NCAA Tournament to expand | The Boneyard

NCAA Tournament to expand

So dumb. Just waters down the competition with mediocre teams. If you win your conference tournament you should be included in the field of 64 without having to do a play in game. It’s a slap in the face to all the small schools who fill the 13-16 seeds.
 
.-.
Decisions like this make one wonder who on earth did they consult to come to this conclusion. Of course, it also begs the question, "Who are the people making such a profoundly silly decision?" I'm even at a loss to think it is being done for financial reasons. Though I could see it as a further attempt to kill WNIT.
 
trisailin said:
Decisions like this make one wonder who on earth did they consult to come to this conclusion. Of course, it also begs the question, "Who are the people making such a profoundly silly decision?" I'm even at a loss to think it is being done for financial reasons. Though I could see it as a further attempt to kill WNIT.
Expand ...
Same people who managed College athletics into nil and a transfer portal
 
CTBballfan243 said:
Great, just what WBB needs. More garbage teams in the tournament. It’s good for the Big East though, maybe now they can be a 3 bid league.
Expand ...
Don't count on it. I am fully expecting more of these slots to go to P4 teams, regardless of merit.
 
I kind of wish they treated these play in games like a play-in tournament for non P4 team to exclusively play a team of their caliber before they get slugged by a 1 seed. Also, part of me wishes the committee would value the conference grind more than winning a conference tournament. A way to correct that could be to give priority placement for play-in bids to non-P4 teams that were conference season champs but were upset in their conference tournament.
 
.-.
GamecockFam said:
I kind of wish they treated these play in games like a play-in tournament for non P4 team to exclusively play a team of their caliber before they get slugged by a 1 seed. Also, part of me wishes the committee would value the conference grind more than winning a conference tournament. A way to correct that could be to give priority placement for play-in bids to non-P4 teams that were conference season champs but were upset in their conference tournament.
Expand ...
Just looked through the list of teams that would meet this criteria (in no particular ranking or order):
  • Rice
  • Eastern Kentucky
  • UC Irvine
  • Louisiana Tech
  • San Diego State
  • Navy
  • Chattanooga
  • McNeese
  • Alabama A&M
  • North Dakota State
  • Georgia Southern
  • Loyola
Basically, if this were instituted this past season, the above 12 team would make up half of the teams in the play-in games as a reward for a good conference season despite not winning their conference tournament or getting a bid on other merits.
 
I love it! The idea of expansion won't hurt the game with weak teams. Just think. The same logic a lot, that I am reading now, was going on back in the early days of the game. "Why we gotta go from 32 teams to 36 or 40 teams? It is going to weaken the game. Think about travel" Then the tournament went from 40 to 48 teams. Probably the same conversations. Then from 48 to 64. Probably the same conversations as now. The game is in good hands. Let the expansion begin!!
 
trisailin said:
Decisions like this make one wonder who on earth did they consult to come to this conclusion. Of course, it also begs the question, "Who are the people making such a profoundly silly decision?" I'm even at a loss to think it is being done for financial reasons. Though I could see it as a further attempt to kill WNIT.
Expand ...
They consulted the heads of the P4 conferences: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

This along with: "The expansion isn't expected to be a financial windfall for the NCAA and its members, but sources stressed there would be a profit." There wouldn't be a windfall, but there would be more profit; I'm not a word guy, so I don't understand that. But money wasn't the driver, kowtowing to the P4 conferences, which already had almost 2/3 of the field, was the driver.

More than 60% of the P4 teams made the tourney; I think they want all the P4 teams to get participation trophies.
 
Bigboote said:
They consulted the heads of the P4 conferences: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

This along with: "The expansion isn't expected to be a financial windfall for the NCAA and its members, but sources stressed there would be a profit." There wouldn't be a windfall, but there would be more profit; I'm not a word guy, so I don't understand that. But money wasn't the driver, kowtowing to the P4 conferences, which already had almost 2/3 of the field, was the driver.

More than 60% of the P4 teams made the tourney; I think they want all the P4 teams to get participation trophies.
Expand ...
‘If I’m such a bad AD, how did my [16-16. 4-12} coaching hire make the NCAA tourney?’ Check. Mate.
 
CL82 said:
And the NCAA looked out and said "what else can we ruin about college athletics?" They thought for a moment and said "why not dilute the best sporting event of the year by adding more teams?"
Expand ...
Take it from a football fan - nobody hates college sports as much as college sports administrators.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,623
Messages
4,586,110
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom