PDA

View Full Version : Should the NCAA add more teams?



8timechamps
3/25/2009, 10:30 PM
I hadn't given it much thought until I heard Bobby Knight talking about it. He proposed one additional game/round (adding in another 64 teams I think), with the lower seed playing the higher seed on the higher seed's home court. Then, go into the regionals.

I'd love it. But, I can't get enough of March Madness. Just wondering what those opposed to the idea think...

Curly Bill
3/25/2009, 10:45 PM
I think 64 (65) is more then enough.

This is one of the arguments many of us have against a football playoff as well, that once you start there's going to be a continuing clamor to keep adding more and more teams

John Kochtoston
3/25/2009, 11:16 PM
I think 64/5 is just right. 128 would bring in a LOT of marginal teams.
Now, what I wouldn't mind is a double-elimination 64-team tournament. At least four 16-team double-elimination regionals, with a single-elimination Final Four.

Frozen Sooner
3/25/2009, 11:22 PM
I think 64/5 is just right. 128 would bring in a LOT of marginal teams.
Now, what I wouldn't mind is a double-elimination 64-team tournament. At least four 16-team double-elimination regionals, with a single-elimination Final Four.

No frickin' way, mang. On either expanding the tournament or making it double elimination.

The upsets in the first two rounds are what make the whole process watchable.

w0lfe
3/25/2009, 11:31 PM
NO! Absolutely not! It's perfect the way it is. Don't fix something if it's not broken.

tommieharris91
3/25/2009, 11:35 PM
Only expand it to 128 teams if D-1 expands to like 600 teams. It's fine as is.

Collier11
3/25/2009, 11:35 PM
No thanks!

jthomasou78
3/26/2009, 06:55 AM
I think that if anything they should cut 1 at large team. iits not fair to some school that wins their conference tournament to have to play on to the NCAA tournament. they have more of a right to be there then the 8th place team from the Big East.

Harry Beanbag
3/26/2009, 07:24 AM
Nope. By the way, just last year Bobby Knight wanted to drop it down to 32 teams.

w0lfe
3/26/2009, 09:08 AM
If they expanded it to 128 than the NIT would die

soonerfan28
3/26/2009, 09:15 AM
Its BS just talking about it. We can't get a f*cking 4 or 8 team playoff in football but we should add another 64 in basketball. That is just f*cked up.

soonervegas
3/26/2009, 09:25 AM
Yes, but only by 16 teams. Add a day to the tourney and let the 1st 4 seeds have 1st round bye. The NIT has some quality, quality teams that could win a game or two in the NCAA tourney.

TopDawg
3/26/2009, 10:00 AM
Nope. By the way, just last year Bobby Knight wanted to drop it down to 32 teams.

Really? I've heard him say this expansion thing before. Maybe it's expansion in odd years and reduction in even years.

Howzit
3/26/2009, 10:17 AM
He feels strongly both ways.

John Kochtoston
3/26/2009, 10:27 AM
No frickin' way, mang. On either expanding the tournament or making it double elimination.

The upsets in the first two rounds are what make the whole process watchable.

Well, losing would be severely punished. You'd have to play four games in four days the first two weekends if you lose. So, upsets would still be meaningful, and I think the winner would be more likely to be the "best" team, instead of the "hot" team.

ouwapiti
3/26/2009, 10:35 AM
please god NO.....because then we would have to listen to more digger phelps and all the rest of the pontificators

ouleaf
3/26/2009, 10:40 AM
This is what the NIT is for. It's still a reward for players who unfortunately didn't make it to the NCAA tourney, and does feature several good games each year.....I think the only reason some people are for expanding the field is to allow for more of the mid-majors that get shut out have a chance to get back into it.

Plus, it's probably impossible to expect analysts to cover that many games, and how ridiculous would it be to expect a No. 1 seeded team to play a No. 32 seeded team. It's pretty much pointless to even play that game.

badger
3/26/2009, 10:43 AM
The 65-team instead of 64-team tourney has always bothered me, because they take two teams that have earned their way in via being conference champions and taking one of them out right away without being a part of the main bracket. Boo.

If the NIT truly is the viable alternative now that teams won't turn down as much anymore, then let the main tourney be 64 teams and let that last big-school at-large go to the NIT.

If the NCAA must expand, have more play-in games with nearly all at-large bids. There's what, 34 auto bids? Ok, so 32 of those 34 are in the main bracket and have a first round bye. The two bottom at-large bids and 62 others will make up the first-ever "earn your spot" round, where teams play for the right to get an at-large. The 32 winners move on to the 64-team bracket. The 32 losers of this "earn your spot" round can go to the NIT to prove that the loss in "earn your spot" was a fluke.

With the rule that regular season conference winners must be invited to at least the NIT, these teams would automatically get a "earn your spot" round berth.

SoonersEnFuego
3/26/2009, 10:56 AM
It's worse than that!!
They've expanded it to 4,096 teams:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ncaa_expands_march_madness_to

Canyonero
3/26/2009, 01:09 PM
The 65-team instead of 64-team tourney has always bothered me, because they take two teams that have earned their way in via being conference champions and taking one of them out right away without being a part of the main bracket. Boo.

