Proposing 72 Teams in the tourney
- Thread starter BlueBloodKyFan
- Start date
ACC = American Communist Conspiracy. It all started with the designated hitter, people ! Wake up, America. Pitts out. (seriously, no sarcasm)
The bracket's eventually going to look like the Denslow Cup from BASEketball.
Just let everyone in and also give them a trophy for participating. I liked it at 64 also not that it means anything.
I love the idea of expansion; I would imagine the ones who say to not expand now were also probably saying the same thing when it was at 32 or whatever back in the day. The NCAA tournament is the greatest thing in sports a far as I am concerned, so making it longer is okay with me. I would like to see around 8 more play in games added, which would basically make the opening Tuesday and Wednesday just as exciting as the Thursday thru Sunday is. That would be 16 more teams, which I think would be fine.
The problem with expansion is you start to whittle down quality. I love college b-ball as much as the next guy, but who wants to watch Joe St. vs Nicklemount?
I don’t know. Seems arbitrary to me.
I don’t know. Seems arbitrary to me.
I’d compromise to that. Nothing worse than seeing a Div I conference winner get a play in game. Like really? Thanks for nothing.
Yes push the 3 point line back if it wasn't for the 3 ball we would have 10 titles. We can't make them and underdog teams just make enough to beat us to end our seasons.
REAL
REAL
What Parrish said is exactly why the ACC wants this. They want a Boston College or Syracuse to make the tournament in a year when they normally wouldn’t so they can yell, “hey look at us! We got NINE teams in this year!”
Just frickin leave it. It’s big enough already.
Just frickin leave it. It’s big enough already.
It's going to be so watered down if they do. The reason the regular season ratings suck so bad is because those games mean very little unlike college football where every game counts. They will mean even less if we add more teams. But hey, we live in a society where everybody gets a trophy now.
The Big-10 has backed it. They are calling it the "Indiana Amendment."
The way they are proposing it helps no one that much except for the ACC so hell no.... that league of cheaters can go eff off... it should drop back down to 64 because the first four is stupid and I've never watched a single one of those games
FIELD OF 64: 32 D1 basketball conference winners + top 24 "at large" teams
TUESDAY:
...16 "at large" teams play for 8 spots in field of 64
...Tues winners are Seeded #8 and #9
ROUND ONE: #8 vs #9 seeds play
ROUND TWO: Four winners play #1 seeds
TUESDAY:
...16 "at large" teams play for 8 spots in field of 64
...Tues winners are Seeded #8 and #9
ROUND ONE: #8 vs #9 seeds play
ROUND TWO: Four winners play #1 seeds
Every team in a conference is "in the ncaa tournament" now!!!
Just WIN, and keep playing. Lose, and be gone.
rr
Just WIN, and keep playing. Lose, and be gone.
rr
No, because 64 is the perfect number. Keep wanting it watered down though...
The ACC just wants to make sure no 16 seed ever comes into a game with fresh legs again. After the Virginia loss, they're all afraid of the embarrassment of losing to 16 seeds with their gifted 1 seeds to overrated members.
I can't understand those that DON'T want the 3 point line moved back. At this point, the lane is too clogged. This would help the flow of the game tremendously.
Imagine some of our former slashers had more room to operate.
Imagine some of our former slashers had more room to operate.
I’d rather they cut the amount of teams to say 32 but then you can make the series of each best of 3.
I'm not saying I want more teams in. BUT if you were to increase, then I would say put the regular season champs in. I know there are Conf-tourneys, and league feel the need to reward you for winning those. Then you put both in. And to incentivize regular-season champs to try & win the conf-tourney too, you reward them (if they win both) either with a higher seed or a bye.
I would not be opposed to the F4, maybe the E8 being a best of 3 series.
I don't like the idea of the "best 32". We've seen teams that may not have gotten in (or barely would have gotten in) that come close to winning it. So clearly there is little to know difference between #32 & #42. It would screw almost every good mid-major. Choosing "the best" is pretty arbitrary, and differs from person to person based on what you value more.
I would be ok with as few as 48, or as many as 96, IF it were done the right way. I think with more than 64 (& I know we have 68 now) you need to add a 4th weekend.
I would not be opposed to the F4, maybe the E8 being a best of 3 series.
I don't like the idea of the "best 32". We've seen teams that may not have gotten in (or barely would have gotten in) that come close to winning it. So clearly there is little to know difference between #32 & #42. It would screw almost every good mid-major. Choosing "the best" is pretty arbitrary, and differs from person to person based on what you value more.
I would be ok with as few as 48, or as many as 96, IF it were done the right way. I think with more than 64 (& I know we have 68 now) you need to add a 4th weekend.
This is a great idea. If I get to watch a couple extra games of college basketball Im all for it.
How is more games watering it down? Also, why is the perfect number 64? WHat did it do to earn that wonderful stigma?
College basketball is a great product, way better than NBA or college football.
Regular season is not meaningless, have a bad one and you don't go dancing. But I get your point. There is a way around that though.
Regular season champ get auto-bid, or regular season champ gets a 1st round bye, or first choice of sites. There are ways to reward a team for a good regular season.
I would be for expansion provided the following criteria is set: No team with a sub .500 conference record can receive an at large bid. There are too many mediocre Power 5 teams that get bids vs mid majors like St. Mary's and MTSU. Every year, really good mid majors that are upset in their conference tournament are not selected because they don't have a high enough RPI or "proper number" of Top 50 wins, despite the fact that Power 5 schools won't play them in season. The selection committee never seems to give credence to the fact that a 7-9 Wake Forest (or whoever the mediocre ACC team is that year) team has 10-15 opportunities to play Top 50 competition, while MTSU has maybe 2-3.
They need to propose non biased referees is wtf they need to propose. The quality of their product is shit, as it stands currently.
I realize I’m in the minority, but I hate having 64 teams and wish the tournament would be reduced dramatically. If the intent of the tournament is to crown that year’s champion, and that champion is supposed to be the best team that year, then the NCAA tournament fails miserably at that.
When a 21-9 UConn team that lost 7 of its last 11 regular season games is crowned champion, then I question the value of the tournament as structured. And I felt that way prior to 2011, so this isn’t simply sour grapes.
The tournament is really just an overgrown Maui Invitational played at the end of the season instead of the beginning. I get that there’s exciting basketball played and it’s fun to watch, but I fail to see why anyone thinks this is an effective way of determining a champion.
When a 21-9 UConn team that lost 7 of its last 11 regular season games is crowned champion, then I question the value of the tournament as structured. And I felt that way prior to 2011, so this isn’t simply sour grapes.
The tournament is really just an overgrown Maui Invitational played at the end of the season instead of the beginning. I get that there’s exciting basketball played and it’s fun to watch, but I fail to see why anyone thinks this is an effective way of determining a champion.
Similar threads
