NCAA tourney going to 68?

[Blakeon18]

I see a mention in today's paper that the NCAA is 'close to' going to 68 teams for the women's
tournament. Final decision to be next month. I assume this means for the current season and beyond?

This makes it 'equal' to the men's tournament. IMO...'equal' does not equate to 'positive change' at times.
I don't like the 'play-in' games on the men's side. The women's mention does not indicate if that will be the exact policy on our side.
You have an entire regular season plus a conference tournament to earn a spot...after those opportunities are gone I don't think it helps the event to get a chance to
'play in'....you are already 'In' or 'Out'.

This would be even more true on the women's side given the relative lack of quality of teams when you get to 14-16 seeds.
Keep the automatic entries even in the one bid leagues...Cinderellas should be in the house. But keep it at 64.

 

[hoopsfan22]

I agree. I've never been a fan of play in games that cheapen the regular season. It's why I dislike baseball's wild card game which is also a play in game.

 

[Blakeon18]

NCAA women's tourney expansion plan advances

A proposed move to expand the NCAA women's basketball tournament from 64 to 68 teams advanced through two committees on Thursday.

www.espn.com

The linked article has some more info on this [expected] change.

 

[CL82]

I’m generally OK with the play in game concept. The only people who actually pay attention to them are the teams involved. I do think that there is a quality issue once you get out beyond 64 teams in the woman’s game.

 

[Inthepaint]

Agreed.
What would be the point.
Aside from the automatic in for a conference tourney winner, as many teams from a particularly strong conference can be "invited" as appropriate. So if that means, for example, more from the Big 10, Pac-12 or SEC and fewer questionable bubble teams, that can be accomplished with 64 selections.
If the idea is to showcase good programs and give them a fair opportunity to compete for the title, while including programs that may not be major marquee schools, but manage to put together reasonably competitive teams, let's focus in that direction.
By the way, as far as Baseball's wildcard inclusion goes:
BAHH!! HUMBUG!!
162 games is more than enough to figure out who belongs in the post season.

 

[huskyd]

I’m generally OK with the play in game concept. The only people who actually pay attention to them are the teams involved. I do think that there is a quality issue once you get out beyond 64 teams in the woman’s game.

How about when you get past 10? And there aren't even 10 teams that could arguably win the NC; probably fewer than 5. So, you're right: the drop-off in the women's game is precipitous. Of course a lesser team might upset a better team, adding a bit to the suspense, and "deserving" teams should get a moment in the spotlight (think: Arizona). Maybe leaving things as they are is best.

 

[Zinethar]

My initial reaction was similar to those above.but after thinking about it I've come to the conclusion that it has to happen. They are working hard to make it appear that the women have the same opportunities as the men so that would be a glaring difference to many people. Notice I said "appear" because it remains to be seen if it will actually change. The teams added would likely not be teams ranked higher than 64 but would more likely be teams that are likely better than some of the ones that HAD to be included.

 

[Wilderness]

For many players, participation in the tournament is not about winning the national championship. Not true for us, but for others getting there is a career highlight, winning a single game an even bigger prize.

 

[hoopsfan22]

For many players, participation in the tournament is not about winning the national championship. Not true for us, but for others getting there is a career highlight, winning a single game an even bigger prize.

Why is 68 now the magic number? Why not just add two more rounds to the tourney so every school in D-I can get a participation trophy?

 

[MSGRET]

If they do this then they need to put a limit on the # of teams from a conference, maybe the 4 added teams are like regular season conference champions who lost in their conference tournament or the regular season or tournament runner up of the non P-5 conferences.

 

[Stymie]

According to the NCAA web site, there are more than 350 division 1 woman’s basketball programs.
The play in games may or may not be entertaining but, hey, who am I to judge.
The teams competed as hard as they could and you don’t have to watch if you don’t want to.
It’s a great experience for the players-maybe travel to a site they’ve never been to, experience the excitement of participating.
If the NCAA covers the expenses, why not?

