72or 76 team NCAA tournament on the table

[ukcatz12]

Every year we keep about ten good teams out of the field of 64 because those spots went to automatic bid teams. Teams that are frankly worse. If this bumps us up to where about the best 32 teams in the country really are dancing I’m okay with it.

That's the beauty of the tournament thought, it's not the best 64 teams. It includes teams whose only shot at making the tournament was winning their conference tournament, and there's something really cool about seeing those kids get the chance to play in big arenas against big name teams. And then seeing them pull an upset is even better.

It's why the tournament is so fun and why it shouldn't be changed.

 

[BlueSince92]

That's the beauty of the tournament thought, it's not the best 64 teams. It includes teams whose only shot at making the tournament was winning their conference tournament, and there's something really cool about seeing those kids get the chance to play in big arenas against big name teams. And then seeing them pull an upset is even better.

It's why the tournament is so fun and why it shouldn't be changed.

You lose none of that if you stop shutting out the ten teams every year who are also cinderellas and who have earned a dance more than all the cinderellas currently dancing but who are disallowed just because they are in conferences where it would be a much much much bigger challenge to win their conference championships and get those automatic bids. You just have ten more cinderellas dancing and more of those are capable of upsets. That’s exactly why 72–76 is a good range. The tourney is great but the seeding process is not perfect. The seeding process is famously a frequent source of embarrassment and is exactly why a new and different team ranking system gets rolled out every five years give or take. Adding in the ten or so teams every year who are most notably screwed over by that troublesome seeding process isn’t going to lower anyone’s fun at all and is exactly why the tourney should be changed in that one way.

 

[Fox2monk]

This news is a couple days old, but I haven’t seen a thread on it. Apologies if I’m double posting.

Apparently the NCAA has presented to the conference presidents their proposal to expand the tournament to 72 or 76 teams. The 72 team version would basically be a second first four on the West Coast somewhere. I don’t really understand what the 76 team format would look like.

The most laughable part of this initial reporting is that they wouldn’t necessarily make any more money, and may lose money on the expansion. As if we’re supposed to believe they’re doing this for the love of the game, just want to watch more basketball. Let’s be serious. Maybe they lose money in year one, maybe even year two, but at some point, someone will be making more money or they wouldn’t consider this.

I know the tournament had to expand to get to the 64 team version that we all love, and maybe I would’ve resisted expansion back in the day to get to this point. But it just feels like these decisions are made out of greed, with no consideration for the state of the game. As far as I’m concerned, the tournament starts with the first round, and the First Four adds nothing to my experience. I’ve probably watched one game from start to finish since they added it into the tournament, and bits and pieces of others. I’m sure they’ll tell us they’re giving more student athletes the opportunity to participate in this event!

The earliest the tournament may expand is the 2026 tournament.

That and coaches keeping their job, we already have a tough time coming up with 64 teams deserving of it.

 

[Fox2monk]

Butler almost did but I agree it is 99.99% unlikely to ever happen.

And winning a dog crap conference tournament doesn't impress me any. Any sec team would go undefeated in these tiny conferences and probably easily win the conference tournament. Yet people want the cupcake champs to get guaranteed spots while more legit teams play n play in games. It's bizarre to me.

I agree but we lost to one of those tiny schools and it sucked lol.

 

[HeismaNole]

Butler almost did but I agree it is 99.99% unlikely to ever happen.

And winning a dog crap conference tournament doesn't impress me any. Any sec team would go undefeated in these tiny conferences and probably easily win the conference tournament. Yet people want the cupcake champs to get guaranteed spots while more legit teams play n play in games. It's bizarre to me.

I don't think it's bizarre. It's equal opportunity. It's something that college football never allows. Basketball at least gives equal access to the title. Football has been nothing but human bias and acting as if they have a crystal ball thinking they know what would happen.

If we listened to those people, no upsets would ever occur and the experts would always be right. But they're not.

We just had a Final Four a year ago where Florida Atlantic and San Diego State made it. Gonzaga and Loyola Chicago, Wichita State, and Butler have all made Final Fours the last 15 years.

The champs of every conference should have their spot in the tournament. The qualifier stuff should be for ones who struggled to get on the bubble.

 

[HenryMuto]

Great more crappy teams in the tournament

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

If they go to 76 ... there will be a second First Four (probably West of the Mississippi) with 8 teams (just like Dayton has 8 teams now).

So every 1 seed would end up playing a First four 16 seed, and 4 other teams would end up winning its way into the Round of 64.

If it has to be this way, this is what they need to do. No more than 76. They actually probably CAN'T go more than that, because they cannot add weeks to the event (since The Masters follows the Final Four).

8 1-Seeds would be ridiculous

 

[catfan220]

That and coaches keeping their job, we already have a tough time coming up with 64 teams deserving of it.

See: Virginia 2024

 

[KyCatFan]

I'm really against conference tournaments. I think it's absolutely bogus that you can have a losing record all season and then you win three games and everyone just ignores the rest of the body of work. So one team is allowed to have 18 losses in a year and be in the tournament but the mid major who maybe went undefeated in the regular season and gets left out of the NCAAT because they lost a conference tourney game? How does that make sense?

