NCAA Tournament to Expand to 68

[Aargh]

The 8 bottom feeder conferences get to play each other in the play-in games. That's a great deal for them. They get their entire game on TV, which is really rare for those conferences. 4 bottom tier conferences get 2 games in the tourney. That's significant cash for those leagues. 4 teams form low-level conferences get to play a #1 seed. That's likely to be the career highlights for the players on those teams.

[shox1989]

So does that mean that each no. 1 gets a play-in opponent? I can't see how you structure the tournament by adding in only 3 teams unless there are 4 playin gamesm.

That is exactly what it means. Instead of the 2 worst conferences battling for road apple status, now it will be the 8 worst and they'll add the 3 new BCS teams into the regular draw.

I think this is the worst possible scenerio (I hope I am wrong).

I think this means we remain a one bid conference and the BCS gets 3 more bids. This is absolutely terrible.

Man you guys are doom and gloomers. Whoever the next three best at large teams are are going to get the bids.

Do you want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? Most years it will be 3 more BCS teams.

This is absolutely awful. I thought this 96 team tourney was a done deal.
I was looking forward to the Valley becoming a power conference again with 3 to 6 bids each year.

Now we are back to being a one bid conference. The Big Boys GREED came through once again. They just couldn't stand shaing a little bit more money with the Valley and a few other non-BCS conferences. They just had to step in and take it all again.

I think I need a drink. I may just give up on college basketball all together. What a bad day.

Someone better find Doug Elgin and put him on a suicide watch.

[WSUwatcher]

Jeez

Good heavens, get a grip.

Yes, 68 is silly, although less so than 65, which was ridiculous. And this is no doubt just a prelude to further expansion / dilution. But before anyone puts Doug Elgin on suicide watch, they need to check on the well-being of most of the posters on this thread. Really, guys, is there anything in sports that doesn't feed your "BCS" paranoia?

[griswald13]

Re: Jeez

Good heavens, get a grip.

Yes, 68 is silly, although less so than 65, which was ridiculous. And this is no doubt just a prelude to further expansion / dilution. But before anyone puts Doug Elgin on suicide watch, they need to check on the well-being of most of the posters on this thread. Really, guys, is there anything in sports that doesn't feed your "BCS" paranoia?

Agreed, and what makes you all think the BCS teams wouldn't take over a 96 team field? Yea, sure we could get 3 to 6 in a year but that isn't going to look like anything when BCS conferences get 75% of their teams in. Having a 96 team field isn't going to make our conference better, its only making it easier for us to get in. If we want to be looked at as a good conference we need to prove it with the field we have now.

[ShockerFever]

68 > 65 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 96.

[shox1989]

Re: Jeez

Good heavens, get a grip.

Yes, 68 is silly, although less so than 65, which was ridiculous. And this is no doubt just a prelude to further expansion / dilution. But before anyone puts Doug Elgin on suicide watch, they need to check on the well-being of most of the posters on this thread. Really, guys, is there anything in sports that doesn't feed your "BCS" paranoia?

Agreed, and what makes you all think the BCS teams wouldn't take over a 96 team field? Yea, sure we could get 3 to 6 in a year but that isn't going to look like anything when BCS conferences get 75% of their teams in. Having a 96 team field isn't going to make our conference better, its only making it easier for us to get in. If we want to be looked at as a good conference we need to prove it with the field we have now.

First of all you can't prove yourselves if you don't get in. Take Bradley in 2006, they were the last team in and made it to the sweet 16. Getting 3 to 6 teams in a year would make it easier for Valley teams to prove themselves in the dance.

Second, while the BCS conferences would also get more teams in, the biggest winners would be the top tier non-power conferences such as The Valley, A-10, MWC, C-USA, Wac and the CAA.

Most conferences would still get just one bid. The 96 team field would have made the Valley more like the power conferences instead of being just one of the 20 or so 1 bid conferences.

With 68 we are more than likely back to being a 1 bid league again. This will make recruiting harder and will make it harder for us to retain our coaches.

[BOBB]

So you're telling me that the system is rigged by the rich and powerful such that poorer performers with status can reap rewards in excess of their less pedigreed competition?

Interesting how many of us see this system as unfair, but our political and economic system as fair.

[Wuzee]

AT-TI-CA! AT-TI-CA! AT-TI-CA!

[Snapshot9]

I would say we would be closer to getting 3 teams than 6 for a 96 team field.

68 teams is more logical (considering the distribution) than 65 is. That way each Regional has a play-in game.

[shox1989]

I would say we would be closer to getting 3 teams than 6 for a 96 team field.

68 teams is more logical (considering the distribution) than 65 is. That way each Regional has a play-in game.

I used the 3 to 6 based on Joe Lunardi's hindsight reading of this year's tourney as if there had been 96 teams instead of 65. Based on his projections, he said the Valley would have received 5 bids this year if it had been a 96 team event.

This was not particularly the strongest year for the Valley so if we would have had 5 bids this year (he had Missouri St as one of his last four in) it is not unreasonable to expect that we could get 6 bids in a better year.

Personally I thought that 3 would have been the most likely scenerio but I am not an expert like Lunardi.