=>When the MAC expanded to 64 teams beginning with the 1985 tourney, there were only 200 teams and most conferences had 6 to 8 members (unlike the huge Big 10, Pac 10, and SEC which had a whopping 10 members!). It was just easier then to make the field back in the day.
Now, there are 347 teams, most leagues have 10 or more teams, there are more leagues that shrinking the at-large bids, but the field has expanded to include only 1 more team to the current field of 65.
Even at an expansion to 96 teams, only 27% of DI programs would make the tourney.
Expansion would be GREAT for the MAC which tends to have many top 100 teams, but few top 50 teams that tend to make up the NCAA al-large bubble pool.
**********
A look at how many MAC teams could have possibly made the NCAA tourney since 2005 if the NCAA took 96 teams in the past.
Bold = MAC tourney champ, Green = NCAA At-Large Lock (RPI top 75), Red = NCAA At-Large Bubble - likely (76-96), Blue = NCAA At-Large Bubble - outside looking in (97-120)
2009: Akron, Miami, Buffalo,
2008: Kent, Akron, Miami, Ohio, WMU
2007: Miami, Akron, Kent, Toledo, Ohio
2006: Kent, Akron, Miami , Ohio
2005: Ohio, Miami, Buffalo, Akron, Kent, WMU, Toledo, BSU, BGSU
SO, in the last 5 years....
65 team format: 5 MAC bids
96 team format: 14 MAC bids, 5 more likely bids, and 7 more possible bids.
It would also be the stupidest move in sports history.
(02-02-2010 03:52 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]It would also be the stupidest move in sports history.
=>Why?
Don't write something like that without an explanation. Analysis please!
Would it be less $? Less interest? What???
I think it is high time. The people who are against it tend to be folks a little stuck in their ways. Or people who think the tail should wag the dog (i.e. it would be tougher to televise, harder to fill out an office bracket, blah blah).
The fact is it doubled between 1978 and 1985. Now between 1985 and 2010 there has been a grand total of one new team added in the form of the play-in game loser. This despite the growth of the division. There is no "tradition" behind 64/5 teams. There is nothing inherently better about that number. Yes, someone will feel they got left out no matter what size you make the Dance, but usually there are 10 teams or so that have a very good case. And the teams that hurt most are MVC, MAC, etc. teams.
You assume an unbiased selection committee.
2005 could have been awesome with nine MAC teams in :)
The selection committee is unbiased. If anything the system is more biased than the people. You have major conference teams with lofty RPI despite having no "good" wins simply because of their SOS from conference play.
Read Bubble Watch on ESPN. Essentially half of those teams don't have any better resume than the top Horizon or MAC teams except for they play Top 50 teams. If you expand by 31 teams, there are only so many major conference teams. Even if the MAC got 2-3 teams each year, it would be better.
Here is what I posted on the KSU board recently on the subject: The purists will hate it because most casual sports fans think it has always been 64 teams, but I think it greatly improves the chances of mid-majors. They cannot take all majors because they will quickly run out of teams. Besides, a good cross section of people on the selection committee makes sure that is not a problem. I think of the '00, '03 and '04 teams and think they could have won a few games with the right matchup but didn't have the access.
And also: I think the expansion will happen soon with the opt-out in the TV contract coming. ESPN certainly wants a piece of the pie and NBC joining forces with Comcast could be a legitimate competitor in the upcoming decade with ESPN.
I don't think adding three teams adds value to the contract. That is essentially one or two nights. If you move to 96, that is two full extra days of action that could be put Tuesday and Wednesday at first and second round sites. That would really add value to the package.
(02-02-2010 05:07 PM)mollautt Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2010 03:52 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]It would also be the stupidest move in sports history.
=>Why?
Don't write something like that without an explanation. Analysis please!
Would it be less $? Less interest? What???
What do you mean why? Do you think anyone gives a damn about watching Central Michigan play Quinnipiac? If you're not one of the top 64 teams in the country, you have no place in the 'NCAA Tournament'. Hell, very few of the 64 teams even belong there. Does a 13-9 UConn team belong? Absolutely not. This would kill the best sporting event. It completely kills the competition, because if you're not awful, you can get in the NCAA Tournament. Absolutely moronic idea, fueled again by greed.