The regular season champ should definitely get the auto bid. It diminishes the regular season when you can have one bad game and be eliminated from making the NCAA Tournament. It should only be used for seeding and trying to play your way into the tournament from the bubble. No guarantee from it.

I understand why they do it. It brings in more money and excitement seeing bad teams upsetting good ones and making it in. It still shouldn't be happening. Neither should the expansion. It was perfect at 64 and now it's stupid with the play in games. They probably will say some deserving teams get left out and that's why they want to expand, but no matter what they expand to, some team/s will be upset they didn't make it.

 

[Bluegrassking]

Hmmm....it is 68 right now.

I don't care.

They can go to 128 with a whole play in round and it would be no skin off my nose though it wouldn't boost anything either.

 

[IFerg1969]

Money

How much more money will putting 4 to 8 mediocre teams into the tournament actually bring in? We’ve already seen 1/2 empty arenas at sites when the matchups are terrible. It’s not like you’re adding 4 to 8 Kentucky’s with their fanbases. I’m not watching those games. Anyone other than a complete basketball junkie watching them? I’m not calling for this as a fan. Idk, maybe there would be more money. It adds nothing to the actual tournament. The only people who watch the playin games now are their fans or junkies or people that are bored.

 

[specialkd24]

8 1-Seeds would be ridiculous

I don't think it'll be 8 No. 1 seeds.

Right now 4 No. 16 seeds play in Dayton (2 games). A 76-team field would have 8 No. 16 seeds playing at 2 First Four Sites.

The 4 winners would advance to each play one of the four No. 1 seeds. Right now, only two No. 1 seeds play a First Four team.

 

[HeismaNole]

How much more money will putting 4 to 8 mediocre teams into the tournament actually bring in? We’ve already seen 1/2 empty arenas at sites when the matchups are terrible. It’s not like you’re adding 4 to 8 Kentucky’s with their fanbases. I’m not watching those games. Anyone other than a complete basketball junkie watching them? I’m not calling for this as a fan. Idk, maybe there would be more money. It adds nothing to the actual tournament. The only people who watch the playin games now are their fans or junkies or people that are bored.

Yeah, it will be similar to the bowl games that has two small schools in stadiums that are 80 percent empty. This is strictly to sell more advertising time.

 

[Lempface]

I think they need to do the reverse. Take a college football approach, and dwindle it down to a 16 team tournament. Now, I know it'll never happen, and I know why it'll never happen. But, as far as I'm concerned, if you aren't a top 16 team by the end of the regular season, you have no claim to play for a national championship. All you're doing is playing spoiler and making money for rich people. We place so much emphasis, already, on a tournament where the best team historically wins less than 50% of the time, and almost zero value in finishing the regular season #1. It's already out of whack.

I'd like to see it switch to a double elim at the elite 8 and then 2/3 for finals similar to baseball. But, no, absolutely not should we reduce the teams

 

[SemperFiCat]

I'd like to see it switch to a double elim at the elite 8 and then 2/3 for finals similar to baseball. But, no, absolutely not should we reduce the teams

I like the double elimination. But a team with 16 losses in a terrible conference as no business in a tournament that's deciding a national champion, IMO. If you're not a top 15ish team and the end of the regular season, you don't get to screw it up for a good team. Expand the NIT, shrink the NCAAT.

 

[Lempface]

I like the double elimination. But a team with 16 losses in a terrible conference as no business in a tournament that's deciding a national champion, IMO. If you're not a top 15ish team and the end of the regular season, you don't get to screw it up for a good team. Expand the NIT, shrink the NCAAT.

Giving the teams with no business being there is what makes it the best sporting event in existence because sometimes the prove they do belong and there is nothing more exciting.

 

[ArcadiaFan]

Play the NIT first, winner gets the last automatic bid into the 64 team NCAA Tournament. 32 teams would have a chance to play their way into the main bracket and I would imagine the NIT would become relevant again for the first time in many decades.

 

[KYExtemper]

I don't think it'll be 8 No. 1 seeds.

Right now 4 No. 16 seeds play in Dayton (2 games). A 76-team field would have 8 No. 16 seeds playing at 2 First Four Sites.

The 4 winners would advance to each play one of the four No. 1 seeds. Right now, only two No. 1 seeds play a First Four team.

This would be garbage. All those teams would be conference champions of smaller leagues. Viewership would also be weak.

IMO any play in games should all be between at large teams that didn't qualify.

Play the NIT first, winner gets the last automatic bid into the 64 team NCAA Tournament. 32 teams would have a chance to play their way into the main bracket and I would imagine the NIT would become relevant again for the first time in many decades.

This won't happen because you are going to hold up 63 teams playing ball for a week or more to play another tournament after conference tournaments to award 1 bid? That's just not a good idea logistically.

NIT is getting killed by when the transfer portal opens. That needs to be pushed back until after the NCAA tourney is over.