|
|
Post by maplehurst on Dec 10, 2009 19:44:03 GMT -5
ESPN has quoted Syacuse Coach, Jim Boeheim, as saying that the NCAA Tourney should increase by 4 or 6 yeams. Former UCLA Coach, John Wooden, is in favor of letting all Division I teams compete. That would be over 300. The NCAA may also move to have the games exclusively on cable. Not sure just how much influence Boeheim and Wooden have, but the article states that the discussions are taking place behind closed doors.
|
|
|
|
Post by B02 on Dec 10, 2009 19:50:32 GMT -5
If all the 16 seeds had a play in that may open some spots and get closer to the best 64 teams in the tourney.
|
|
|
|
Post by adolphlottin on Dec 10, 2009 19:52:08 GMT -5
Also been talk about raising the field to 80 to 96 teams. 80 sounds ok. Number of teams in Div. 1 expands every year, tourney should to.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpschmack on Dec 11, 2009 0:48:20 GMT -5
If all the 16 seeds had a play in that may open some spots and get closer to the best 64 teams in the tourney. Except the committee doesn't bother putting the best 64 teams in the tourney, they would just add the 9th and 10th Big East team, the 7th/8th ACC teams, and the 6th and 7th Big Ten/Big XII/SEC/Pac 10 teams. Even though those squads have each proved dozens of times they are capable of losing to the really good teams in the BCS conferences. |
|
|
|
Post by thebonafan08 on Dec 12, 2009 11:37:57 GMT -5
What is the point? As is you think the winner of the Big Sky conference will ever win the tournament? When you expand then your talking about taking the runners up to the NEC conference....I mean what is the point except to dilute the prestige of getting into the tournament?
|
|
|
|
Post by presstowin on Dec 13, 2009 13:05:58 GMT -5
at least they get to play a game why not double the field to two sides with 64 teams it would mean the winner has to play 1 more game no brainer many are pushing this do you really think the prestige thing is important? money money money that's what's its about
|
|
|
|
Post by jpschmack on Dec 13, 2009 21:50:35 GMT -5
What is the point? As is you think the winner of the Big Sky conference will ever win the tournament? When you expand then your talking about taking the runners up to the NEC conference....I mean what is the point except to dilute the prestige of getting into the tournament? The fact of the matter is, NCAA expansion will create a LARGER gap between the BCS and everyone else. It's going to put more BCS teams into the field. The "mid-major" champs would be bumped down to lower seeds. Western Kentucky was a 12 seed. If they let Florida and Baylor and South Carolina and Georgetown and Va Tech into the field, they're not playing a five-seed anymore. They're playing a three seed. Cinderella will be eliminated earlier. Financially, it gets worse. It's going to cut shares of the tournament pie. There's 125 shares now (65 for making the field, 32 for winning in the first round, 16 for making the Sweet 16, Eight for the Elite 8, Four making the final four). Each share is about $275,000. 96 teams, you have to divide it up differently Do the top 32 teams get a share, and the teams 33-96 get a half, and the the winners of the round of 128 getting another half? That makes each share $220,000, a half-share $110,000. The non-BCS schools will get a smaller percentage of the NCAA tournament money. That's bad. You're trading dollars for a banner, and the meaning of the banner is less significant when everyone has one. |
|
