Time to Expand the Tournament

[SteinPizza]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

I've said for a while, if leagues like the MVC want to get actual, sustained respect (and the bids that go along with it) then we need to have someone win a national championship (or at least play for one - and don't point to Indiana State, that's a generation and a half ago...that account went dry years ago). Until then, we're all just teams playing a few extra games on national TV as a reward, while other parts of the field compete for hardware.

Sorry Creighton...win more games next time. You're not going to get home/home series with BCS schools, so book a flight and go play somebody.

News, you're partially right. I don't think a national championship game is required, but reasonably consistent Elite Eight appearances would help. One of the reasons schools like Gonzaga and Xavier can claim to be offended by "mid major" status is their ability to make the Sweet Sixteen or Elite Eight a few times each over the last 15 years or so. The MVC needs to take it's game to the next level, with the conference champ thought of as a legit Sweet Sixteen team every year. In other words, major suprise/upset if that doesn't happen.

Elite players will also help the image. The MVC has a couple potentials in Eldridge and Stinnett, with Koch potentially not far behind. By "elite", I'm referring to legit NBA level talent, or the potential to develop it by their senior year.

[JayJ79]

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?

What do you mean by "legitimate worthy teams"?
If you are talking about legitimate shots to win the championship, then there is really no need to have any more than 32 teams in the tourhament. And there is barely any need to have any more than 16. Since the NCAA began seeding the tournament teams ('79), there have only been three teams to win the championship that weren't a 1,2,3 or 4 seed.

[U]NCAA D1 champions since 1979[/U]
1 seed   	53.33%	16 of 30
1-2 seed	73.33%	22 of 30
1-3 seed	86.67%	26 of 30
1-4 seed	90.00%	27 of 30

[Trapped in California]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

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

Love the onion- thumbs up!

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.

See below

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.

See below

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?

Answer is - win more games, then you don't have to worry. Take care of your business like NC, OK, or UConn and there are no worries. Lay a log on national TV like Creighton did in the MVC tourney, and you are sentenced to purgatory.

[Panther Alum 83]

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.

I think it's a great idea. Go Bob Knight!

[jman2004]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

What do you mean by "legitimate worthy teams"?

I'm talking about the "bubble teams" left out year after year. I'm convinced you're only reading bits and pieces of what I am saying . . .

When all is said and done, there are usually only a handful of teams that have a good excuse to be upset about not making the tournament. There usually are not 20-30 teams complaining that they have good resumes and should've made the tournament. We usually only have a handful of teams that have been left out.

Why add 64 more teams to the mix, when usually there are only a handful that are left out in the first place? Granted, I often feel bad for that handful. Even the Big Ten teams this year. Don't get me wrong, I think it's ridiculous to let 8 teams in the tournament from the Big Ten but at the same time, can see where each and every one of those teams are coming from when trying to argue their way in. They all have worthy resumes.

Do you realize that with a 128 team tournament, the Big Ten could possibly get ALL their teams in, playing for the National Title? Do you realize how large of an amount 64 more teams is? Iowa has an RPI of 112 right now. They could very easily make the tournament if the field was expanded to 128. Sure they probably wouldn't get far, but why expand in the first place then? Just for the "dollars"? And would a team like Iowa actually "deserve" a shot at the national title this year?

I think the 64 team format works fine. Expanding it would only cheapen March Madness. That's my two cents.

[jman2004]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

Answer is - win more games, then you don't have to worry. Take care of your business like NC, OK, or UConn and there are no worries. Lay a log on national TV like Creighton did in the MVC tourney, and you are sentenced to purgatory.

I don't think it's quite that simple. NC, OK, and UConn are EASY examples for you to mention.

What about Utah State? They're 27-4 and if they don't win the WAC tournament, they won't make the NCAA tournament. Did they not "take care of business"?

Fact is, teams like Wisconsin (and others like them), are allowed to lay a lot more logs than a team like Utah State, or Creighton, or St. Mary's, or us for that matter.

[Newsbreaker]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

I don't think it's quite that simple. NC, OK, and UConn are EASY examples for you to mention.

What about Utah State? They're 27-4 and if they don't win the WAC tournament, they won't make the tournament. Did they not "take care of business"?