Here is my problem with going to 96 (fuller blog post coming soon).
Seeds 9-24 if they win, face a rested 1-8 team. The odds of advancing to the round of 32 become worse. All that first win does is get you to the round of 64 and over time I suspect no more MAC, WAC, Valley, Sun Belt advance to the round of 64 than do currently. The first win is a "lesser" win because it comes in the round before the big boys hold court. Go back and look at who dominates the seeds 1-8. The rich leagues will be the "Bye" Leagues and we'll be "First Round" leagues. It highlights the difference.
The idea is to increase TV value. To make it work well first round goes from being either Thu-Sat or Fri-Sun to Tue-Thu-Sat and Wed-Fri-Sat. The field increases by 32 but of the 32 games played in the opening round half will be during work hours on Tuesday or Wednesday. Win and face a 50% chance your second round game is during work hours on Thursday or Friday. You could win two games in the NCAA Tournament without playing in prime time, but rather relegated to work hour regional coverage.
Exposure for those making it is less because the field is so crowded.
(02-02-2010 06:27 PM)KStud Wrote: [ -> ]The selection committee is unbiased. If anything the system is more biased than the people. You have major conference teams with lofty RPI despite having no "good" wins simply because of their SOS from conference play.
Read Bubble Watch on ESPN. Essentially half of those teams don't have any better resume than the top Horizon or MAC teams except for they play Top 50 teams. If you expand by 31 teams, there are only so many major conference teams. Even if the MAC got 2-3 teams each year, it would be better.
Here is what I posted on the KSU board recently on the subject: The purists will hate it because most casual sports fans think it has always been 64 teams, but I think it greatly improves the chances of mid-majors. They cannot take all majors because they will quickly run out of teams. Besides, a good cross section of people on the selection committee makes sure that is not a problem. I think of the '00, '03 and '04 teams and think they could have won a few games with the right matchup but didn't have the access.
And also: I think the expansion will happen soon with the opt-out in the TV contract coming. ESPN certainly wants a piece of the pie and NBC joining forces with Comcast could be a legitimate competitor in the upcoming decade with ESPN.
I don't think adding three teams adds value to the contract. That is essentially one or two nights. If you move to 96, that is two full extra days of action that could be put Tuesday and Wednesday at first and second round sites. That would really add value to the package.
It's not so much about getting teams in as it is where those teams get seeded.
(02-02-2010 06:27 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2010 05:07 PM)mollautt Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2010 03:52 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]It would also be the stupidest move in sports history.
=>Why?
Don't write something like that without an explanation. Analysis please!
Would it be less $? Less interest? What???
What do you mean why? Do you think anyone gives a damn about watching Central Michigan play Quinnipiac? If you're not one of the top 64 teams in the country, you have no place in the 'NCAA Tournament'. Hell, very few of the 64 teams even belong there. Does a 13-9 UConn team belong? Absolutely not. This would kill the best sporting event. It completely kills the competition, because if you're not awful, you can get in the NCAA Tournament. Absolutely moronic idea, fueled again by greed.
64 until the year 2000 was the right number. It was 30 conferences with an average of about 9 schools.
What is happening in the last 10 years is you have now 31 conferences with an average of 11.5 schools. Conferencea are getting bigger; it is becoming harder to get an autobid. Moreover every year there are about 5-10 schools left out that have resumes that are pretty much equal to the last 7-8 at large teams selected.
My solution would be expand to 72. If you look at the bottom 16 in RPI that made the NCAA's last year:
American U. #73
Stephen F. Austin #74
North Dakota St #87
Binghamton #88
Akron #99
Robert Morris #109
Portland St. #113
Cornell #115
E. Tennessee #116
CSU Northridge #127
Morgan St. #130
Radford #132
Morehead St. #141
Chattanooga #174
Alabama St. #179
None of these teams would have made the field without a conference autobid. There could be 8 play-in games instead of 1 with the winners advancing to first round games against #16/#15 seeds.
Then if you look at the last 8 schools left out of the bracket:
San Diego St #34
Creighton #40
UAB #46
Illinois St. #47
St. Mary's #48
Niagara #49
George Mason #51
Tulsa #53
These were all 23-24 win type teams playing in mid major conferences that were left behind.
