Should the NCAA Tournament field be Expanded?

#1
N

NEW COACH

8th Maxim
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
5,669
Likes
7
#1
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. :cray:

I would do a poll but idk how. :crazy:
 
#2
#2
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.
 
#3
#3
BigPapaVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#4
#4
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.
 
#5
#5
volsforever27 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#8
#8
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.
 
#9
#9
Jaytrain5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#10
#10
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. :dunno:
 
#13
#13
BigPapaVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#14
#14
BigPapaVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#16
#16
NEW COACH said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why's that? Who are the power conferences, anyways? Really? Wasn't the Missouri Valley Conference better than a couple of the "power" conferences a couple years ago? The landscape of collegiate sports does change over time.

I think 64 teams is perfect (do away with one at-large bid). I would, however, get rid of these conference tournaments. Just have the conference regular season, and whoever ends up with the best records gets the auto bid, simple as that.
 
#17
#17
The system is fine as is. The conference tournaments create some extra excitement at the end of the year and make the conferences some extra $$$ (the SEC netted 4.3M last year). And the conferences can pick their auto bid however they want - they don't have to have a tourney (the Ivy league does not). Also, no matter how many teams are in, people will complain about being left out. None of these teams left out had any shot of winning the title so there is no reason to whine!!!
 
#18
#18
This tournament is as close to perfection as anything out there. Don't tinker with it, I say.
 
#19
#19
65 is at least one too many, and maybe 33 if you eliminate the UMBCs of the world.

Is there really a legit argument that the 35th best at-large team got hosed because they can't compete for the national championship?
 
#20
#20
cotton said:
65 is at least one too many, and maybe 33 if you eliminate the UMBCs of the world.

Is there really a legit argument that the 35th best at-large team got hosed because they can't compete for the national championship?
Click to expand...
I really don't want it monkeyed with either, but I don't at all like the conference tourney autos. They won't go away because of the money, but it hurts when we're trying to identify the best teams for inclusion.
 
#22
#22
What is the point. Play in game or expand the Regions to 8 versus 4. I could see the Regions expanded or does that add an extra day. Keep the automatics also. we have this many bowl games portionial to teams so why not expand it.
 
#23
#23
It's interesting to note that, after watching the play-in game between Coppin State and Mount St. Marys - then watching Maryland and Minnesota in the NIT just how BAD either of those NIT teams would have killed the play-ins.
 
#24
#24
MphsBlues said:
It's interesting to note that, after watching the play-in game between Coppin State and Mount St. Marys - then watching Maryland and Minnesota in the NIT just how BAD either of those NIT teams would have killed the play-ins.
Click to expand...
that's the argument against the auto entry tourneys. Coppin state couldn't play with Florida on their very best day.
 
#25
#25
BigPapaVol said:
that's the argument against the auto entry tourneys. Coppin state couldn't play with Florida on their very best day.
Click to expand...

Yes, but at least each and every conference has a chance to enter the tourney. The larger point is that Florida has absolutely no shot of winning the NC so they should not really complain about not getting in.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top