ACC proposes adding four teams to 68-team NCAA field | The Boneyard

ACC proposes adding four teams to 68-team NCAA field

The proposal to have two "first four" tourney play ins instead of one, would have, this year, benefited Baylor, the Irish, USC, and St. Mary's.
 
.-.
I'm kind of surprised I didn't end up inside the Women's board, and unwilling to click on the linked article.
#twiceshy
 
Cool so now teams like NDame and BC can get invites...how great. :rolleyes:

(teams like the 2018 versions, I mean)
 
Every team added hurts us.
 
.-.
So this was me reading this thread
ACC proposes adding four teams

What?! Alright!!

to 68-team NCAA field

bigstock-Portrait-of-a-sad-man-41540233-300x234.jpg
 
They should really just let everybody in. Sort of like everyone gets a trophy. And it will be so cool when #356 beats a #1 for the first time. 64 was perfect. 68 screws little guys who have to play in and give teams that don’t deserve to be there a chance. This would make it worse. The extra slots ain’t going to good mid-majors.
 
As long as all four additional teams are from the ACC...brilliant! Why not just call the entire thing the "ACC Invitational". Let Swofford pick the rest of the field after all the ACC teams are seeded.
 
Maybe they'll let the Minnesota Timberwolves in so they can finally (try) to win something.
 
.-.
I guess they're mad that they have not been able to break the Big East record of having 11 teams in the NCAA Tournament. Champion that tear Uconn.

I remember twice it being mentioned they would/could break or tie the record. Adding more teams gives them a chance. Lolol
 
Undeniably, something is lost.

And for what?

Answer: To create more NCAA Tournament opportunities for mediocre Power 5 teams, which is why it's hardly surprising it's the ACC coaches who are prepared to submit this proposal. There are 15 coaches in the ACC, you see, each of whom has a multimillion-dollar contract. They all know the key to securing extensions (and avoiding termination) is to make the NCAA Tournament, at worst, every few years. And, obviously, it's easier to do that if there are more spots available. So, naturally, they want more spots available.

ACC coaches recommend to expand the NCAA Tournament to 72 teams for their own selfish reasons
 
HooperScooper said:
Undeniably, something is lost.

And for what?

Answer: To create more NCAA Tournament opportunities for mediocre Power 5 teams, which is why it's hardly surprising it's the ACC coaches who are prepared to submit this proposal. There are 15 coaches in the ACC, you see, each of whom has a multimillion-dollar contract. They all know the key to securing extensions (and avoiding termination) is to make the NCAA Tournament, at worst, every few years. And, obviously, it's easier to do that if there are more spots available. So, naturally, they want more spots available.

ACC coaches recommend to expand the NCAA Tournament to 72 teams for their own selfish reasons
Expand ...

Exactly. They should call it the 2018 Coach’s Preservation Act
 
But..But...VCU went from First Four to Final Four...and here I thought you guys championed the Cinderellas...the more at the ball, the more that have a chance to dance with the prince.

I don't like the addition of another First Four, but I think a lot of board objection is dislike for the proposer.

Yep, if SOS and computer metrics are continued to be used to determine bubble teams, it will tend to favor P5 teams.
 
billybud said:
But..But...VCU went from First Four to Final Four...and here I thought you guys championed the Cinderellas...the more at the ball, the more that have a chance to dance with the prince.

I don't like the addition of another First Four, but I think a lot of board objection is dislike for the proposer.

Yep, if SOS and computer metrics are continued to be used to determine bubble teams, it will tend to favor P5 teams.
Expand ...
You should have a disclaimer under your handle that you are the resident FSU/ACC apologist, for those here who aren't familiar with your work.

The ACC is looking at being doubled-up in revenue by the B1G soon, and are sniffing around for more $.
 
That piece was EXACTLY on the money and why the NCAA should either:
1. Go back to 64 and reduce the # of at-large bids
2.If that isn’t acceptable and honestly I know it won’t be, require only at-large teams to play in. Conference winners regardless of league ought to get their shot, and not to play another small school conference winner.
I’d also add a rule that you have to finish in the top half of your league to get an at large bid. That year the Big East got 11 that everyone likes to brag on, other than UConn the league was shown to be a paper tiger. I think only 3 made it past the first weekend and 2 of those played other BE members. And there were more than a few pretty embarrassing loses like Morehead St over 4 seed Louisville and Notre Dame going down to a 10
 
.-.
It is getting to be a bit much, but I don't mind 1 play-in game, per region. I always thought is was weird that only 2 regions had a "first 4" game. As a fan of college hoops, I wouldn't mind watching another do-or-die game, but I want it to be written in stone, in the NCAA by-laws, that expansion of the tourney is OVER after that. On a similar note, what does the BY think about expanding the college football playoff? I'm not a huge college football fan, but I do support the Huskies, and watch some of the big collegiate games throughout the year. How about making it a 6 team format, with the top 2 teams getting a bye? Finally, let us all acknowledge last years NCAA football champs...UCF!
 
Do away with automatic bids....get rid of the Radfords, LIU Broolyns, and Stephen Austins as automatics (any conference champ, whether Kansas or Radford)...put teams in on merit as measured on a national basis.

64 spots...the best 64 teams...I know we can grouse for 500 pages about the relative subjectivity in defining "best".
 
billybud said:
I don't like the addition of another First Four, but I think a lot of board objection is dislike for the proposer.
Expand ...

Pretty much. Most of us don't like the league your school plays in. Sorry? This is a UConn message board. You know our feelings but continue to point out that we don't like the ACC and seem to be puzzled by that. If you're looking for us to be all kumbaya with that league, I think you'll be looking a while.
 
gtcam said:
IF it's reserved for all four being non-P5 - I am all for it
If not, screw you ACC
Expand ...

I'd could be for it if it ensured conference champs from every conference got in the field of 64 and play-in games were limited to only at-large teams.
 
billybud said:
Do away with automatic bids....get rid of the Radfords, LIU Broolyns, and Stephen Austins as automatics (any conference champ, whether Kansas or Radford)...put teams in on merit as measured on a national basis.

64 spots...the best 64 teams...I know we can grouse for 500 pages about the relative subjectivity in defining "best".
Expand ...
So let’s see? No UMBC beating UVA. No Loyola-Chicago, and those are just 2 stories from THIS year. You and everyone else who wants to get rid of “the little guys” really miss the point and miss the reason March Madness is, well, March Madness. You want to turn it into the ACC Tournament.

The statistics they use to rank teams are pretty flawed and virtually every one badly overvalued strength of schedule, which greatly benefits more prestigeos leagues. In essence mid to lower level teams from the Big 10, say, are rated more highly than they deserve because they are in the Big which is more highly rated because it’s teams are better because they are in the Big 10. And so it goes. Is it circular? Yup. Do the top leagues care? Nope.
 
gtcam said:
IF it's reserved for all four being non-P5 - I am all for it
If not, screw you ACC
Expand ...
That would solve nothing. The committee would just pick more P5 teams in the field of 64, and push four more teams that shoulda/coulda been in the real field down into the play in rounds.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,618
Messages
4,585,945
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom