128

[NoVaJack]

Did anyone see Bob Knight's well reasoned case for expanding the field to 128? It came after a bitter exchange between Digger Phelps and Dick Vitale over Arizona getting in over mid major St. Mary's. (Rare to see Knight the reasoned one but Phelps and Vitale so dislike each other it looks like they don't put them in the same studio on purpose).
Anyway, Knight's reasoning boiled down to:
- You're doubling the field by expanding by just one game (but providing 64 more revenue venues, are you listening NCAA?)
- You lessen the perennial argument that deserving 22-11 teams are sent seething to the NIT; it's easier to say no to a 17-16 squad.
- You take away the legitimate arguments that mid majors often get screwed when they take the seventh-place team from the SEC or ACC or Big 10. This should really interest Jacks' fans.
- You get a wilder tournament ride because some of the lower ranked teams peaking late will get a shot at some teams that might be coasting in early-season reputation...

Oakland men might have made The Dance in a 128-team field. As it is, they even got snubbed by the NIT. Oakland women certainly would have made a 128-team women's field.

[LakeJack]

Re: 128

I like it

[West-River_Jack]

Re: 128

I like it for the 64 vs. 65 game and the 63 vs. 66 game and the 62 vs. 67 game and . . . but I'm not real fond of the 1 vs. 128 game and the 2 vs. 127 game and the 3 vs. 126 game and . . .

Maybe they should have an 80 team field and have 16 play-in games instead of a 65 team field with one play-in game, or a 72 team field and 8 play-in games, or . . .

I'm all for expanding the tournament and getting one or more additional Summit teams into it but not at the expense of making the first round a mockery of the playoff system.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: 128

Don't like it. Cheapens the tournament. Getting into the tournament wouldn't mean as much.

[zooropa]

Re: 128

Part of the problem with the brackets as they are usually drawn up is that mid-majors don't get favorable seeding. Going to 128 teams doesn't solve that problem.

[NoVaJack]

Re: 128

Part of the problem with the brackets as they are usually drawn up is that mid-majors don't get favorable seeding. Going to 128 teams doesn't solve that problem.

Bigger problem is deserving mid majors that don't get in at all because of the bias toward middlin' major conference teams.

[zooropa]

Re: 128

Bigger problem is deserving mid majors that don't get in at all because of the bias toward middlin' major conference teams.

But, IMO, bringing them in and giving them trash seeds doesn't do them any favors. They'll lose anyway, and the old system will be 'justified.'

[NightHawk78]

Re: 128

Expand the field by almost doubling the number of at-large bids given (give byes to the conference champion) and requiring either a .600 overage winning percentage and/or a .500 conference record to gain entrance. This would 1) weed out some of the major conference programs that have bloated RPIs due to their conference "prestige" and 2) make winning the conference matter as all at-large teams would have an opening round game to make it to the round of 64.

[SturgisJeff]

Re: 128

Go to a BCS, FCS setup the way the big schools probably would like it, then they don't have to worry about the mids and the lowers. Would give lessers schools a chance. Not much exposure and revenue but a chance.

[jackrabbit1979]

Re: 128

Go to a BCS, FCS setup the way the big schools probably would like it, then they don't have to worry about the mids and the lowers. Would give lessers schools a chance. Not much exposure and revenue but a chance.

IMO, this would suck....it takes all the appeal out of March Madness. Even though the little schools don't get many bids, their participation and success (i.e. Davidson and Curry, Valparaiso and the Drews, Butler vs. Florida and Mike Miller, Gonzaga for the first few cinderalla years) is what makes March Madness the number one sporting event in the world.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: 128

Can we all agree that March Madness is the most awesome sporting event all year? When was the last time it HASN'T lived up to the hype? I can't think of one year where it was bad. I can think of plenty boring Super Bowls, World Series, Bowl Games, Masters, ect, ect, but not one March Madness that wasn't awesome. Why try to change it?

That's my argument.

[SturgisJeff]

Re: 128

IMO, this would suck....it takes all the appeal out of March Madness. Even though the little schools don't get many bids, their participation and success (i.e. Davidson and Curry, Valparaiso and the Drews, Butler vs. Florida and Mike Miller, Gonzaga for the first few cinderalla years) is what makes March Madness the number one sporting event in the world.

yes it would suck, but it's probably what the big schools wish would happen.

[Just in the crowd]

Re: 128

Oakland is on TV right now.

http://atdhe.net/

[MikeHenriksen]

Re: 128

It would also mean considerably less money for the participants, including SDSU should they make it. Think any of the well-compensated schools are going to vote to split up their pot even further?

[jackrabbit1979]

Re: 128

Expand the field by almost doubling the number of at-large bids given (give byes to the conference champion) and requiring either a .600 overage winning percentage and/or a .500 conference record to gain entrance. This would 1) weed out some of the major conference programs that have bloated RPIs due to their conference "prestige" and 2) make winning the conference matter as all at-large teams would have an opening round game to make it to the round of 64.

I like this idea a lot...it would get more at-large teams in from both the major conferences (appeasing them) and the little guys (making it more fair), but it would still give a lot of the smaller conference a good chance because their champions would get byes the first round as at-large teams play a first round game. I think it would make the tournament even more competitive.