NCAA Tournament Expanding to 76 | Page 3 | The Boneyard

NCAA Tournament Expanding to 76

nelsonmuntz said:
I don’t have a problem with this. It will help the Big East.

Expand ...

I doubt it helps the Big East. Maybe every few years an extra Big East team gets in, but that’ll be because the committee doesn’t want to weather allowing a 15-18 Auburn team in.
nelsonmuntz said:
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.
Expand ...

Schools have been bailing on the NIT for years. Expanding the NCAAT won’t change that.
 
You have one of the greatest sports events. It's up there with the Super Bowl and The Masters. So the NCAA says, "Let's change it."

The current portal/transfer situation is widely criticized by most, including the coaches who have to deal with it and the NCAA says, "Let's do nothing or if we do, let's think about adding a 5th year of eligibility to make it even more confusing and chaotic."

Same old NCAA, I guess.
 
Hunt for 7 said:
As long as we make the tournament every year then I really don’t care what else they do to try and create more revenue to feed the machine.

Look at the Vanderbilt QB he is about to take a huge pay cut to go from college football to pro football. It is already happening, college is now a jr professional sport, then they move onto the NFL and NBA, the next thing that happens is the Senior NBA, Senior MLB…..just like golf. Sr NBA will be a shooting competition and the Sr MLB will be a slow pitch softball game. Cannot think of a version of football that can be played without injury.
Expand ...
Your last sentence is the main reason I have not watched a football game in at least 25 years
 
.-.
LBird33 said:
This is to get more P4 at large mediocre teams in. Means more money for the p4 teams Has nothing to do with helping the mid major’s whatsoever
Expand ...
As if the mid majors weren't overcompensated for their actual contribution to the tournament.

There is no need to expand the tournament but we don't have to pretend that the MAAC is a valuable part of determining a national title or bringing in a large share of the viewing audience.
 
EnochRoot said:
I doubt it helps the Big East. Maybe every few years an extra Big East team gets in, but that’ll be because the committee doesn’t want to weather allowing a 15-18 Auburn team in.


Schools have been bailing on the NIT for years. Expanding the NCAAT won’t change that.
Expand ...

8 more major conference and high mid-major teams getting bids will reduce the number of teams cancelling on the NIT.


A lot of the complaining about this change falls into the "old man yells at cloud" level of analysis. People are mostly complaining because they don't like change. The world has already changed, we need a tournament that reflects that world.
 
.-.
storrsroars said:
I disagree. I believe matching 14 and some 15 seeds vs the worst of the at-larges will give you surprisingly competitive games. And the 16 seeds will get at least a puncher's chance.

The issue here is about the conference tournaments taking out the best team in too many cases. That's how you get a Prairie View A&M (301 NET) instead of a Bethune Cookman (260), or a Queens (192) instead of Austin Peay (164), or other examples. A number of these conferences did not send their best team to the tourney because of a conference tournament upset.

Your 14 seeds were ND State (116), Kennesaw St (147), Penn (146), and Wright St. (125). Note that Penn won the Ivy over Yale (74), and Kennesaw won over Liberty (102). I believe the regular season conference champs in each of these leagues would be very competitive vs the lowest of the at-larges. The games would also be more meaningful than simply beating up on the 16 seeds.

I can't and don't speak for everyone. But for myself, it feels more egalitarian and interesting as a fan to see the sisters of the poor fare against the born on third base mediocrity. I'd watch those games to root for the underdog. As it is now, I don't watch the First Four. Just don't care.
Expand ...

Walk me through how a team with maybe a $500k budget, or less, stays on the court with a major conference team that has a $5 million budget. These games were mostly blowouts before the players were getting paid. Now they are just silly.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Walk me through how a team with maybe a $500k budget, or less, stays on the court with a major conference team that has a $5 million budget. These games were mostly blowouts before the players were getting paid. Now they are just silly.
Expand ...

IMG_0539.jpeg
 
The expansion is simply a method to make sure as many of the credits as possible are scooped up by the P2. We're going to go from the current 19-20 P2 bids to 30+. They blew the size of their conferences up and now they need to find a way to get the 16th place school into the NCAAs.