Right on. I wouldn't mind seeing one play-in game per regional, but it should be between the at large teams. Who watched the play-in game or even remembers who was in it. Now put Arizona v. Saint Marys or Florida v. Penn St. on and you will draw some viewers.

soonermix
3/26/2009, 01:23 PM
we may as well include every school that has a basketball team into the tourney that way nobody gets their feelings hurt.

soonerfan28
3/26/2009, 01:26 PM
Yea lets add some more teams so we can get those teams w/10-20 records in the tournaments.

badger
3/26/2009, 01:28 PM
Right on. I wouldn't mind seeing one play-in game per regional, but it should be between the at large teams. Who watched the play-in game or even remembers who was in it. Now put Arizona v. Saint Marys or Florida v. Penn St. on and you will draw some viewers.

As far as sites go, I would say give a home game to the higher ranked seed. Then, the 32 winners of play-in and the 32 conference champions who received a first round bye (remembering of course that the 2 bottom conference champions were part of the play-in round) would be ranked as usual by the committee to determine who plays who after that at the predetermined host sites.

The 32 play-in losers would have a second chance via the NIT. If the NCAA really hates the CBI and CIT, this would be a further way to sink those tourneys.

Rock Hard Corn Frog
3/26/2009, 03:12 PM
I'm alright with Canyonero's idea. Having 4 play-in games is OK. Until one of the 16 seeds actually knocks off a 1 or until a 15 knocking off a 2 becomes more than a once in every 5-6 year occurance I think the lower seeds, even if they are auto bids should play the games.

I'd watch the tourney if it were a 128 teams but there aren't 128 teams that have played well enough to be in the CBI or CIT let alone the NCAA tourney. Plus the NCAA selection committee would have to meet for about 3 days to seed the teams. I also would guarantee that there will be teams moaning about missing the field of 128.

I thought 64 was just fine.

LRoss
3/26/2009, 03:36 PM
I'm with those who don't even like the play-in game that we have now.

64. If your season puts you on the bubble for a 64-team tournament, don't whine about getting "snubbed." Go win more ballgames.

Collier11
3/26/2009, 03:39 PM
about 10-20 of the 65 already dont even have a legit shot at making a run to the Final Four, why add 64 more? Why water down one of the greatest sporting events just to allow more average teams in? This is just like 6-6 teams getting in the Bowl games, they dont deserve it!

John Kochtoston
3/26/2009, 03:57 PM
I'm with those who don't even like the play-in game that we have now.

64. If your season puts you on the bubble for a 64-team tournament, don't whine about getting "snubbed." Go win more ballgames.

^^^
THIS

There were points this season when it seemed the Big 12 might get seven teams in, or the Big 10 eight teams, or the Big East might get nine. When teams clearly in the bottom half of their respective conferences are "on the bubble," the bubble is plenty big.

8timechamps
3/26/2009, 04:11 PM
Interesting. Good points by most.

Like I said, I love March Madness, and would watch it if they included 300 teams. But, I can also understand the reasoning behind many of your posts. I think the biggest argument against it is that it would water-down the tournament and be the death of the NIT.

Ironically, I don't like the play-in game. Not because I don't like watching the extra game, but I think it's a stretch to make it feel like it's part of the big dance. Now, adding a play-in for all four regionals might be cool.

For the record, I am pro football playoffs.

badger
3/26/2009, 04:19 PM
For the record, I am pro football playoffs.

:les: Playoffs? You kiddin' me?! Don't talk about playoffs! [hairGel]

TopDawg
3/26/2009, 04:49 PM
I like some of these ideas.

I like the idea of having 4 play-in games, with each being an at-large team. But would the winner automatically enter the tourney as a 16 seed? If so, it might be an easier road to the finals as a #2 seed than a #1 seed.

In an effort to get more mid-majors in, I'd like to see auto-bids for teams that win their conference regular season. This wouldn't be a huge increase in mid-majors since a lot of those who win the regular season either already make it in as an at-large or they go on to win the tourney, but it'd get a few more quality mid-majors into the tournament which I think would be good.

8timechamps
3/26/2009, 05:01 PM
I like some of these ideas.

I like the idea of having 4 play-in games, with each being an at-large team. But would the winner automatically enter the tourney as a 16 seed? If so, it might be an easier road to the finals as a #2 seed than a #1 seed.

In an effort to get more mid-majors in, I'd like to see auto-bids for teams that win their conference regular season. This wouldn't be a huge increase in mid-majors since a lot of those who win the regular season either already make it in as an at-large or they go on to win the tourney, but it'd get a few more quality mid-majors into the tournament which I think would be good.

This is the biggest flaw with the tournament. Mid-majors that belong in the dance aren't there because they lost in their tourney. Imagine if that were the case for every conference.

I'd really like to see a bid given out for regular season champs. Then, if the same team wins the conference, you have an extra at-large bid.

soonerfan28
3/26/2009, 05:36 PM
FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!

8timechamps
3/26/2009, 05:40 PM
FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!FOOTBALL PLAYOFF!

LOUDER!!!

soonerfan28
3/26/2009, 06:11 PM
I would but my wrist hurts.