Expanding the NCAA Basketball Tourney

[Sadat X]

story

Coaches' arguments for expanding the field to as many as 128 teams:

• The number of Division I teams has increased significantly since the last major expansion more than two decades ago. The field went from 48 to 64 teams in 1985, then added a 65th team to the field in 2001 when the number of automatic bids went from 30 to 31.

• George Mason, which was one of the last at-large teams to make the field this year, proved parity in college basketball is real. The combination of prominent programs losing underclassmen at faster rates and scholarship reductions have helped mid-major schools become more competitive. The coaches believe they deserved to be rewarded accordingly.

• Now that the NCAA controls both postseason tournaments, coaches think it's time to include some of the bubble teams that annually complain when they are left out.

What do you guys think?

I think 128 would be way overkill. It's ultimately going to end up rewarding underacheiving teams from power conferences and further diminish the importance of the regular season. This seems like a way for more coaches to save their jobs.

If I could make one change to the tournament, I would either remove the play-in game or have it be played between the last 2 at-large teams.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

as Clarkmeister (and I [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) have said, the tournament already involves basically every team. it's in the form of conference tournaments and the regular season.

every team that has any realistic shot at winning the thing is in the 64 team field, so I don't think there's any need to change.

[srjunkacct]

The way it is right now, every team that has any shot at all of winning already gets invited. (I think the lowest seed that has ever won is #8 seed Villanova in 1985.) The popular sentiment that the coaches want to expand the tournament in order to embellish their resumes is probably correct.

[Dudd]

Terrible idea. The NCAA tournament is great, expanding it to 128 teams would just further dilute the regular season, which if you're not on the bubble is pretty much meaningless as it is. I also agree with removing the playin game, it's not fair to the team that loses, always a conference winner, to get bumped on a Tuesday night on ESPN2 when no one is watching, instead of having a chance to be that team like Albany that puts a scare into a top seed, maybe even winning the first 16-1 game ever.

[gusmahler]

How many Div IA teams are there? IIRC, there are about 117 football teams, but how many basketball teams are there?

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
How many Div IA teams are there? IIRC, there are about 117 football teams, but how many basketball teams are there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere north of 300.

-McGee

[Sadat X]

[ QUOTE ]
as Clarkmeister (and I [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) have said, the tournament already involves basically every team. it's in the form of conference tournaments and the regular season.

every team that has any realistic shot at winning the thing is in the 64 team field, so I don't think there's any need to change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well put. Conference tournaments do the same job that expanding the field would do. Plus, is anyone going to get excited for the #12-#21 matchup?

[Aces McGee]

As funny as I think it would be to hear Dick Vitale complaining about the ninth ACC team being left out in favor of the second team from the Big Sky, I think the 128-team tournament is a silly idea. As someone already mentioned, the conference tournament system essentially does this already.

I see little benefit. The first couple of rounds would likely be pretty dreadful; most of the "second 64" will be out by then, anyway, and we'll be back to where we started.

-McGee

[bugstud]

I could see 96 teams working.

[dkgojackets]

There are already teams in that dont have a chance. Expanding the tourney will just make way for more mediocre ACC and other major conference teams to make it. The tourney is perfect the way it is now. Plenty of upsets, but the big schools always come out on top.