Time to Expand the Tournament

[Newsbreaker]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

You don't need to expand the tournament. Every year, people complain about who didn't get into the tourny, and that team loses its first game in the NIT.

But they weren't motivated!

[jman2004]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

Compared side-by-side, is the 5th place Big Ten team better than Creighton? Probably not, if we're looking only at paper.

Is the 5th place Big Ten team more capable of winning a National Championship than Creighton? Yes.

You really think so?

You asked it yourself . . .

What's the lowest seed to win a title..9? 10 or 11, if that.

What type of seed would the 5th place team from the Big Ten likely get? That would be Penn State, Wisconsin, or possibly even Minnesota or Michigan, who Lunardi has seeded at 12 (PSU), 9 (Wisc), 11 (MN), and 11 (Mich).

What greater chance do they really have than Creighton?

[06panther10]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

I don't think they need to expand, but I do think they need to re-evaluate who they are picking. I dont think 8-10 teams from the big ten should be in over Creighton.

[TravelingPanther]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

I'd like to move to 68. 4 play in games

[06panther10]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

I'd like to move to 68. 4 play in games

I think that would be horrible. Then they would just stick all of the small teams there and it will be like not even being in the tourny.

I think it would be a good idea if they would put teams like Penn State in the play in games though.

I dont think any team that wins their conf tournament should have to play in a play in game.

[jman2004]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

I don't think they need to expand, but I do think they need to re-evaluate who they are picking. I dont think 8-10 teams from the big ten should be in over Creighton.

I agree.

Sure, when looking at those teams on an individual basis, each of the top 8 teams in the Big Ten could make a strong argument in favor of their resumes.

But the fact remains, does that 7th or 8th place team really "deserve" a spot over someone like Creighton?

I don't think so.

[UNI Prof]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

Play well enough to remove doubt and you aren't in Creighton's place. With the conference tournament system, everyone (save the Ivy League) has a chance to play their way in.

This brings up a point that I have been thinking about over the last couple of weeks. The conference tournament champs get auto bids, which reward playing well for a few days. The at-large bids reward the "body of work." I'm not sure I really like either format, if that is possible. The body of work argument seems silly because beating a young team early in the season that goes on to develop into a great team shouldn't mean the same, or even approximately the same, as a team who beats the team later in the season; it seems that the early season gets undo respect. On the other hand, a team could stink all year long and, at least theoretically, string together some wins in the tournament and go to the dance. That seems just as silly. (Not to mention that the "body of work" that is the regular conference season, at least in the MVC this year, only meant seeding in the conference tourney).

I don't know that I have a good answer, but it seems to me how the team performs in the last 15-17 games seems like a good indicator of what that team can do. Also, I'm not sure every team should get a shot at the conference tournament. Perhaps the bottom 25-30% should be out.

OR, perhaps the system is great the way it is; I don't really know!

[jman2004]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

I don't know that I have a good answer, but it seems to me how the team performs in the last 15-17 games seems like a good indicator of what that team can do. Also, I'm not sure every team should get a shot at the conference tournament. Perhaps the bottom 25-30% should be out.

I think this is a great idea. Take the top 4 or 8 teams from conferences. Or the top 6 and have 2 byes. (Conference tournaments I'm speaking about).

Why not give the autobid to the regular season champs? I guess that does away with the purpose of a conference tournament, but I agree with you . . .

I was almost sick this weekend thinking about how neither us or Creighton could possibly not have been represented in the tournament after the year we had, simply because Illinois State caught on fire this past weekend.

I agree, it's a predicament . . .

[northwest iowa panther]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

The Division I basketball tournament is the "cash cow" for the NCAA member institutions. With economic hard times the NCAA will be looking to generate money. Expanding the tournament infuses a great deal more money into the coffiers of the institutions while eliminating the annual complaint of the little guy being left out to satisfy big brother. Again the 65 best teams are not in the tournament. Has an at large team ever been given a 16 seed and with that has a 16 ever won a first round game? I'm not a proponent of bigger is better, but with the times we face and a very simple way to generate money--maybe the time is now. I agree with Bob Knight.

[northwest iowa panther]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...rce=videoembed

I like that video. If we forwarded that on to Bob Knight would he respond?

[r54uni]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

Why not add a whole weekend to the tournament and include everyone?? Just like high school basketball. Everyone gets a shot at winning it all. Not sure I like this idea but something to think about.

What I laugh about is that some want a 8 or so team football playoff. Can you imagine the quality football teams that would be left out if we can't even pick 65 teams for the basketball tourney without arguments.

What it comes down to usually is that if you are on the bubble, you have no one to blame but yourself. If you take care of business, you're in!!

[jman2004]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

I don't like the concept at all. The regular season is rendered meaningless then . . .

64 teams is fun and an even numbers. Why mess with something that's not broken? Why add 64 MORE teams to the field when only 6-8 legitimate worthy teams are left out on a year-to-year basis?

[TheMacHouse]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

I think this is a great idea. Take the top 4 or 8 teams from conferences. Or the top 6 and have 2 byes. (Conference tournaments I'm speaking about).

Why not give the autobid to the regular season champs? I guess that does away with the purpose of a conference tournament, but I agree with you . . .

I was almost sick this weekend thinking about how neither us or Creighton could possibly not have been represented in the tournament after the year we had, simply because Illinois State caught on fire this past weekend.

I agree, it's a predicament . . .

They will never reduce the conference tournaments. Look at the Big East they just expanded to include all teams this year. I'm not saying it is a bad idea but will not happen because of money. The MVC would have trouble selling tickets if they reduced the number of teams. Fans wouldn't buy until they knew their team would make it there. Also, the worst seed to win the MVC was a 5 seed so the bootom teams rarely win anyway and sure it is the same in other conference tounaments.

On expanding the NCAA i do not like it at all. There are many factors but one not brought up yet but maybe less of a factor is the schedule would be tougher. Either would have to go to 4 weeks or play 3 games in one week. I like 3 weeks with 2 games each week myself any longer and it loses some luster.

[Newt99]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...rce=videoembed

I came here to post this as well. Nice work beating me to the punch. How would you like to fill out that bracket?

I'd like to move to 68. 4 play in games

I think that would be horrible. Then they would just stick all of the small teams there and it will be like not even being in the tourny.

I think it would be a good idea if they would put teams like Penn State in the play in games though.

I dont think any team that wins their conf tournament should have to play in a play in game.

I like the idea of going to 68 or 72 teams. I've always thought 65 was stupid. Even it up or go back to 64. But of course the power conferences would cry a river if you took away another at-large bid, that's how the play-in game got started in the first place.

I agree that automatic qualifiers shouldn't have to be in the play-in if this were adopted. Use the lowest eight at-larges (if you go with 68) and have them play to get into the 12 or 13 seed spots. They could even draw out of a hat to get to host the play-in game rather than send them all to Dayton two days after the selection show and have absolutely no fans there.

[Panther789]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

The tournament is perfect.