Fact is, teams like Wisconsin (and others like them), are allowed to lay a lot more logs than a team like Utah State, or Creighton, or St. Mary's, or us for that matter.

In part, because they play a tougher schedule - and will play legitimate title contenders every single year.

The only solution, if there needs to be one (and I'm unconvinced there does), is that any team that beats you in the NCAA tournament give you a game the next year. That would force some mid-major/BCS match-ups, and as a bonus, if you beat a team in the tournament, they give you a home game.

That means up to 6 games for the Final Two, but a mutual opt-out could be worked in. Considering the exempt tournaments, the game restriction is meaningless as it is.

[Trapped in California]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

I don't think it's quite that simple. NC, OK, and UConn are EASY examples for you to mention.

What about Utah State? They're 27-4 and if they don't win the WAC tournament, they won't make the NCAA tournament. Did they not "take care of business"?

Fact is, teams like Wisconsin (and others like them), are allowed to lay a lot more logs than a team like Utah State, or Creighton, or St. Mary's, or us for that matter.

As John F Kennedy once said "Life isn't fair". If you want fair, tune into Obama-vision.

Specifically, Utah State's SOS (according to Sagarin) is 173 - in the bottom half of all teams. Wisconsin's SOS is 9th.

[JayJ79]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

Answer is - win more games, then you don't have to worry. Take care of your business like NC, OK, or UConn and there are no worries. Lay a log on national TV like Creighton did in the MVC tourney, and you are sentenced to purgatory.

Your opinion is noted. Just don't start whining if UNI gets left out of an at-large bid in the future (in basketball, or football for that matter).

[JayJ79]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

No matter what size a tournament is (unless every single eligible team is included), there will always be teams just outside the cutoff that will get all butthurt about it.

[Trapped in California]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

Your opinion is noted. Just don't start whining if UNI gets left out of an at-large bid in the future (in basketball, or football for that matter).

I am an advocate of playing tough games where ever those may be. That does not mean that UNI should schedule Texas and USC in the same season for football. Nor does it mean that we schedule Duke, NC and UConn. But maybe one in a year, if we can find a way to do it (in BB it is much easier, obviously).

[TH1974]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

Typical 12 character response. What's your idea?

My idea is to keep it at 65. Or eliminate the stupid play-in game and go back to a normal 64.

[Panther-Sheik]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

Specifically, Utah State's SOS (according to Sagarin) is 173 - in the bottom half of all teams. Wisconsin's SOS is 9th.

The problem as I see it (in respect to RPI and SOS) is that the entire "season" is really determined by the first 3 weeks of the season before conference play starts. If (like UNI) your team hasn't "gelled" yet early in the season, you are pretty much stuck with your RPI no matter how you play the remainder of your season. Or, say you schedule who you think may be good matchups based on the previous year's results. Iowa and ISU have had terrible years. Even if UNI had beaten them it wouldn't give them any significant bump for the win. Basically, a school is the victim or beneficiary of how another team performs after you have played them. What if a team that was supposed to be good suffers a key injury or two?
Then, once you get into conference play, if your conference mates don't have good RPI's, you will have no real chance of ever getting to a top 20 RPI because you are always playing poor RPI teams (and beating teams with bad RPI's doesn't help much)...unless you are perfect the rest of the way out...and requiring perfection from a team just because they are mid-major isn't realistic IMO. And how Ill. St. can have a higher RPI than UNI at this point in the year, when UNI beat them 3 times out of 3 just seems ludicrous.

[Trapped in California]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

Computer models attempt to reward wins against winning teams, especially performing above the expect margin of victory, and on the road. Generally the models reward high scoring teams, not teams that like UNI or Princeton of the four corners fame that put a lid on the scoring.

Those are some of the computer models' flaws - just like they can not account for the loss of a star player (see Marquette & St Marys). But they do balance out the star power a UNC or Kentucky normally receives.

[Panther-Sheik]

Re: Time to Expand the Tournament

Computer models have attempted to take the personal bias / subjectivity out of ranking teams (both football and basketball). Unfortunately, at the same time they have also eliminated common sense in many respects.