If you think the Big East is a winner here, let me know how large a bridge you're in the market for.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
Walk me through how a team with maybe a $500k budget, or less, stays on the court with a major conference team that has a $5 million budget. These games were mostly blowouts before the players were getting paid. Now they are just silly.
Expand ...
Also we know you only care about the Big East which is fine, but this is not done for the benefit of the Big East whatsoever. This is done solely for the benefit of the SEC and BIG 10. It is a money grab, pure and simple.
 
it’s a terrible idea . 1) every team has a chance to get in via conference tournament 2) how does a 16-14,team four games under 50 in their conference make the tournament better 🤷🏻‍♂️ or be deserving
 
gsmooth said:
Snoop Dogg Agree GIF by Solo Stove
Expand ...
the article says

" access for at-large bids for power conferences. The expansion has been pushed by power conferences, which have grown throughout the course of the current deal"


Which translates to more bids equals more units for power conferences, which means more $$$
 
nelsonmuntz said:
8 more major conference and high mid-major teams getting bids will reduce the number of teams cancelling on the NIT.


A lot of the complaining about this change falls into the "old man yells at cloud" level of analysis. People are mostly complaining because they don't like change. The world has already changed, we need a tournament that reflects that world.
Expand ...

You’re being delusional here if you think the NIT will thrive as a result of this (as much as thinking the mid-majors will come out on top, too).

And, no offense intended, but I don’t get an ‘old man yells at cloud’ vibe here so much as I do a ‘Baghdad Bob’ from you. Don’t fix what isn’t broken.


giphy.gif
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Walk me through how a team with maybe a $500k budget, or less, stays on the court with a major conference team that has a $5 million budget. These games were mostly blowouts before the players were getting paid. Now they are just silly.
Expand ...
1) you're completely discounting coaching. If you've got a $5M NIL budget and can't even get into the top half of your league, your coach sucks

2) All of the 14 seeds were Q3 teams this year. Stanford was 4-4 vs Q3 teams. Seton Hall and New Mexico were 7-2. SDSU and Tulsa also had Q3 losses.

3) Yale would've been Q2 had they won the Ivy tournament. CUSA had 5 teams better than Kennesaw St. In the Summit, St. Thomas was slightly better than ND State. So 3 of the 4 conferences on the 14 seed line didn't even send their best team.

Does this ensure these low majors advance? Not at all. But it does ensure that they face competition that will not schedule them otherwise. And IMHO, that's what people want to see.
 
UConnTrumbull said:


View attachment 120105
Expand ...

Depends what you use to make these selections. Wins Above Bubble gets you Auburn, SDSU, Seton Hall, New Mexico, Indiana, Oklahoma, Belmont and a tossup I'd give to Stephen F. Austin. Tulsa is a stones throw from 76, too. That's half mid majors, half high majors. No system is going to net you ONLY mid majors. That's silly.

Also, by WAB, Akron, South Florida would still be in even if they didn't win their conference tourney.
 
.-.
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 ...
Do you then re-seed after the first 12 ? As it is, if you have 16 vs 16 they play the 1. But if you have 16 vs 12, now what ?
 
KillaCam said:
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.
Expand ...
I'd have to care - AT ALL - about any soccer to see this
 
RashadRay11 said:
Brother both 16 over 1 upsets happened in the last decade.
Expand ...

Basically pre-Alston, and definitely pre-House.

But if your position is that things are exactly the same as before those cases, run with it.
 
storrsroars said:
1) you're completely discounting coaching. If you've got a $5M NIL budget and can't even get into the top half of your league, your coach sucks

2) All of the 14 seeds were Q3 teams this year. Stanford was 4-4 vs Q3 teams. Seton Hall and New Mexico were 7-2. SDSU and Tulsa also had Q3 losses.

3) Yale would've been Q2 had they won the Ivy tournament. CUSA had 5 teams better than Kennesaw St. In the Summit, St. Thomas was slightly better than ND State. So 3 of the 4 conferences on the 14 seed line didn't even send their best team.

Does this ensure these low majors advance? Not at all. But it does ensure that they face competition that will not schedule them otherwise. And IMHO, that's what people want to see.
Expand ...

An A-10 or MWC (or Pac 12 or whatever it is now) has an outside shot of picking up a win or two. I know of a kid that switched from a MAC to an A10. Over doubled his NIL. That is MAC to A10. Think about what it is at NEC. Think about the planets that need to align for an NEC to beat a Top 2 seed.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,618
Messages
4,585,909
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom