invisiblehand
Heisman
Posts: 5,120
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 174
I Root For: Tulsa
Location:
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
(07-20-2017 05:12 PM)shocks21 Wrote: (07-20-2017 04:16 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote: (07-20-2017 03:05 PM)_C2_ Wrote: (07-20-2017 03:04 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote: (07-20-2017 02:57 PM)_C2_ Wrote: 80 is a good number. The list of snubs would be far fewer and fewer would complain.
Just give everybody a ribbon and everybody will be happy...
64. That's a "good number." If you need to put some criteria in to make sure certain conferences don't dominate that 64, then I have always thought that "No conference shall receive bids more than HALF the number of eligible member programs." would be fine. (Meaning the AAC would have a max number of bids capped at 6, the Big Ten at 7, the Big XII at 5, the Big East at 5, the Pac 12 at 6, the SEC at 7, the ACC at 7.) There is no reason why MORE THAN HALF a conference should be in the NCAA tournament, and the Big XII getting 80% participation is just silly.
It would help the mid-majors more than majors imo.
Aaaannndd your point is???
The AAC is, as it stands, a 2-4 bid conference. We're not going to get anywhere near six bids, so a six bid cap (1) isn't going to hurt us at all, and (2) a cap on other conferences would bump up AAC bids.
Draw whatever inferences you want from this, but my proposal would help the AAC.
If UCONN, Memphis and Temple performed to their normal standards we would be a 5-6 bid league when you throw in Cinci, WSU, SMU and rising UCF and Houston. Not to mention Tulsa.
Tulsa has been to the tournament much more recently than either UCF or Houston. Maybe they should be the afterthoughts.
|
|
07-20-2017 05:32 PM |
|
HuskyU
Big East Overlord
Posts: 22,802
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 1182
I Root For: UCONN
Location: The Big East
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
(07-20-2017 05:12 PM)shocks21 Wrote: (07-20-2017 04:16 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote: (07-20-2017 03:05 PM)_C2_ Wrote: (07-20-2017 03:04 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote: (07-20-2017 02:57 PM)_C2_ Wrote: 80 is a good number. The list of snubs would be far fewer and fewer would complain.
Just give everybody a ribbon and everybody will be happy...
64. That's a "good number." If you need to put some criteria in to make sure certain conferences don't dominate that 64, then I have always thought that "No conference shall receive bids more than HALF the number of eligible member programs." would be fine. (Meaning the AAC would have a max number of bids capped at 6, the Big Ten at 7, the Big XII at 5, the Big East at 5, the Pac 12 at 6, the SEC at 7, the ACC at 7.) There is no reason why MORE THAN HALF a conference should be in the NCAA tournament, and the Big XII getting 80% participation is just silly.
It would help the mid-majors more than majors imo.
Aaaannndd your point is???
The AAC is, as it stands, a 2-4 bid conference. We're not going to get anywhere near six bids, so a six bid cap (1) isn't going to hurt us at all, and (2) a cap on other conferences would bump up AAC bids.
Draw whatever inferences you want from this, but my proposal would help the AAC.
If UCONN, Memphis and Temple performed to their normal standards we would be a 5-6 bid league when you throw in Cinci, WSU, SMU and rising UCF and Houston. Not to mention Tulsa.
This. The A10 got 6 bids in 2014. We could very well do the same any given year.
|
|
07-20-2017 05:49 PM |
|
Tiger1983
BBA
Posts: 35,183
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 2033
I Root For: Tigers - GTG!
Location: The enemy’s lair
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
No, the extra slots will tend to be filled with P-5 schools with inflated SOS from self-reinforcing conference games and the regular season would be further devalued.
|
|
07-20-2017 06:17 PM |
|
Carolina_Low_Country
1st String
Posts: 2,425
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Go Pirates
Location: ENC
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
Expand football. 16 team. 10 conference champions and 6 at large.
CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS
Alabama
Penn State
Clemson
Temple
Oklahoma
Western Michigan
Western Kentucky
Washington
San Diego State
Appalachian State
AT-LARGE
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
USC
Colorado
Florida State
First Round
WKU @ Alabama
Appalachian State @ Clemson
San Diego State @ Ohio State
Temple @ Washington
Western Michigan @ Penn State
Florida State @ Michigan
Colorado @ Oklahoma
USC @ Wisconsin
|
|
07-20-2017 08:56 PM |
|
HuskyU
Big East Overlord
Posts: 22,802
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 1182
I Root For: UCONN
Location: The Big East
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever see 16. I think 8 is plausible though. Let's do:
PAC auto-bid
SEC auto-bid
B1G auto-bid
ACC auto-bid
Big12 auto-bid
American auto-bid
G4 auto-bid
Wildcard
PERFECT!
|
|
07-20-2017 09:02 PM |
|
shocks21
Bench Warmer
Posts: 226
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Wichita State
Location:
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
(07-20-2017 05:32 PM)invisiblehand Wrote: (07-20-2017 05:12 PM)shocks21 Wrote: (07-20-2017 04:16 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote: (07-20-2017 03:05 PM)_C2_ Wrote: (07-20-2017 03:04 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote: Just give everybody a ribbon and everybody will be happy...
