Another tournament expansion

[ceharv]

I am reading that a movement has started to again expand the NCAA hoops tournament to help provide more money to pay for all this money the NCAA is now obligated to pay everyone except me. At a minimum, the expansion will include adding two or four more “play-in” games while keeping the core tournament tat 64 teams and will include adding one or two more sites for the games. Details are to come, but in an article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette it is suggested that tourney expansion is “inevitable” and that traditionalists should just accept that and enjoy the extra games.
While I like the idea, I hope it is not just used to open more slots for power conference teams, but fear that’s what it will be.

[maplehurst]

It's only for money. The football powers expanded the playoffs from four to twelve teams. There wasn't that much parity between the number one and number four teams, but money dominates sports. Money always wins.

[BONA82.5]

CEHARV - You are correct. They will sell it as more opportunities for the "little guys", but the Power Conferences will likely get 6 or 7 out the 8 new BIDs (If they expand to 76 teams).

I had this idea - How about a Play-in bracket that includes Conference regular season champs that don't win their CONF Tournament. Those teams would compete for say 2 spots - prior to the NCAA Tournament, so as to not change the 3 week format. Power Conference regular season champs would not participate (as they would already surely receive at-large BIDs).

[BONA82.5]

2016 squad with Posely and DION surely belonged. When they didn't get the at-large BID, at least they would of had a shot to play their way in. I still believe that team would have made the Sweet Sixteen or beyond. Same could be said for dozens of regular season conference champs. The 2016 Team omission still hurts to this day.

[Cassian]

As I continue to say the tournament should go to 96 teams - top 32 get a bye - everyone is happy (except 97, I suppose). Only adds one or two more days - and is a lot of fun for more schools. remember when we went to 64 teams there were a little over 200 D1 schools, today there are 362.

[ceharv]

Maplehurst - Damn right it’s only for the money but at least some players will benefit from that now.

And 82.5 I like your idea but it ain’t happening anytime soon. A separate, additional step for regular conference champs who lose in the league tourney is fair, and still rewards the overall season and will make many end-of-season games very important, increasing fan interest and attendance right to the last day in many cases. It’s just too radical for the NCAA and makes too much sense, so it’s got no chance.

[BONA82.5]

Jun 22, 2024 9:02:21 GMT -5 Cassian said:

As I continue to say the tournament should go to 96 teams - top 32 get a bye - everyone is happy (except 97, I suppose). Only adds one or two more days - and is a lot of fun for more schools. remember when we went to 64 teams there were a little over 200 D1 schools, today there are 362.

Totally agree CASSIAN - 96 would be great - I'm just happy that they are considering an increase to 76. Looking for a way to make sure at least a couple of those new BIDs go to smaller conference reg season champs.

[ceharv]

IMO, 96 just feels like too many and would result in de-emphasizing both the regular season and league tournaments. But I really like the idea of rewarding regular season champs who fall in their league tourney by giving them a quasi play-in game, plus increasing the number of at large play-in games. Of course the logistics of accommodating both might make it unworkable in that the number of teams from the first category wouldn’t be knowable until very late on selection Sunday when many league tourney finals are held. Maybe someone smarter then me can figure out how to do that, but for now I am okay with just adding more play-in games and hoping that opens 2 or 3 opportunities for mid-majors, which might be asking too much.

[jjjacks17]

Since we’ve destroyed the NIT might as well add that field to the NCAA too I guess.

[demourse]

Jun 25, 2024 7:38:39 GMT -5 ceharv said:

IMO, 96 just feels like too many and would result in de-emphasizing both the regular season and league tournaments. But I really like the idea of rewarding regular season champs who fall in their league tourney by giving them a quasi play-in game, plus increasing the number of at large play-in games. Of course the logistics of accommodating both might make it unworkable in that the number of teams from the first category wouldn’t be knowable until very late on selection Sunday when many league tourney finals are held. Maybe someone smarter then me can figure out how to do that, but for now I am okay with just adding more play-in games and hoping that opens 2 or 3 opportunities for mid-majors, which might be asking too much.

Only 5 Conference championship games were held on Selection Sunday this year (AAC, A10, Big10, Ivy and SEC), two of which tipped off around 3pm Eastern. The other 3 started at noon or 1pm.

The vast majority of teams are known before Sunday, it's just where to put them in the bracket. The bracket process is simple, yet structured based on locations of the top seeds. Additional rules exist around other conference teams being in separate parts of the bracket, not playing at home court or an arena in which a team played 2 (or maybe 3) times in that location for the year.

Adding a few more play in games wouldn't upset the apple cart too much. The impressive logistical details are how to arrange for travel and tickets for the actual first round games on Thurs/Friday when the field is announced late Sunday.