PDA

View Full Version : Tourney Expansion Looking Likely



grossbus
02-04-2010, 10:04 AM
what are the general feelings here on this?

personally, i think 64 (yes, 64, NOT 65) is the right number. even at 64, there are teams from big conferences that probably should not be there. since the move to 96 seems plainly to be money driven, i would expect big conferences to still get the majority of at large bids. the disparity between # 1 seeds and the (what? 24th) seed would lead to some truly drecky games.

CameronBornAndBred
02-04-2010, 10:06 AM
http://dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19204

JG Nothing
02-04-2010, 10:23 AM
what are the general feelings here on this?

personally, i think 64 (yes, 64, NOT 65) is the right number. even at 64, there are teams from big conferences that probably should not be there. since the move to 96 seems plainly to be money driven, i would expect big conferences to still get the majority of at large bids. the disparity between # 1 seeds and the (what? 24th) seed would lead to some truly drecky games.

Given the automatic bids for conference champions, some bottom seeds with 64 teams would still be bottom seeds with 96 teams.

Having been affiliated with three different mid-majors that rarely get into the tournament, I have seen first-hand in each case the excitment and interest a simple NCAA tournament bid produces. From the perspective of non-traditional powers that are the bulk of D1 teams, expansion is probably viewed as a great idea.

grossbus
02-04-2010, 10:44 AM
oops

did not see the earlier thread. apologies.

monkey
02-04-2010, 10:48 AM
Just a terrible, terrible idea. The point of the tourney is ultimately to crown a champion. Will any of these additional 31 teams have any sort of realistic shot at winning? No. There are already lots of teams in there that don't. The whole thing started with only conference champions, and at-larges were added because sometimes the best few teams might all be coming out of one conference - i.e., some of the ACC teams in the early 70s that got left home because they got edged out at the conference level (but otherwise might still had a great shot of winning the whole thing). Adding 30 more mediocre teams just creates another round of crap - sure there will be some upsets from time to time (but I bet the winning percentage of the new seeds will be miniscule) - no doubt making March Madness extend further into April.

In summary - at large bids = good when the at-large team is Maryland 2001 and can make the final four, bad when it's the eighth team from ACC who played just mediocre enough down the stretch to otherwise miss the bubble.

Hope they don't expand