NCAA Expansion

[60Shock]

Came across this article by John Smallwood in the Philadelphia Daily News while stuck in Philly waiting for a connecting flight. If it appeared in the Eagle, I apologize. Key points which I agree with are:

The tournament has expanded ten times from its initial eight teams and every time it has gotten better.

The only difference between now and the earlier expansions is that there is no practical reason for it. Past expansions were tied to the fact that the growth of college BB significantly deepened the field of quality teams that legitmately could compete for a national championship.

This is still a top-heavy field as no #16 seed has ever reached the 2nd round; only two teams as low as 14 (Cleveland St and Chattanooga) made the Sweet 16; and only two teams (LSU and GMU) seeded as low as 11, have ever reached the Final Four.

Villanova, a #8 seed is the lowest seed ever to play for and win the championship. This means that since the seeding process began with 40 teams in 1979, no worse that the 32nd rated team has ever won the tournament and that happened only once.

If the singular goal is to crown a champion, then there is no need for the field to even be at 65.

But it is more than winning. It's about the test, about finding out how far you can go. The NCAA Tournament is one of the rare events in which the greatest fairy tales happen at the beginning, not at the end.

The most memorable moments have come during the first two rounds, when the little fish most said didn't belong proves it did. :yahoo:

Many of the things we love most about the NCAA Tournament would not have happened if not for expansion of the field. There is nothing wrong with the 65-team format.

Still, don't try to tell me expansion would somehow ruin it, when history shows it has only made it better.

[im4wsu]

Re: NCAA Expansion

Came across this article by John Smallwood in the Philadelphia Daily News while stuck in Philly waiting for a connecting flight. If it appeared in the Eagle, I apologize. Key points which I agree with are:

The tournament has expanded ten times from its initial eight teams and every time it has gotten better.

The only difference between now and the earlier expansions is that there is no practical reason for it. Past expansions were tied to the fact that the growth of college BB significantly deepened the field of quality teams that legitmately could compete for a national championship.

This is still a top-heavy field as no #16 seed has ever reached the 2nd round; only two teams as low as 14 (Cleveland St and Chattanooga) made the Sweet 16; and only two teams (LSU and GMU) seeded as low as 11, have ever reached the Final Four.

Villanova, a #8 seed is the lowest seed ever to play for and win the championship. This means that since the seeding process began with 40 teams in 1979, no worse that the 32nd rated team has ever won the tournament and that happened only once.

If the singular goal is to crown a champion, then there is no need for the field to even be at 65.

But it is more than winning. It's about the test, about finding out how far you can go. The NCAA Tournament is one of the rare events in which the greatest fairy tales happen at the beginning, not at the end.

The most memorable moments have come during the first two rounds, when the little fish most said didn't belong proves it did. :yahoo:

Many of the things we love most about the NCAA Tournament would not have happened if not for expansion of the field. There is nothing wrong with the 65-team format.

Still, don't try to tell me expansion would somehow ruin it, when history shows it has only made it better.

IMHO, it is not about the test. It is only about MONEY.

In the Big 12; Texas and OSU were 9-7 and tied for 6th in the conference. Texas was 3-6 against the top five finishers and OSU and 6-1 vs the bottom feeders (CU,TT,ISU,OU & NU). There is no justification that warrants Texas having any opportunity to compete for any championship, let alone the national championship, when they haven't played .500 ball against the teams that finished above them in their own conference. The realtime rpi for these bottom feeders is 105,71,114,112 and 153.

[fansince80s]

All this will do is make non-bcs teams play each other in first 2 rounds whle the big 6 get byes, thats all.

If it is expanded then everyone should play, no byes peroid! #1 vs. #96 ect.

[benishock]

Totally agree with Fansince

[ripemupshocks]

I would agree expansion has been good so far. But only in respect to the fact it has forced the top dogs to play teams they otherwise would never play. But that's it.

I understand you did not quote the author verbatim, so he may have made other statements which are not seen here. But his assertion that the tournament has always expanded because, "Past expansions were tied to the fact that the growth of college BB significantly deepened the field of quality teams that legitmately could compete for a national championship.", is absolutely not true. The author even contradicts himself by pointing out the fact that a sixteen seed has never made it out of the first round. In fact, in the years of tournament expansion from 32 to 64 teams, no team from that second group of 32 has ever won it. In the years of tournament expansion from 16 to 32, no team from the second group of 16 ever won it.

So why expand? Just as im4 stated; MONEY. Obviously, the way to control the money is to create a monopoly. Eliminate the competition. And the biggest competition was the NIT. And the NCAA new the best way to eliminate the NIT was to starve them to death. Keep expanding to the point that the teams playing in the NIT were so low in rank that no one even cared. And when it got to that point, the NIT sued. So what did the NCAA do? They just bought out them out. Problem solved.

So the author was correct about one thing, "The only difference between now and the earlier expansions is that there is no practical reason for it.".

Once you own it all, There really isn't anything to expand.

[Aargh]

I would agree expansion has been good so far. But only in respect to the fact it has forced the top dogs to play teams they otherwise would never play. But that's it.

