NCAA Tournament Expanding to 76 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

NCAA Tournament Expanding to 76

storrsroars said:
If they're really doing this, then I don't want to see AQ vs AQ in the play-in games. I'd rather see the best AQ in the play-in field play the worst P4, second best play second worst, and so on.
Expand ...
How does this make sense? There is no such thing as the “best AQ in the play in field.” The best AQ this year was #1 overall seed Duke for winning the ACC.

With the exception of the 4 worst AQs that already have to play in for the last two 16 seeds, it will all be at large bubble teams in the play ins. I wouldn’t mind all four 16 seeds being play ins because they don’t have a chance but otherwise the at large bubble teams should be fighting it out to make the 64 team field, not the AQs
 
Last edited:
This is so dumb and embarrassing, but my life doesn’t change watching a few more games early on. They’ll just be mostly ignored.

But the fact that it’s a clear money grab for P4 schools to get more pieces of the pie is the gross part. Seeing ACC’s Cal Bears being the 75th team to get another couple million is nasty.

None of this is getting better.
 
It is good for the players, and also just facing the modern reality.

With players getting paid, many don’t want to risk injury in the NIT. 5 major conference teams declined NIT bids this year. More NCAA tournament games means more opportunities for players to showcase their talent on the biggest stage.

Also, with players getting paid, it is almost impossible for a 16 or 15 seed to win. The chasm between even the mid majors and low majors is massive. There is no overcoming it anymore. The bottom 12 conference champs should have a play in. It gives those teams a chance to win a game, and gets the best possible 15 and 16 seeds for the round of 64.
 
bendm said:
How does this make sense? There is no such thing as the “best AQ in the play in field.” The best AQ this year was #1 overall seed Duke for winning the ACC.

With the exception of the 4 worst AQs that already have to play in for the last two 16 seeds, it will all be at large bubble teams in the play ins. I wouldn’t mind all four 16 seeds being play ins because they don’t have a chance but otherwise the at large bubble teams should be fighting it out to make the 64 team field, not the AQs
Expand ...
I'm surprised that was difficult to understand. So I'll clear it up.

Right now the First Four features two games pitting 16 seeds (lowest AQs) against each other and two games featuring lowest ranked at-larges.

The plan is to add 8 additional at-large teams, which means it would necessarily also include the 14-15 seeds as the other eight, bringing the total to 24 teams.

I personally do not want to see any AQ have to play in a play-in game. I've always felt this way. These teams won their way into the field and should actually be in the field. However, with 24 teams involved that's all but impossible. You'd have to basically put six teams in each of the 8-11 seeds (or 8 teams in the 9-11 seed lines) and that's your play in field, That won't get past many of the committees who decide such things as it basically elevates 12 & 13 seeds.

So if the 12 AQs going to the play-in are the 14, 15, and 16 seeds, I don't want to see them play each other. I want to see them take on the mediocre teams from multi-bid conferences. So best 14th seed plays the crappiest at-large and so on. I think the exposure for the smaller conferences would be enhanced, and there would be a greater potential for "Cinderella" stories, even though it's likely most/all get trounced in the next round.
 
Last edited:
.-.
RashadRay11 said:
The sad part is this is not the end of the expansion. Nothing good will come of it.
Expand ...
Look what constant expansions did to the European soccer..used to be a UEFA cup where the champions of each country would play. Now there are 3 tournaments and sometimes the Champions League is not even won by the champion of the country. In itself is not an issue, but the fan’s attention and significance got very much diluted. And we are talking of the continent where soccer is it for the most part. An elite of the game became not so much elite and the soccer organizing buddies struggle getting interest of the younger generation. Obviously it is not limited to one culprit. One can argue that with more teams involved at least in one round, their fan base gets to experience the tournament in college. The gap of NIL and haves and not-haves will widen in my opinion with constant pouching of the players from the mid-tear teams. And that might impact the parity in college basketball and ultimately the competitiveness of the early round games. In other words, more teams but with the highest playing the lowest, the Cinderella’s of college hoops might be a distant memory. All more or less educated guesses, but it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
 
storrsroars said:
I'm surprised that was difficult to understand. So I'll clear it up.

Right now the First Four features two games pitting 16 seeds (lowest AQs) against each other and two games featuring lowest ranked at-larges.

The plan is to add 8 additional at-large teams, which means it would necessarily also include the 14-15 seeds as the other eight, bringing the total to 24 teams.

I personally do not want to see any AQ have to play in a play-in game. I've always felt this way. These teams won their way into the field and should actually be in the field. However, with 24 teams involved that's all but impossible. You'd have to basically put six teams in each of the 8-11 seeds (or 8 teams in the 9-11 seed lines) and that's your play in field, That won't get past many of the committees who decide such things as it basically elevates 12 & 13 seeds.

So if the 12 AQs going to the play-in are the 14, 15, and 16 seeds, I don't want to see them play each other. I want to see them take on the mediocre teams from multi-bid conferences. So best 14th seed plays the crappiest at-large and so on. I think the exposure for the smaller conferences would be enhanced, and there would be a greater potential for "Cinderella" stories, even though it's likely most/all get trounced in the next round.
Expand ...

The low majors are simply no longer competitive with the high majors. Unless you enjoy watching teams jump out to 30-7 leads and then run out the clock in 3/14 games, it is in the tournament's interest to turn the low-major slots into play-ins.
 
UConn Dan said:
Still would’ve been no Seton Hall this year. So how does this help the Big East?
Expand ...

Seton Hall would have made it this year. Oklahoma State had a 74 NET, ASU had a 73 NET and Cal had a 68 NET. They would have been on the outside.

The next 8 at-large teams would probably have been:

Indiana: 18-14, 41 NET
New Mexico: 22-10, 46
SDSU: 21-11, 47
Oklahoma: 19-15, 48
Tulsa: 24-7, 52
Seton Hall: 21-12, 53
Virginia Tech: 19-13, 54
Stanford: 20-12, 61
 
kobebeanbryant said:
overreaction, but money is slowly ruining everything in this country…

as I did with the expansion to 68, I will refuse to watch any of these additional games before the round of 64.

voting with your wallet/eyeballs is the only thing you can do.
Expand ...
Yes mee too. I don't think th here will be much interest for play in games. Unlikely they will go that far in the tournament.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,608
Messages
4,585,423
Members
10,496
Latest member
rONIn


Top Bottom