http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...d-72-teams

Interesting read. I think that unless they make a rule requiring teams to have a conference record above .500 to get an at-large bid then it will just benefit major conferences more.

Against it. The only post-season tournament that needs expansion is college football.

They should not have expanded to 68, IMO

If they want to change the number of teams, change it back to 64.

80 is the optimal number imo. Anything beyond that is just watering things down. If you want more consolation, expand the NIT or make it a second chance bracket. If done now, that would give 100 teams a chance at the national title.

I'm tired of seeing 18-15 teams on the bubble, let alone, getting in. It's already watered down at 68.

80 is a good number. The list of snubs would be far fewer and fewer would complain.

No keep it as it is the winner of the NIT Tournament should play the winner of the NCAA tournament for all the marbles and the champions

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(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.

That's like the winner of AAA playing the MLB champion for the post-World Series. Just make the NIT Final Four part of the First Four.

(07-20-2017 02:59 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  No keep it as it is the winner of the NIT Tournament should play the winner of the NCAA tournament for all the marbles and the champions

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(07-20-2017 02:59 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  No keep it as it is the winner of the NIT Tournament should play the winner of the NCAA tournament for all the marbles and the champions

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

That's like a Basketball version of a "g5 playoff."

(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.

64 was perfect. Changing it to 68 wasn't needed IMO but it's not a big deal. Currently, in hoops 19.3% (68 of 351) make the championship tournament. In football only 3% (4 of 130) make the championship tourney.

Was good at 64/65. Still good at 68. Won't be good with any further addition.

(07-20-2017 11:38 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Against it. The only post-season tournament that needs expansion is college football.

Absolutely. 16 team playoff with 10 conf champs and 6 at large.

If you're not good enough to make a field of 68, then you don't deserve to play for the national championship. Agree with others that it probably should have stayed at 64, although I do sometimes enjoy watching the Tuesday/Wednesday games.

As for the football playoff, I think the best the G5 can hope for is getting one conditional slot -- i.e. the highest-ranked G5 conference champion, or a G5 conference champion that is ranked in the top 15, etc.

I like an 8-team playoff with the top 6 ranked conference champions plus 2 at-large.

(07-20-2017 03:52 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  If you're not good enough to make a field of 68, then you don't deserve to play for the national championship. Agree with others that it probably should have stayed at 64, although I do sometimes enjoy watching the Tuesday/Wednesday games.

As for the football playoff, I think the best the G5 can hope for is getting one conditional slot -- i.e. the highest-ranked G5 conference champion, or a G5 conference champion that is ranked in the top 15, etc.

I like an 8-team playoff with the top 6 ranked conference champions plus 2 at-large.

Sounds good

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(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.

(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.