PDA

View Full Version : NCAA BKB Tournament to 80?



TexasTerror
June 9th, 2006, 08:39 PM
Thoughts on expanding the field to 80? I'm not a big fan of the NCAA tournament making conference tourney champs go to a play-in game. Would rather at-large schools go to the game. Would be more entertaining for sure and would give the 'tournament experience' to conference champions from mid-major or low-major conferences...

Field of 80? Tournament size debated
By Steve Wieberg, USA TODAY

For the first time since adding a 65th team in 2001, the committee that oversees the NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament is weighing expansion of the field.

Spurred by Syracuse's Jim Boeheim and other coaches, who called in March for at least modest expansion and met with the committee last week, incoming chairman Gary Walters said he expects the 10-man panel to address the issue, probably when it next meets June 26-30 in Orlando.

"We're going to have a serious discussion," said Walters, who takes over as chairman in September, "and then we'll make some decision about where we'll proceed from there."

The committee has been cool in the past to suggestions of expansion, reluctant to tamper with a hugely popular and successful event. "What we have right now is working pretty well. There's no outcry out there," Walters said. "(But) I don't know that we should be influenced by whether there's an outcry or there isn't. What we should do is act in what's in the best interests of the game as stewards of the game."

Expansion, if it happened, would require approval by NCAA legislative bodies and probably couldn't come before 2009. Neither Walters nor others would speculate on how many berths could be added, though suggestions have ranged from three (and an overall 68-team field) to 15 (and an 80-team bracket).

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/tourney/2006-05-18-tourney-field_x.htm

Cocky
June 9th, 2006, 11:37 PM
This will make all non-BCS schools play a play-in game. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

George Mason is going to make us all pay for their success.

griz37
June 9th, 2006, 11:42 PM
I am sick of hearing guys like Gary Williams & Jim Boheim whine about their teams & not making the big dance. They have every advantage in the world that the mid majors do not. If you want to get into the big dance, win your conference tourney or play well enough during the regular season to earn the bid. I would be 100% against expanding the field.

blur2005
June 10th, 2006, 12:56 AM
This is easily one of the worst ideas ever.

Mr. C
June 10th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Jim Boeheim is a cry-babying jerk. I wouldn't care if I never saw Syracuse in the tournament again. Can't stand his type of coach. Why mess up something that is great already. I want to see more mid-major teams (hate that term) and less of the Big East and the ACC etc. I'd put in rules to make it tougher for teams like Syracuse to get in. If you don't finish in the top half of your league, no at-large bids. If you don't have a better-than-.500 record in league, no at-large bids. His team doesn't win the Big East tourney. Tough luck. They had a crappy season up until that point. Most fans love the underdogs and want to see them beat teams like Syracuse and Maryland. I'd give league champions in the regular season auto bids and then let the rest of the teams play for bids in the conference tournaments. And then parcel out the at-large bids on a more equatable basis. I hate the big conferences and want to see the small conferences better represented. Limit the amount of teams that a conference can put in the field. Make the regular season count for something. Also get rid of the play-in game and take a bid from the ACC or Big East instead.

walliver
June 11th, 2006, 10:55 AM
If you are going to expand the field, why not let everybody play.:D I don't know the number of D-I basketball teams off the top of my head, but, by adding just two more rounds to the current tournament, you could allow 256 teams to participate:)

dbackjon
June 22nd, 2006, 02:36 PM
If you are going to expand the field, why not let everybody play.:D I don't know the number of D-I basketball teams off the top of my head, but, by adding just two more rounds to the
current tournament, you could allow 256 teams to participate:)

With recent move ups, almost 350.


I can see going to 68 - would allow for one or more new conferences to earn an auto-bid, and would make every #1 seed play against the winner of a 16/17 game.

NoCoDanny
June 22nd, 2006, 03:32 PM
I'm sure the Kansas City Chiefs are behind this somehow.

Slammer50111
June 22nd, 2006, 05:14 PM
I am guessing i am going to piss people off with this but I think the 65 is too big of a number. Do we have 65 conferences? I just think you shouldn't be allowed to play for the Nat. Champ if you can't even win your own conference. I am all for just letting the conference champs play in the Tournament. But that will never happen too much money to be made.

TheValleyRaider
June 22nd, 2006, 05:36 PM
I am guessing i am going to piss people off with this but I think the 65 is too big of a number. Do we have 65 conferences? I just think you shouldn't be allowed to play for the Nat. Champ if you can't even win your own conference. I am all for just letting the conference champs play in the Tournament. But that will never happen too much money to be made.

I believe that was the way it used to be. Of course, each conference decides what the criteria for getting their autobid is, which is one of the reasons the Ivy League gets away with not having a tournament (and subsequently why they have the most boring conference to follow). 64 is the best number, it sets up nice brackets and gets in enough teams to keep it interesting. These big school coaches who want fewer smaller schools are forgetting what made the Tournament so popular in the first place.