Should the NCAA Tournament field be Expanded?

NEW COACH · 03-17-2008, 05:05 PM

I say NO !!! You don't go and mess with the greatest event in sports !!! 65 teams is plenty. Dickie V made a good point las night. If they expanded to 128 teams there would still be an arguement about who gets the 128th spot. Let whiners be whiners.

I would do a poll but idk how.

BigPapaVol · 03-17-2008, 05:28 PM

Knight's argument has merit. Come up with the ranking system (who cares which), take the top 128 teams (no automatics) add one extra game and play to the end. Team 129 might have an argument, but they were going to open with #1 overall. Argument over. Second ballgame would have the brackets as they are today.

volsforever27 · 03-17-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

Knight's argument has merit. Come up with the ranking system (who cares which), take the top 128 teams (no automatics) add one extra game and play to the end. Team 129 might have an argument, but they were going to open with #1 overall. Argument over. Second ballgame would have the brackets as they are today.

I'm on the fence as far as doing away with the automatics. I see Knight's point, but at the same time, look what a great story UGA was yesterday. There's no perfect answer either way. It's the little conferences that seem to kind of ruin it. It's really not the best 65 teams for sure.

NEW COACH · 03-17-2008, 05:44 PM

I like automatics in power conferences. But if you're 17-14ish and win the southland conf. tourney or sumin I'm against that. The power conf should only get auto bids.

BigPapaVol · 03-17-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volsforever27

I'm on the fence as far as doing away with the automatics. I see Knight's point, but at the same time, look what a great story UGA was yesterday. There's no perfect answer either way. It's the little conferences that seem to kind of ruin it. It's really not the best 65 teams for sure.

I'm happy for UGA, but the fact is that they have no business in the tourney having gone 4-12. It's a feel good story, but eliminating automatics would reward the teams that sustain winning over the course of the season.

Such a system would place added emphasis on regular season games and would force teams to schedule some tough opponents.

NEW COACH · 03-17-2008, 05:48 PM

Then we shouldn't have conf. tourney's.

BigPapaVol · 03-17-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEW COACH

Then we shouldn't have conf. tourney's.

no doubt about it.

Jaytrain5 · 03-17-2008, 06:08 PM

I would support a "play-in" type game in all 4 regions...adding 3 more total teams to the tournament.

Usually, no more than 3 or 4 teams have a legitimate gripe about being left out of the tournament, so that would get them in.

BigPapaVol · 03-17-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaytrain5

I would support a "play-in" type game in all 4 regions...adding 3 more total teams to the tournament.

Usually, no more than 3 or 4 teams have a legitimate gripe about being left out of the tournament, so that would get them in.

it's limited to 3 or 4 because there are only 3 or 4 with legit comparisons to the worst guy in. Slide the scale right some more and let 3 or 4 more in. 3 or 4 others have legit comparisons to that 3 or 4. The scale never ends.

However, putting the top 128 in would leave 3 or 4 to gripe about the bottom, but they'd be arguing to play #s 1-4 in the nation. Waste of air once your down into the 100s.

NEW COACH · 03-17-2008, 06:28 PM

I think they should let the top two teams who got left out (Va tech and Az St.) play in the "play-in" game to face a one seed. Fair enough.

rbroyles · 03-17-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEW COACH

I think they should let the top two teams who got left out (Va tech and Az St.) play in the "play-in" game to face a one seed. Fair enough.

Now you have 67 teams, doesn't work.

hmanvolfan · 03-17-2008, 10:35 PM

The idea is asinine..

Sudeepvol · 03-17-2008, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

it's limited to 3 or 4 because there are only 3 or 4 with legit comparisons to the worst guy in. Slide the scale right some more and let 3 or 4 more in. 3 or 4 others have legit comparisons to that 3 or 4. The scale never ends.

However, putting the top 128 in would leave 3 or 4 to gripe about the bottom, but they'd be arguing to play #s 1-4 in the nation. Waste of air once your down into the 100s.

good point...no matter how much this field is expanded, the teams that are left out are going to have something to say.

65 teams is exactly where it should be.

volsforever27 · 03-18-2008, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

I'm happy for UGA, but the fact is that they have no business in the tourney having gone 4-12. It's a feel good story, but eliminating automatics would reward the teams that sustain winning over the course of the season.

Such a system would place added emphasis on regular season games and would force teams to schedule some tough opponents.

I get what your saying, but the little conferences will claim that playing the big boys will just hurt their overall record and keep them out. Plus who's to say how many teams a smaller school should play? I'm not against it, just pointing out what their logic will be.

After UT's debacle, I have to admit that kind of turned me against the tournament if the selection braniacs put that much emphasis on it.

**VolinArizona** · 03-18-2008, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEW COACH

The power conf should only get auto bids.

That's silly. DUCY?