allowing all 347 teams in the tournament. As liberal as I am, I don't agree with that, but I think 128 would be a fair amount. That leaves 219 teams out, and only included 37% of the eligible teams. Use the RPI and give the top 32 rated teams a first round bye or something akin to that. Or just let the entire 128 play. Either way, I like that possibility. Every league champion and tournament winner (if different) would receive an automatic bid, as suggested by Coach KI. Limit any conference to a maximimum of 4 teams in the tournament. No non league champions get in with less that a .500 conference record. There is no doubt in my mind we will go to 96 teams in the near future. 128? Probably not for awhile.

I have read about the growing support for the non-winners of the first round of the NCAAT make up the NIT.

(03-25-2010 09:17 AM)Scotto Wrote:  I have read about the growing support for the non-winners of the first round of the NCAAT make up the NIT.

I would suggest they eliminate the NIT, since it loses money most of the time, according to what Coach K reports. But allow the lower seeds to play each other in the first round and give the high seeds a bye. That way, a lot of teams who would normally face a #1 seed in the first round have at least a chance to win one game. A 16 seed might have a slim chance against a 6 or 7 seed, and that could be arranged in the first round of a 128 team tournament.

Can't wait for that 65 versus 128 game..!

(03-25-2010 09:17 AM)Scotto Wrote:  I have read about the growing support for the non-winners of the first round of the NCAAT make up the NIT.

Now that is an interesting concept, very much like consolations in a tennis tournament. But don't count on it happening because it will not get support from ANY of the coaches. The reason a lot of coaches are in favor of expanding the tournament is to let more teams in, and therefore let more coaches in. This concept would not let any additional coaches in, and therefore will not have support among them.

Actually, what I've heard is expanding the field and the first out make out the NIT.

(03-25-2010 10:00 AM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-25-2010 09:17 AM)Scotto Wrote:  I have read about the growing support for the non-winners of the first round of the NCAAT make up the NIT.

Now that is an interesting concept, very much like consolations in a tennis tournament. But don't count on it happening because it will not get support from ANY of the coaches. The reason a lot of coaches are in favor of expanding the tournament is to let more teams in, and therefore let more coaches in. This concept would not let any additional coaches in, and therefore will not have support among them.

I want to see all 128 teams in the NCAA, however they can manage it. But the league champions and tournament winners must come first. What's left over can be fought over by the selection committee. And preferably no team that finishes lower that fourth in their conference is eligible.

I don't like byes, personally. Everyone should have to win the same amount of games to win it all. I really like the symmetry of an even bracket like 64 or 128. Higher seeds are rewarded by having an easier path to the final four (i.e. #1 playing #16 or #32 in the 128 team format).

Also, PLEASE no home games! Keep the neutral sites! I personally would like to have 64, but it looks like we may go to the awful 96. Also keep the conference tournaments the way they are, even expand 'em to include all teams. They're playing for a bid. Ohio beating Georgetown this year is a good example as to why it has worth. Ohio was a #9 seed in the MAC Tournament.

If you are going to expand it at all, expand it all the way!

(03-25-2010 12:13 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  If you are going to expand it at all, expand it all the way!

If you expand it to all teams, then getting to the tournament will not be the criteria for success of a coach. You will then have to win one or two games in the tournament to be deemed making progress. But that'a allright too. As I have stated, I'm not in favor of every team, but 128 would be totally acceptable to me. Then I don't look at how a team is rated. I just look at who's playing whom. And let the best team win.

(03-25-2010 03:26 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(03-25-2010 12:13 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  If you are going to expand it at all, expand it all the way!

If you expand it to all teams, then getting to the tournament will not be the criteria for success of a coach. You will then have to win one or two games in the tournament to be deemed making progress. But that'a allright too. As I have stated, I'm not in favor of every team, but 128 would be totally acceptable to me. Then I don't look at how a team is rated. I just look at who's playing whom. And let the best team win.

Expanding the tournament will make the regular season even more meaningless. As I said before, this isn't Little League. Everyone doesn't get a trophy. You win your league tournament or put together a good enough resume you get in. I could see going to 68 (4 play-in games), but anymore than that is ridiculous. When a 16 seed beats a 1 seed, it may be the time to start discussing tournament expansion.

(03-25-2010 05:47 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(03-25-2010 03:26 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(03-25-2010 12:13 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  If you are going to expand it at all, expand it all the way!

If you expand it to all teams, then getting to the tournament will not be the criteria for success of a coach. You will then have to win one or two games in the tournament to be deemed making progress. But that'a allright too. As I have stated, I'm not in favor of every team, but 128 would be totally acceptable to me. Then I don't look at how a team is rated. I just look at who's playing whom. And let the best team win.

Expanding the tournament will make the regular season even more meaningless. As I said before, this isn't Little League. Everyone doesn't get a trophy. You win your league tournament or put together a good enough resume you get in. I could see going to 68 (4 play-in games), but anymore than that is ridiculous. When a 16 seed beats a 1 seed, it may be the time to start discussing tournament expansion.

You're missing the point. Expanding the tournament to include all league champions does make the season more meaningful. Right now, it's meaningless for most leagues unless they win their tournament. That's not the way it should end. And what difference does it make if a 16 seed ever beats a 1 seed? That has nothing to do with anything. The tournament should be a reward for all teams that excel in their conferences. Winning is just icing on the cake. And remember, when it's all over, only one team is going to be happy anyway, and that's the one that ends up as national champion.