96 teams

[owenc]

They would do what was already alluded to earlier in this thread and match all the non-big 6 teams against each other in the 1st round so that they can knock each other off and reduce the number of potential upsets against the big boys in the next round

Well for what it is worth, I hang out on a certain "big boy" message board and they are just as against the expansion (if not more) than you all are. Of course it helps if you make it every year I suppose.

No one wants this but the NCAA and (and Illinois ;-]). What I can't figure out is how the NCAA takes on a life of its own like this. You'd think the members would have more control over what happens.

Chris

[vbird53]

I'm all for expansion of postseason play, especially if it enhances opportunities for "midmajors". I'm not seeing how this particular solution solves anything.

What I'd really like is conference realignment. Real reform that includes all NCAA Division I members.

[vbird53]

In other words: Level the damn playing field, don't just enlarge it.

[Snapshot9]

The Postseason is reflecting it's little league mentality, 'Everyone gets to play'.

[ShockCity]

Why change what is already the single best sporting event of the year! I don't get it. The only possible answer could be...$

[vbird53]

Why change what is already the single best sporting event of the year! I don't get it. The only possible answer could be...$

I disagree. The tourney in its current form is great, but some simple tweaks could make it better. A complete overhaul of college basketball could make it even better. A level playing field for all Division I members is necessary (restructuring the conferences, selection criteria, even those that serve on the selection committee).

The current system still leaves much to be desired.

[rrshock]

Don't get mad at me, but I heard Jay Bilas say something last night that I actually agreed with. He said that there is no excuse for there being 340+ schools in Division 1. I agree. There are some conferences that just don't have the money to even dream of competing with even the conferences like the MVC, let alone the Big 6 conferences. The rest of his cronies agreed with him, it appeared.

Now if they were to actually trim down D-1 down to about half of the schools or conferences, it would benefit everyone that stays in D-1 and help out the schools in the new division by leveling the playing field for them.

Bilas pointed out that if they were to eliminate the auto bids that conferences like the MEAC and similar ones get, then it would actually benefit more of the mid-major programs. I almost fell out of my chair when he said it, but he probably does have a point. They were all against expanding, but if they were to do away with the auto bids of the conferences that have no business being in D-1, then more schools that deserve to be in the tourney would then get in.

Plus if they were to trim D-1, then schools like KU couldn't play their patsy ass schedule that they play in the OOC season. Of course WSU couldn't have played it either, because then there would be less schools to compete with on the same level, and non D-1 games don't count as wins or towards the RPI when it comes tourney selection time.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[WstateU]

The Postseason is reflecting it's little league mentality, 'Everyone gets to play'.

Sounds a lot like our government. :(

[WstateU]

Don't get mad at me, but I heard Jay Bilas say something last night that I actually agreed with. He said that there is no excuse for there being 340+ schools in Division 1. I agree. There are some conferences that just don't have the money to even dream of competing with even the conferences like the MVC, let alone the Big 6 conferences. The rest of his cronies agreed with him, it appeared.

Now if they were to actually trim down D-1 down to about half of the schools or conferences, it would benefit everyone that stays in D-1 and help out the schools in the new division by leveling the playing field for them.

Bilas pointed out that if they were to eliminate the auto bids that conferences like the MEAC and similar ones get, then it would actually benefit more of the mid-major programs. I almost fell out of my chair when he said it, but he probably does have a point. They were all against expanding, but if they were to do away with the auto bids of the conferences that have no business being in D-1, then more schools that deserve to be in the tourney would then get in.

Plus if they were to trim D-1, then schools like KU couldn't play their patsy ass schedule that they play in the OOC season. Of course WSU couldn't have played it either, because then there would be less schools to compete with on the same level, and non D-1 games don't count as wins or towards the RPI when it comes tourney selection time.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I also thought Bilas was spot on with his assessment. :good: :good:

[RoyalShock]

That actually surprises me a bit. One thing I'm sure the BCS-ers like is that due to the huge number of D1 teams it spreads out the talent that doesn't go to a big-six conference school, which in my opinion doesn't help the so-called "mids".

If you cut 100 or so teams the better players that might go to those schools would instead attend the schools left in D1, helping to concentrate more talent among the "mids" and improving their chances of beating the top teams.

That is something I would very much be in favor of.

[ShockTalk]

Don't get mad at me, but I heard Jay Bilas say something last night that I actually agreed with. He said that there is no excuse for there being 340+ schools in Division 1. I agree. There are some conferences that just don't have the money to even dream of competing with even the conferences like the MVC, let alone the Big 6 conferences. The rest of his cronies agreed with him, it appeared.

Now if they were to actually trim down D-1 down to about half of the schools or conferences, it would benefit everyone that stays in D-1 and help out the schools in the new division by leveling the playing field for them.

Bilas pointed out that if they were to eliminate the auto bids that conferences like the MEAC and similar ones get, then it would actually benefit more of the mid-major programs. I almost fell out of my chair when he said it, but he probably does have a point. They were all against expanding, but if they were to do away with the auto bids of the conferences that have no business being in D-1, then more schools that deserve to be in the tourney would then get in.

Plus if they were to trim D-1, then schools like KU couldn't play their patsy ass schedule that they play in the OOC season. Of course WSU couldn't have played it either, because then there would be less schools to compete with on the same level, and non D-1 games don't count as wins or towards the RPI when it comes tourney selection time.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I liked what he said as well. However, I would guess that the upper tier teams would be allowed 4 or so games with the lower tier group. The lower tier depends on the revenue. I would guess that the upper tier would consist of probably 12, 14 max, conferences. Those teams that are able to qualify (financially and otherwise) that are not in an upper tier conference, would have to be accepted by one of those conferences to enter it.

[Smooth007]

Would some kind shocker-fan call in to the next coaches show and try to get HCGM's opinion on this topic of NCAA tournament expansion and NCAA team contraction?

[ShockerFever]

I bet it would suck to be one those "borderline" schools and get cut from Division I. I don't see that going too well.

Imagine if that was us..




Leave the damn thing alone and worry more about football please.

[BAShocker]

Good grief. I just Googles on Great West Conference. Had no idea that was even a league. It should be called North America Conference....or Island of Misfit Toys Conference.

[kcshocker11]

Would some kind shocker-fan call in to the next coaches show and try to get HCGM's opinion on this topic of NCAA tournament expansion and NCAA team contraction?

How bout Dennis? :D :posterwu: 8) 8)