Now given that as an at-large, the following majors made it:
Maryland #55
Boston College #60
Arizona #62
I don't see where it is unfair to have 8 more schools in the dance. There were 23 schools last year with 21+ wins that were left out while 3 schools from BCS conferences with 18-19 wins that made it.
RPI and wins only matter so much. I think OOC SOS is very important too. Teams like BYU should not be ranked so high. Also, what would be the point of more play in games? So they can play top 5 teams and get blown out? That's a waste of time. And as far as it becoming difficult to get an autobid? So what? This isn't 3rd grade where everyone gets a trophy for participating.
(02-02-2010 06:27 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]What do you mean why? Do you think anyone gives a damn about watching Central Michigan play Quinnipiac? If you're not one of the top 64 teams in the country, you have no place in the 'NCAA Tournament'. Hell, very few of the 64 teams even belong there. Does a 13-9 UConn team belong? Absolutely not. This would kill the best sporting event. It completely kills the competition, because if you're not awful, you can get in the NCAA Tournament. Absolutely moronic idea, fueled again by greed.
The same argument can be made for the expanded number of football bowl games but I don't see Temple fans complaining that there are too many of those.
I don't know the number but what is the lowest seed to ever win the NCAA tourney? Something like #8? If we only care about who is good enough to win it all then it should probably be no more than a 24 or 32 team field at the most.
(02-02-2010 10:23 PM)CMUprof Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2010 06:27 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]What do you mean why? Do you think anyone gives a damn about watching Central Michigan play Quinnipiac? If you're not one of the top 64 teams in the country, you have no place in the 'NCAA Tournament'. Hell, very few of the 64 teams even belong there. Does a 13-9 UConn team belong? Absolutely not. This would kill the best sporting event. It completely kills the competition, because if you're not awful, you can get in the NCAA Tournament. Absolutely moronic idea, fueled again by greed.
The same argument can be made for the expanded number of football bowl games but I don't see Temple fans complaining that there are too many of those.
I don't know the number but what is the lowest seed to ever win the NCAA tourney? Something like #8? If we only care about who is good enough to win it all then it should probably be no more than a 24 or 32 team field at the most.
Yeah, but we're not talking about expanding Bowl Games, in fact, it's usually the opposite. I have no problem with that, because we're going nowhere but up.
I think that 64 teams is the perfect number because no #16 has won; therefore everyone with a chance to win gets in. also, there are no byes and no play-in games which appeals to my sense of balance and fairness. I'd rather see the NIT expand to 64 teams and go to regional sites for its Sweet Sixteen and Elite eight games to give it more of a tournament feel.
It should be all about access. I don't care at all about seeding. Is a No. 5 seed really that much better than a No. 6 or a No. 13 better than a No. 14? Of course not. Basketball is so matchup based. In fact Kent State probably doesn't go to the Elite 8 in 2002 if they are seeded 8 or 9 instead of "underseeded" at 10.
As fans of "mid-major" schools, we should want whatever that gets more of our teams in the most recognizable college sporting event. Last I checked two or three teams each year is more than the one we get now. I don't think 28 percent of the teams in a tournament is watering it down either.
With potential conference shake-ups, I see tournament expansion as inevitable. If the BE splits, raided or not, you'll have another conference champion. The Great West will eventually have a solid group of low-major programs and gain entrance to a tournament spot (their champ earns an auto-bid to the CollegeInsider.com Tounament right now). Any dreamed-up CUSA split or new eastern FBS football conference is unlikely, but would mean even more bids. High-major conferences would hate seeing a decrease in at-large bids, and would do something to remedy it.
By all accounts, the NCAA is clamping down on growth of the division itself. We are in a somewhat stable period, a few schools have moved up but Division I has lost Birmingham Southern and Centenary and New Orleans are headed out as well.
Even if we go from 31 conferences to 33, that is resolved easily with three play-in games rather than one and at-large stays at 34. Current NCAA rules don't even have to be changed for that because they provide the field to be 34 at-large plus all eligible conference champs.
I love the tournament. I love the MAC. Expanding the field would be an incredibly stupid move. I don't even think there should be a 65/64 play-in game. Just take one of the at-large bids, at the chagrin of the BCS conferences.
Face it, MAC basketball stinks. Play to the strenghts, beat the big boys in football.
Go Karl!