Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
Author Message
invisiblehand Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,120
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 174
I Root For: Tulsa
Location:
Post: #21
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... 03-hissyfit

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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskyU Offline
Big East Overlord
*

Posts: 22,802
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 1182
I Root For: UCONN
Location: The Big East
Post: #22
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... 03-hissyfit

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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tiger1983 Offline
BBA
*

Posts: 35,183
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 2033
I Root For: Tigers - GTG!
Location: The enemy’s lair

DonatorsDonatorsDonators
Post: #23
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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Carolina_Low_Country Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,425
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Go Pirates
Location: ENC
Post: #24
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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskyU Offline
Big East Overlord
*

Posts: 22,802
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 1182
I Root For: UCONN
Location: The Big East
Post: #25
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! 02-13-banana
07-20-2017 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shocks21 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 226
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Wichita State
Location:
Post: #26
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... 03-hissyfit

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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMemphis Away
Official MT.org Ambassador of Smack
*

Posts: 48,795
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1129
I Root For: Univ of Memphis
Location: Memphis (Berclair)

Donators
Post: #27
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
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
fishpro1098 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,846
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 137
I Root For: Temple
Location: Eugene, OR
Post: #28
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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
spenser Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 296
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 13
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Post: #29
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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AndShock Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,076
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation: 150
I Root For: Wichita State
Location:
Post: #30
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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
C2__ Offline
Caltex2
*

Posts: 23,633
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 552
I Root For: Houston, PVAMU
Location: Zamunda
Post: #31
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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,110
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 499
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Thoughts on Expanding NCAA Tournament Field
No expansions..
07-21-2017 06:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearcats#1 Offline
Ad nauseam King
*

Posts: 45,310
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 1224
I Root For: Pony94
Location: In your head.
Post: #33
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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.