament is 100% about revenue generation, which is why you have at least half, and probably well more than half, the tournament comprised of teams who have no shot at winning the title.

But, again, taking the monetary issue out of it, what can be the argument for expansion just to get a handful of extra teams in who have a 0% shot at winning?

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Sankey is pushing hard for tournament expansion, presumably to help the smaller schools.

I can believe the first part of this statement, unless I see it in print, no way am I believing the 2nd part

 

[18IsTheMan]

I can believe the first part of this statement, unless I see it in print, no way am I believing the 2nd part

Ha, oops, I read the headline of this article and interpreted it as I stated above.

Where Greg Sankey's March Madness expansion argument goes wrong

The last thing the NCAA Tournament needs is more underwhelming power-conference teams.

theathletic.com

 

[will110]

If you can pretend for a moment that's it's not about money and look at the history of the 64-team field, which has had 38 years, 33 titles have been won by seeds 1-3. The 4 seed has won 2x. One title each for 6, 7 and 8 seeds. The "expansion gives more teams a shot" argument simply isn't supported by the data. Based on 38 years of data, it doesn't make any sense to have anything beyond an 8 seed.

Of course, the tournament is 100% about revenue generation, which is why you have at least half, and probably well more than half, the tournament comprised of teams who have no shot at winning the title.

But, again, taking the monetary issue out of it, what can be the argument for expansion just to get a handful of extra teams in who have a 0% shot at winning?

I don't think there is a reason.

I guess if I had to come up with one, the fact that there are 351 Division 1 basketball teams out there, increasing the size of the tournament gives more programs a shot at competing in the tournament. It doesn't give more teams a chance to win the championship, but it does increase exposure.

 

[KingWard]

Of course, lots of chatter going on about the absolute necessity of expansion on the heels of Selection Sunday. The basic thrust behind every argument seems to be: no team in America should be caused to feel disappointment on Selection Sunday. It's kind of funny/sad to see grown men advocating so strongly that nobody should have their feelings hurt but rather should be fully affirmed in everything they think about themselves.

We are such a fragile society. How have people grown up so ill-equipped to deal with disappointment? This is something we are working hard to teach our kids: how to handle disappointment. Things aren't always going to work out in your favor. That's life. You might do everything the right way. You just have to be an emotionally strong person and deal with it. And, also, trying to teach them you can't just whine and accuse things of being unfair when things don't work out as you hoped.

Funny thing is, we're not talking about someone missing out on a 4 or 5 seed. It's teams who don't make the First Four or get a 12 or 13 seed. The fact that this goes on in sport only adds to the hilarity. Sports has winners and losers. Indeed, one of the main reasons to get kids involved in sports...at least it used to be...was to teach them about winning and, as importantly, losing. Everyone expects to win these days, even when they lose.

P!$$ on that. The only thing that needs to change is the criteria.