NEWS about the NCAA TOURNEY and a ?

[AnotherSoonerInTX]

It was 48 for a time before going to 64. I don't remember how long, though. I don't remember any complaints going from 48-64 since the only change was nobody got a bye in the first round. I was young then, so I might not have been paying attention.

I was in high school during this transition. The move from 48 to 64 was hailed. Too many teams with first-round byes were losing in the second round (see OU, 1983). I remember few complaints about the transitions from 32 to 40 to 48 to 64.

I'd be fine with a move to 72. It's just four more opening round games. Play them in another city other than Dayton and run with it. It opens more spots for mid-majors like last year's Indiana State team, who could have made noise in the tournament. But I don't want any more than 72 teams in the tournament.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Oh, I know. And I think every subsequent expansion is silly. Do you recall which conference's dissolution provided us with the vaunted field of 65?
I think the First Four should be eight 16-seeds. Wine em, dine em, win your game and you're in the field of 64. Sending 11 and 12-seeds to Dayton is dumb-bee-doo-bee-DUMB.

it is when the WAC fractured (after it expanded) and the MWC was born ..

 

[TEvans4Three]

This is a weird hill to die on, being anti-64+ teams...I get it, the brackets are even, it filters down perfectly, it makes sense.

Adding 4 more teams, does nothing more nothing less for the tournament as it stands now, at all. It adds the 4 bubble outs, IN.

OU would have been in, it absolutely would have made a difference, those saying otherwise are being stubborn. Making the tournament is always the goal, regardless. Then, anything can happen. You can get some magic, make a sweet run, and have an Elite 8 run, that is awesome for fans, the players, and the school.

I think getting into 128 teams is pretty insane, bc it is like CFB where everyone gets a bowl game. But 68 to 72 isn't a big change IMO and would have had us in. So I would have liked to see us play some post-season ball in the dance.

 

[WichitaSooner]

This is a weird hill to die on, being anti-64+ teams...I get it, the brackets are even, it filters down perfectly, it makes sense.

Adding 4 more teams, does nothing more nothing less for the tournament as it stands now, at all. It adds the 4 bubble outs, IN.

OU would have been in, it absolutely would have made a difference, those saying otherwise are being stubborn. Making the tournament is always the goal, regardless. Then, anything can happen. You can get some magic, make a sweet run, and have an Elite 8 run, that is awesome for fans, the players, and the school.

I think getting into 128 teams is pretty insane, bc it is like CFB where everyone gets a bowl game. But 68 to 72 isn't a big change IMO and would have had us in. So I would have liked to see us play some post-season ball in the dance.

It does make a difference. It waters it down. Are you saying there is no difference between the baseball playoffs now compared to back when only the two division winners made the postseason?

In Kansas, they’ve screwed up the high school football playoffs to the long where almost every team makes the postseason. The more teams you add, the less impressive it is to say you made the field.

It’s weird that you act like this is a controversial opinion. Check out the Twitter feeds of most reporters who cover the sport and you’ll find that most of them are opposed to it.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

This is a weird hill to die on, being anti-64+ teams...I get it, the brackets are even, it filters down perfectly, it makes sense.

Adding 4 more teams, does nothing more nothing less for the tournament as it stands now, at all. It adds the 4 bubble outs, IN.

OU would have been in, it absolutely would have made a difference, those saying otherwise are being stubborn. Making the tournament is always the goal, regardless. Then, anything can happen. You can get some magic, make a sweet run, and have an Elite 8 run, that is awesome for fans, the players, and the school.

I think getting into 128 teams is pretty insane, bc it is like CFB where everyone gets a bowl game. But 68 to 72 isn't a big change IMO and would have had us in. So I would have liked to see us play some post-season ball in the dance.

Yuck

 

[Eielson]

Oh, I know. And I think every subsequent expansion is silly. Do you recall which conference's dissolution provided us with the vaunted field of 65?
I think the First Four should be eight 16-seeds. Wine em, dine em, win your game and you're in the field of 64. Sending 11 and 12-seeds to Dayton is dumb-bee-doo-bee-DUMB.

I have felt that being a 6 seed against the play-in 11 seed is one of the more unfortunate seedings. It almost guarantees that the 11 seed is playing well, and often closer to 8 or 9 seed level, which makes the game close to a toss-up many times.

One playin-game for 16 seeds shouldn't be a big deal, but if they expanded that to the point of having to win 2-3 games to get into the final spot, that could be a dangerous game for the 1 seed. Would almost be preferable to be a 2 seed.

 

[Eielson]

We had the field of 64 for 16 years only. 85-00

It was the field of 65 in 01-10 10 years

It has been 68 for 15 years this season.

So 25 years now there has been an opening round.

The one play-in game didn't really change anything as far as I was concerned. Was kinda fun to have the worst two teams slog it out. It gave an incredible memory for the winning team that never expected to make a tourney, let alone win a game, even if it was mostly a pointless game. 68 was a bit more distracting to me.

 

[Eielson]

This is a weird hill to die on, being anti-64+ teams...I get it, the brackets are even, it filters down perfectly, it makes sense.

I'm gonna take it a step further and die on the hill that 16 and 32 were better. There aren't 64 teams that deserve to be playing for a title.

You mean to tell me that you can have an undefeated season...and then you have to follow-up it up with a SIX GAME WINNING STREAK?! It's the biggest farce of a championship in all of sports. BCS was exponentially better at crowning the best team.

 

[WaymanFan]

I'm gonna take it a step further and die on the hill that 16 and 32 were better. There aren't 64 teams that deserve to be playing for a title.

You mean to tell me that you can have an undefeated season...and then you have to follow-up it up with a SIX GAME WINNING STREAK?! It's the biggest farce of a championship in all of sports. BCS was exponentially better at crowning the best team.

You really can't have less than 64 when there are 350+ schools and 30+ conferences. Every Division 1A school deserves at least a mathematical chance of winning a title or there is no point of even playing. I thought they found the perfect number at 64 and then found a way to screw it up with these play-in games. And YES, making an undefeated school win 6 more games is necessary and exciting to watch. UNLV had that chance back in 1991, but Duke upset them in the Final Four. It made for a college basketball classic. OU was good enough to win 4 or 5 games on three occasions. I remember every last game and the excitement that went along with it. There really is nothing like March Madness. I just wish guys were staying in college longer who have no realistic shot at playing in the NBA. As such, we have a watered-down product compared to years past...but the tournament itself is still the best thing going.

 

[TEvans4Three]

It does make a difference. It waters it down. Are you saying there is no difference between the baseball playoffs now compared to back when only the two division winners made the postseason?

In Kansas, they’ve screwed up the high school football playoffs to the long where almost every team makes the postseason. The more teams you add, the less impressive it is to say you made the field.

It’s weird that you act like this is a controversial opinion. Check out the Twitter feeds of most reporters who cover the sport and you’ll find that most of them are opposed to it.

Did you read my post?

I said adding 4 teams doesn't really do much as it currently stands. If you want to argue that it will slippery slope into 128, then sure. But 68 to 72 really doesn't. I am just talking about 4 teams.

The top seeded teams still play the same number of games, still favored to win it all. It may change how the Sweet 16 turns out for one game or two, but that's it.

Half the teams, right now in the tournament, are autobids.

If you want, just argue the 12-16 auto seeds don't belong, bc it isn't a true competition of the top 64 and they are gonna get smoked in two rounds, making it really a muddied version of a 32 team. That really is the opinion, isn't it?

Adding 4 isn't a make or break for anything as it stands right now. Just isn't.

This is my favorite tournament structure and my favorite holiday. March madness. Adding four teams doesn't muddy it down for me, my opinion of course.

 

[TEvans4Three]

I'm gonna take it a step further and die on the hill that 16 and 32 were better. There aren't 64 teams that deserve to be playing for a title.

You mean to tell me that you can have an undefeated season...and then you have to follow-up it up with a SIX GAME WINNING STREAK?! It's the biggest farce of a championship in all of sports. BCS was exponentially better at crowning the best team.

I can def appreciate that, 32 hill to die on makes sense. Sucks for smaller schools, but they aren't good enough for end season then anyway. Albeit one big upset every 6 or so years only to lose in round 2.

 

[Eielson]

You really can't have less than 64 when there are 350+ schools and 30+ conferences. Every Division 1A school deserves at least a mathematical chance of winning a title or there is no point of even playing. I thought they found the perfect number at 64 and then found a way to screw it up with these play-in games. And YES, making an undefeated school win 6 more games is necessary and exciting to watch. UNLV had that chance back in 1991, but Duke upset them in the Final Four. It made for a college basketball classic. OU was good enough to win 4 or 5 games on three occasions. I remember every last game and the excitement that went along with it. There really is nothing like March Madness. I just wish guys were staying in college longer who have no realistic shot at playing in the NBA. As such, we have a watered-down product compared to years past...but the tournament itself is still the best thing going.

I agree that March Madness is a blast, and it certainly makes for instant classics. But it crowns the best team at a lower rate than any other sport.

Even at 16 or 32 teams, there's absolutely a chance for any team to make it. At 32 teams, it's not like we'd be leaving out any 30-2 conference champs, especially if their talent/competition level was high enough that they were even remotely in the conversation as a top 5 team.

While I don't recommend it, and it would be less fun, a better champion would be crowned if they had best of 3 series or just made it an 8 team bracket.

 

[Skeeter1]

Did you read my post?

I said adding 4 teams doesn't really do much as it currently stands. If you want to argue that it will slippery slope into 128, then sure. But 68 to 72 really doesn't. I am just talking about 4 teams.

The top seeded teams still play the same number of games, still favored to win it all. It may change how the Sweet 16 turns out for one game or two, but that's it.

Half the teams right now, in the tournament are autobids.

If you want, just argue the 12-16 auto seeds don't belong, bc it isn't a true competition of the top 64 and they are gonna get smoked in two rounds, making it really a muddied version of a 32 team. That really is the opinion, isn't it?

Adding 4 isn't a make or break for anything as it stands right now. Just isn't.

This is my favorite tournament structure and my favorite holiday. March madness. Adding four teams doesn't muddy it down for me, my opinion of course.