I understand that the NCAA is strongly considering increasing the number of teams for the tournament from 68 to 90. This comes from their most recent meetings to discuss the state of college sports as it now stands.

Would definitely benefit the tigers lol

If they think it will make more money they will do it. Whether it makes the season or tourney better or worse is not important to them.

We've been discussing this for weeks. I say expand the NCAA and do away with the NIT and the CBI. You can move the NIT back to a early season tourney with the elite 8 from the prior year or something.

The play-in games aren't going away so go ahead an make all the 16 seeds have play in games. That way at lest they have a legit chance to win a game before going on to be sacrifical lambs. It also opens up 2 more spots for deserving teams. JMHO

that would be 70 teams I believe.

Should go 128. Top 64 teams get a home game the Tuesday/Wednesday of the start of tournament week.

(01-14-2023 11:21 AM)UofMark Wrote:  Should go 128. Top 64 teams get a home game the Tuesday/Wednesday of the start of tournament week.

This would be the easiest solution if the decision to expand is for real.

Just let everyone in if you’re going to do that. But eliminate these stupid conference tournaments. All expanding to 90 is going to do is get more power conference teams in.

(01-14-2023 12:14 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Just let everyone in if you’re going to do that. But eliminate these stupid conference tournaments. All expanding to 90 is going to do is get more power conference teams in.

Conference tournaments will not go away. How else will they determine the conference champion, solely on wins and losses? That would be a terrible idea.

(01-14-2023 12:46 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 12:14 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Just let everyone in if you’re going to do that. But eliminate these stupid conference tournaments. All expanding to 90 is going to do is get more power conference teams in.

Conference tournaments will not go away. How else will they determine the conference champion, solely on wins and losses? That would be a terrible idea.

I know it worked for so many for the first 50 years of college basketball.

(01-14-2023 02:59 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I know it worked for so many for the first 50 years of college basketball.

Why move backwards? Tournaments are the best way to determine an overall winner if they are logistically feasible.

(01-14-2023 12:46 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 12:14 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Just let everyone in if you’re going to do that. But eliminate these stupid conference tournaments. All expanding to 90 is going to do is get more power conference teams in.

Conference tournaments will not go away. How else will they determine the conference champion, solely on wins and losses? That would be a terrible idea.

Really? You don't think playing each team twice, once at home once away is better? Seems to me it is a much better indication of who the true conference champion is. Not a 3 day tournament. That's just my opinion but it seems clearly obvious to me that the conference tournaments are only for teams that didn't do enough during the year. The regular season champ should get the automatic NCAA bid.

(01-14-2023 03:21 PM)tigerlands Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 12:46 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 12:14 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Just let everyone in if you’re going to do that. But eliminate these stupid conference tournaments. All expanding to 90 is going to do is get more power conference teams in.

Conference tournaments will not go away. How else will they determine the conference champion, solely on wins and losses? That would be a terrible idea.

Really? You don't think playing each team twice, once at home once away is better? Seems to me it is a much better indication of who the true conference champion is. Not a 3 day tournament. That's just my opinion but it seems clearly obvious to me that the conference tournaments are only for teams that didn't do enough during the year. The regular season champ should get the automatic NCAA bid.

In the context of NCAA basketball, the conference record determines the seeding. Makes perfect sense to me. If tournaments are such a bad system, why do most professional sports as well as the Olympics follow a similar model?

(01-14-2023 03:03 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 02:59 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I know it worked for so many for the first 50 years of college basketball.

Why move backwards? Tournaments are the best way to determine an overall winner if they are logistically feasible.

really? How often do we see a team that only lost once or twice in conference lose in their conference tournament? It happens so much that the NCAA gives them a NIT bid.

96 makes the most sense. 32 byes, 33-96 play each other. Round 1 on on the home court of the next 32. Second round Thursday/Friday.

(01-14-2023 03:55 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 03:03 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 02:59 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I know it worked for so many for the first 50 years of college basketball.

Why move backwards? Tournaments are the best way to determine an overall winner if they are logistically feasible.

really? How often do we see a team that only lost once or twice in conference lose in their conference tournament? It happens so much that the NCAA gives them a NIT bid.

You're right. Tournaments are so flawed at determining a winner. No other major sporting association uses them for that purpose. In fact, they're so awful that even NCAA football won't touch the concept.

some conference do not play a balanced schedule

(01-14-2023 04:11 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 03:55 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 03:03 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 02:59 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I know it worked for so many for the first 50 years of college basketball.

Why move backwards? Tournaments are the best way to determine an overall winner if they are logistically feasible.

really? How often do we see a team that only lost once or twice in conference lose in their conference tournament? It happens so much that the NCAA gives them a NIT bid.

You're right. Tournaments are so flawed at determining a winner. No other major sporting association uses them for that purpose. In fact, they're so awful that even NCAA football won't touch the concept.

You are one weird dude

(01-14-2023 04:37 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 04:11 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 03:55 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 03:03 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 02:59 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I know it worked for so many for the first 50 years of college basketball.

Why move backwards? Tournaments are the best way to determine an overall winner if they are logistically feasible.

really? How often do we see a team that only lost once or twice in conference lose in their conference tournament? It happens so much that the NCAA gives them a NIT bid.

You're right. Tournaments are so flawed at determining a winner. No other major sporting association uses them for that purpose. In fact, they're so awful that even NCAA football won't touch the concept.

You are one weird dude

“You're the only one that you are screwin', when you put down what you don't understand.”

― Kris Kristofferson

(01-14-2023 04:11 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 03:55 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 03:03 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 02:59 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I know it worked for so many for the first 50 years of college basketball.

Why move backwards? Tournaments are the best way to determine an overall winner if they are logistically feasible.

really? How often do we see a team that only lost once or twice in conference lose in their conference tournament? It happens so much that the NCAA gives them a NIT bid.

You're right. Tournaments are so flawed at determining a winner. No other major sporting association uses them for that purpose. In fact, they're so awful that even NCAA football won't touch the concept.

Does football allow every conference champion access to playoff?