The more and more I think about NCAA Expansion...

NickZepp

NickZepp

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
13,391
Reaction score
574
The more I think it really REALLY sucks. It's rewarding teams that go .500 or better and going .500 shouldn't be considered a good season. North Carolina would have made the NCAA Tournament if there were 96 teams. So would UConn and about all but 2 of the Big East teams. All you have to do to make the NCAA is get 10-12 pre conference games you can win. Win at least 10 of those then win 5 or 6 games in conference one or two in the Conference tournament and you get in the NCAA Tournament. It's doing what I hate about college football at this time. It's rewarding mediocrity.
 
The only expansion idea I have heard that I like would be adding 3 more play-in games. A caveat would be that none of the play-in teams would be conference tournament winners. A team shouldn't have to win their conf. tourney and then win another game to get into the actual tournament. The 8 play-in teams could be good mid-major teams that lost in their tourney or high-major bubble teams. The play-in's wouldn't necessarily have to play the 1 seeds in the first round, but I would think it would be fun if they did. It would increase the liklihood that a 16 might actually beat a 1 every decade. For example, a Va Tech, or UNC, or URI would have a much better chance of beating a 1 than Ark-LR. Still, I say leave the tourney alone.
 
I think it's terrible. It does nothing but hurt the 3 facets of CBB--regular season, conference tournaments, and the Dance itself. Why it's even being discussed is beyond me. Sure it might mean more dollars for tourney rights in the short run, but there would be a corresponding lack of revenue on the regular season and conference tournament side. Then eventually the increased revenue of an expanded tournament would fade, as more fans tuned out. Leave the d@mn thing alone!
 
I just don't see where there were 32 more teams that deserved bids this year. MAYBE 3 or 4.

How exclusive is it if everyone gets in?
 
If they do this how do you look at the season and say it was good?

Make it to the round of 64? Get a bye in the first round?

Geez...
 
JHop71 said:
The only expansion idea I have heard that I like would be adding 3 more play-in games. A caveat would be that none of the play-in teams would be conference tournament winners. A team shouldn't have to win their conf. tourney and then win another game to get into the actual tournament. The 8 play-in teams could be good mid-major teams that lost in their tourney or high-major bubble teams. The play-in's wouldn't necessarily have to play the 1 seeds in the first round, but I would think it would be fun if they did. It would increase the liklihood that a 16 might actually beat a 1 every decade. For example, a Va Tech, or UNC, or URI would have a much better chance of beating a 1 than Ark-LR. Still, I say leave the tourney alone.
Click to expand...

:clap I like where your head is at. But that last 8 team (last four in and first four out) in a mini tourney and let them play there way in. And they have to play the ones so that mediocrity is not rewarded. Plus people are more likely to care about a UNC vs UCONN game then Ark pine-bluff vs Winthrop or whoever usually plays in the Play in Game
 
$$$$

If any other reason is given it is a bold-faced lie.
 
I think this could end up hurting the tournament because the reason people still watch the early rounds is because of David vs Goliath matchups. Seeing 3 seeds beat by 14s, 13s over 4s. With the top seeds getting byes that won't happen as much.
 
Hmmm....I actually think 1st round upsets will happen more. Let's say a #13 and a #20 seed play. The winner is all lathered up and ready to go against a #4 seed that hasn't played in a week, I like those odds as the underdog.
 
vegas this is just going to be like the NCAA Tourney was before 1985 except twice as many teams. It was 48 teams back then the top seeds all had byes.
 
NickZepp said:
I think this could end up hurting the tournament because the reason people still watch the early rounds is because of David vs Goliath matchups. Seeing 3 seeds beat by 14s, 13s over 4s. With the top seeds getting byes that won't happen as much.
Click to expand...

The NCAA may be evil incarnate, but they aren't stupid. The tournament will continue to be wildly successful. And soonervegas is right that this does not prohibit 14 seeds from beating 3 seeds.
 
Forget 96 why don't we just expand to to 330 or whatever it is and have everyone play in the post season.
 
Why not cut it down to 8 teams? I mean, what the heck, Nick.
 
NickZepp said:
Forget 96 why don't we just expand to to 330 or whatever it is and have everyone play in the post season.
Click to expand...

Yea because having 96 teams is just like having 330, lol.

I have no problem with expansion. I would rather see more basketball than less basketball.
 
Expansion is a HORRIBLE idea. It rewards mediocrity. 65 teams is plenty. Making it to the NCAA tournament should mean something, and it won't mean much if there are 96 teams.
 
I just don't get why they are trying to tinker with it; why fix it if it isn't broke?
 
The 64 team tournament is already rewarding mediocrity, that argument doesn't really hold up. I mean really, can anybody really argue that the bottom half of the 64 team field deserve to play for a NC? For that matter, the top 16 is probably enough to create a true NC tournament.

The 64 team tournament is really cool though, and it lets little guys play for something important, and it gives everyone something to watch, and talk about. The same holds true for a 96 team field.

You cannot argue that teams 65-96 don't deserve to be in the NC tournament, and in the same breath say that teams 50-64 do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Would we be happy…
Replies
15
Views
712
CoachTalk
CoachTalk
thebigabd
A look back at some of the non-conference wins
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
Boom Soon
B
W
Record predictions
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Skeeter1
S
C
Quick Intro and a few thoughts
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
opsooner
O
W
Playing the "What If" Game
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
scrybe
S
Back
Top