 

[nwhoopfan]

At least 2 teams have come from the play in round to make the Final 4 in men's hoops (VCU years ago and UCLA this last season). I'm gonna go out on a limb and just say no women's team will ever go from First 4 to Final 4.

 

[oldude]

I see one potentially positive result from an additional 4 teams. Hopefully, the NBE will be able to grab another spot or two in the tournament each year. Anything that puts more NBE teams in the tournament is good for the conference, which is good for UConn.

 

[CocoHusky]

Fully agree @Blakeon18 with your assessment that equal in this case is not better. The other aspect of this as much as it pains me is the money generated. On the mens side even a play in game is likely to draw millions of eyeballs and thus a national network that is willing to televise just a play in game. The women's game simply does not have that level of support. A women's play in game would be luck to draw 1000 fans live which is not worthwhile IMO. As an example, in 2015 Princeton had an undefeated team and had to play Green Bay at the University of Maryland. The attendance for that game was definitely less than 1000. In the next game Princeton would face Maryland (A FF team) vs (undefeated team) in the second round of the NCAA tournament. The attendance for that game was boosted to about 8000. One of the things that boosted the attendance was the potential of President Obama attending the game to watch his niece play for Princeton.

 

[nickp91]

This would be a boon for the MAC Women's basketball

 

[oldude]

Fully agree @Blakeon18 with your assessment that equal in this case is not better. The other aspect of this as much as it pains me is the money generated. On the mens side even a play in game is likely to draw millions of eyeballs and thus a national network that is willing to televise just a play in game. The women's game simply does not have that level of support. A women's play in game would be luck to draw 1000 fans live which is not worthwhile IMO. As an example, in 2015 Princeton had an undefeated team and had to play Green Bay at the University of Maryland. The attendance for that game was definitely less than 1000. In the next game Princeton would face Maryland (A FF team) vs (undefeated team) in the second round of the NCAA tournament. The attendance for that game was boosted to about 8000. One of the things that boosted the attendance was the potential of President Obama attending the game to watch his niece play for Princeton.

As I recall, Obama and his family attended the opening round game between Princeton and Green Bay, but did not subsequently attend Princeton’s 2nd round matchup vs MD. Due to security concerns, the public was not made aware that the President would be at the 1st round game, until he showed up at the game.

MD’s average home attendance that season was approximately 5300/game. Their first round matchup vs New Mexico St drew 7948. The 2nd round matchup vs Princeton drew 7798. It’s difficult to say with certainty if the crowd size had to do with the expectation that Obama might attend or the fact that MD fans were jacked up about the Big Dance, with 2 home games at College Park.

 

[Vowelguy]

Hate hate hate this idea.
64 is a great number, and as anybody who has ever tried to pick the field knows, when you get to the final teams, the resumes are all really thin.

All this means is that the 8th and 9th place teams in power conferences with 17-12 records will have a better chance of making the field. OH BOY!

 

[TC22]

If you are a team fighting for a #1 seed every year this isn't a big deal. If your team's goal is to get to the NCAA tournament it IS a big deal. I really think it will help smaller conferences who only get the automatic bid.

 

[Vowelguy]

If the NCAA covers the expenses, why not?

1) Because money does not come from thin air. What they're spending on this, they're not spending on something else. LIke how bout doing more to get crowds at the regionals?
2) I dont see the value in adding more mediocre (at best) power conference teams to the tourney. If they want to make the NCAAs, then do better.

 

[DefenseBB]

Here's a thought...how about cutting the Men's field back to 64? Having it at 68 is absurd to begin with.

 

[Sifaka]

All this means is that the 8th and 9th place teams in power conferences with 17-12 records will have a better chance of making the field. OH BOY!

yup, proof that Tennessee still has some influence, and will do damned near anything to get to the big dance. Pat would be so proud!

 

[JordyG]

At least 2 teams have come from the play in round to make the Final 4 in men's hoops (VCU years ago and UCLA this last season). I'm gonna go out on a limb and just say no women's team will ever go from First 4 to Final 4.

Perhaps. But don't ever say never. There will always be the exception that proves the rule. It would be pretty exciting though,, wouldn't it?