64. That's a "good number." If you need to put some criteria in to make sure certain conferences don't dominate that 64, then I have always thought that "No conference shall receive bids more than HALF the number of eligible member programs." would be fine. (Meaning the AAC would have a max number of bids capped at 6, the Big Ten at 7, the Big XII at 5, the Big East at 5, the Pac 12 at 6, the SEC at 7, the ACC at 7.) There is no reason why MORE THAN HALF a conference should be in the NCAA tournament, and the Big XII getting 80% participation is just silly.
It would help the mid-majors more than majors imo.
Aaaannndd your point is???
The AAC is, as it stands, a 2-4 bid conference. We're not going to get anywhere near six bids, so a six bid cap (1) isn't going to hurt us at all, and (2) a cap on other conferences would bump up AAC bids.
Draw whatever inferences you want from this, but my proposal would help the AAC.
If UCONN, Memphis and Temple performed to their normal standards we would be a 5-6 bid league when you throw in Cinci, WSU, SMU and rising UCF and Houston. Not to mention Tulsa.
Tulsa has been to the tournament much more recently than either UCF or Houston. Maybe they should be the afterthoughts.
I don't really think of Tulsa as "on the rise" but I also don't consider them as "falling." The fact that Tulsa has made the tournament recently is the reason I didn't put them in with Houston and UCF. I wasn't mentioning Tulsa as a tier below and didn't intend for the post to be a slight.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2017 09:08 PM by shocks21.)
|
|
07-20-2017 09:06 PM |
|
UofMemphis
Official MT.org Ambassador of Smack
Posts: 48,795
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1129
I Root For: Univ of Memphis
Location: Memphis (Berclair)
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
I like the idea of making all the 16 seeds do a 'play in' game...it would add two more teams to the field and give the 16 seeds a shot a winning a game before being destroyed by the 1 seed.
that would bring the NCAA field to 70 teams.
Also, I'd like to see the NIT expand to 64 teams to kill off the CBI/CIT/Vegas whatever type tournaments.
|
|
07-20-2017 11:59 PM |
|
fishpro1098
All American
Posts: 2,846
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 137
I Root For: Temple
Location: Eugene, OR
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
The field is too big by four as it stands now. Make 64 the magic number and keep it there.
.
|
|
07-21-2017 12:36 AM |
|
spenser
2nd String
Posts: 296
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 13
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
I have no problem with them adding a few more teams, if they do it right.
The #12 and 6's or whatever is just stupid, play in games should be 8 #15 seeds and 8 #16 seeds to determine who earns a chance at upsetting a #1 or 2 respectfully.
But most importantly they need to make a rule that an automatic qualifier( meaning a Northern Kentucky or Florida Gulf Coast) are not #15 or 16 seeds. Those teams won there tournament and shouldn't being playing in Play ins or being sacrificed to a Top 8 team.
At large bubble teams should be the ones in the Play in games, they barely got in so prove it.
|
|
07-21-2017 12:44 AM |
|
AndShock
1st String
Posts: 2,076
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation: 150
I Root For: Wichita State
Location:
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
The problem with the NCAA tournament is not the size of the field, it's the quality of selections. This is somewhat being mitigated by the inclusion of analytics.
|
|
07-21-2017 04:36 AM |
|
C2__
Caltex2
Posts: 23,633
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 552
I Root For: Houston, PVAMU
Location: Zamunda
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
@Spencer
Those teams are lucky the bigger schools don't cut bait and start a private tournament. They're slotted where they should be. If anything, they should get rid of the play-ins for 16 seeds.
Maybe they should be slotted by region and unseeded like in the old days. That would help the cause you're supporting.
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2017 04:59 AM by C2__.)
|
|
07-21-2017 04:58 AM |
|
goodknightfl
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21,110
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 499
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
No expansions..
|
|
07-21-2017 06:38 AM |
|
Bearcats#1
Ad nauseam King
Posts: 45,310
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 1224
I Root For: Pony94
Location: In your head.
|
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
I do like the play-in games, so I'm cool with the 68 team tourney.
I do think to make the ncaa as an at large you should at least have a .500 conf record. That should be a rule.
|
|
07-21-2017 09:42 PM |
|