I understand you did not quote the author verbatim, so he may have made other statements which are not seen here. But his assertion that the tournament has always expanded because, "Past expansions were tied to the fact that the growth of college BB significantly deepened the field of quality teams that legitmately could compete for a national championship.", is absolutely not true. The author even contradicts himself by pointing out the fact that a sixteen seed has never made it out of the first round. In fact, in the years of tournament expansion from 32 to 64 teams, no team from that second group of 32 has ever won it. In the years of tournament expansion from 16 to 32, no team from the second group of 16 ever won it.

So why expand? Just as im4 stated; MONEY. Obviously, the way to control the money is to create a monopoly. Eliminate the competition. And the biggest competition was the NIT. And the NCAA new the best way to eliminate the NIT was to starve them to death. Keep expanding to the point that the teams playing in the NIT were so low in rank that no one even cared. And when it got to that point, the NIT sued. So what did the NCAA do? They just bought out them out. Problem solved.

So the author was correct about one thing, "The only difference between now and the earlier expansions is that there is no practical reason for it.".

Once you own it all, There really isn't anything to expand.

Quite astute and well-stated. I totally agree, but rarely see it expressed as well and concisely as ripemup has done.

[RoyalShock]

A couple of things.

1st, if you don't want a team to have byes, then it needs to either go back to 64 or expand to 128. That said, right now the #1 seeds and usually the #2 seeds effectively get byes anyway due to playing the #16 and #15 seeds.

At least with a 96 team bracket, that first game for the #1s and #2s won't be gimmes.

In the first round you'd have #5 play #20, #6 play #19, etc. #1 seeds would end up playing the winner of the #12 vs #13 seeds, which in today's scenario are the last at-large teams in.

Hypothetically, if this year's WSU were to just make it in as a #13, then in a 96-team bracket we would get to play the #1 seed if we beat the #12 in our first game.

[ShockBand]

Keep in mind that the expansion from 32 to 65 did not add any additional weekends for the tournament, aside from the little play-in game we currently have.

If the NCAA expands to 96 and wants to avoid adding another weekend, there would have to be another game on the first weekend on Tuesday or Wednesday, if they wanted to maintain a day off between games.

If they want to expand, I'd rather see it just be to 68 or 72, and have either four or eight play-ins for the #15 and #16 seeds. And who those 8 or 16 teams are should be based on RPI, regardless of conference. Granted it would still likely be small conference teams, but it shouldn't HAVE to be those teams.

Personally, I'd rather see the field stay at 64, and reduce the number of DI conferences by 1/3 or 1/2. Opens up a whole other can of worms, I realize, but I wonder if it would be better for college basketball overall. Or not. Just thinking out loud!

[electricmayhem]

I didn't see this posted in the thread...

If the expansion is to 96, how would the finals be handled? Unless my math is bad, (with no byes) eventually the tournament would be down to three teams.

Byes are a complete joke... if you have a tournament, any tournament, that has byes in the first round, it is structured poorly.

[pinstripers]

Expansion is a bad idea. 65 teams is stupid. Why not just have 64 and cut Texas out, or whoever the last one is.

[Ashockalypse]

Exopansion is stupid. The season has to mean something. Now it means that you earn your way into the tournament. Sorry not everyone gets to go.

[RoyalShock]

I didn't see this posted in the thread...

If the expansion is to 96, how would the finals be handled? Unless my math is bad, (with no byes) eventually the tournament would be down to three teams.

Byes are a complete joke... if you have a tournament, any tournament, that has byes in the first round, it is structured poorly.

That's where the byes come in. The 1-4 seeds (32 teams) get a bye. Everyone else (64 teams) plays a game and the winners (32 teams) advance to play the 32 teams that got a bye, making a full 64-team bracket the rest of the way.

[ShockTalk]

A couple of things.

1st, if you don't want a team to have byes, then it needs to either go back to 64 or expand to 128. That said, right now the #1 seeds and usually the #2 seeds effectively get byes anyway due to playing the #16 and #15 seeds.

At least with a 96 team bracket, that first game for the #1s and #2s won't be gimmes.

In the first round you'd have #5 play #20, #6 play #19, etc. #1 seeds would end up playing the winner of the #12 vs #13 seeds, which in today's scenario are the last at-large teams in.

Hypothetically, if this year's WSU were to just make it in as a #13, then in a 96-team bracket we would get to play the #1 seed if we beat the #12 in our first game.

I haven't read anything on how the 96 team bracket would work, so keep that in mind. Wouldn't the first 8 seeds get byes (8 x 4 = 32), with the 9 through 24 seeds playing in the 1st round (64 teams). The 32 winners then play the 32 bye teams in the second round. This would mean the winner of the 16-17 seed games would play the #1 seeds, while the winner of the 9-24 seed games would play the #8 seeds.

[cjp27]

And I can guarantee you that 30 or 31 of the teams getting a bye would be out of the big 6, essentially making every so called mid major have a play in game to even get into the real tournament. The expansion talk is a joke and is just another step that will marginalize anyone who is outside the stupid BCS network.

[AbsolutelyShocking]

Best plan I've come up with is:

Expand to 68, with play in games between last 8 at larges in, one per region. this then becomes "Bubble Tuesday" and tell me CBS can't sell that!!

Automatic bids then all make the true dance. Stop any new D1 conferences currently 31 (I think) so the auto bids are as they are.

Have a rule where no team with under .500 record in own conference can get an at large. 8-8 can make it, but no more 7-9.