128

[NoVaJack]

Re: 128

So we get to watch outstanding teams like Morehead State and Alabama State play on national TV......I kid, I kid.

Jacks could have beaten either team. My point exactly on expanding to 128.

[Evolution Prime]

Re: 128

I am all for expansion, but not to that extent. I say expand each region by 8 teams to bring the total team participation to 96. It still is less than 1/3 of the total DI teams out there. Let every conference regular season and tournament champion in. I feel that some mid major regular season champions deserve to go as well, though they may get upset in the conference tournament. To limit the amount of major conference bids with undeserving records, set a minimum of .600 overall record and a .500 conference record to receive an at large bid. Then use their criteria to do their seeding. Top 8 seeds in a region get a first round bye. Pair up the rest as follows:

16v17 --> 1
9v24 --> 8
12v21 --> 5
13v20 --> 4
14v19 --> 3
11v22 --> 6
10v23 --> 7
15v18 --> 2

I don't think this format waters it down all that much. It lets regular season chamions in plus allows for those who go on a tear during their conference tournaments. It brings a little more equality to the mid majors because normally you have to win your tournament to get in.

Use the Summit League for and example. Lets say NDSU lost to Oakland in the finals. I still believe that NDSU deserves to make it to the tournament though they lost in the tournament but won the regular season. St. Mary's is another good example of that. You have teams like the Big 10 who get 7 of 11 teams in but teams like Creighton and St Mary's with great records get left out.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: 128

I am all for expansion, but not to that extent. I say expand each region by 8 teams to bring the total team participation to 96. It still is less than 1/3 of the total DI teams out there. Let every conference regular season and tournament champion in. I feel that some mid major regular season champions deserve to go as well, though they may get upset in the conference tournament. To limit the amount of major conference bids with undeserving records, set a minimum of .600 overall record and a .500 conference record to receive an at large bid. Then use their criteria to do their seeding. Top 8 seeds in a region get a first round bye. Pair up the rest as follows:

16v17 --> 1
9v24 --> 8
12v21 --> 5
13v20 --> 4
14v19 --> 3
11v22 --> 6
10v23 --> 7
15v18 --> 2

I don't think this format waters it down all that much. It lets regular season chamions in plus allows for those who go on a tear during their conference tournaments. It brings a little more equality to the mid majors because normally you have to win your tournament to get in.

Use the Summit League for and example. Lets say NDSU lost to Oakland in the finals. I still believe that NDSU deserves to make it to the tournament though they lost in the tournament but won the regular season. St. Mary's is another good example of that. You have teams like the Big 10 who get 7 of 11 teams in but teams like Creighton and St Mary's with great records get left out.

I'm not for expansion at all, but that is the best idea that I have seen yet.

[filbert]

Re: 128

I am all for expansion, but not to that extent. I say expand each region by 8 teams to bring the total team participation to 96. It still is less than 1/3 of the total DI teams out there. Let every conference regular season and tournament champion in. I feel that some mid major regular season champions deserve to go as well, though they may get upset in the conference tournament. To limit the amount of major conference bids with undeserving records, set a minimum of .600 overall record and a .500 conference record to receive an at large bid. Then use their criteria to do their seeding. Top 8 seeds in a region get a first round bye. Pair up the rest as follows:

16v17 --> 1
9v24 --> 8
12v21 --> 5
13v20 --> 4
14v19 --> 3
11v22 --> 6
10v23 --> 7
15v18 --> 2

I don't think this format waters it down all that much. It lets regular season chamions in plus allows for those who go on a tear during their conference tournaments. It brings a little more equality to the mid majors because normally you have to win your tournament to get in.

Use the Summit League for and example. Lets say NDSU lost to Oakland in the finals. I still believe that NDSU deserves to make it to the tournament though they lost in the tournament but won the regular season. St. Mary's is another good example of that. You have teams like the Big 10 who get 7 of 11 teams in but teams like Creighton and St Mary's with great records get left out.

So, if like this year in the SL when NDSU won the regular season and the tournament, do you pick the Oral Roberts as the second representative from the conference, as they were the #2 seed in the conference tournament (i.e. finished #2 in the regular season)?

[Evolution Prime]

Re: 128

That would be up for the selection committee to decide using the at large requirements that I stated above. Using that criteria, Oral Roberts does not fit, but Oakland would. That is if the committee decided to take a second team from the Summit League. If the regular season and tournament champion are the same, then that wouldn't guarentee more than one bid. I wouldn't want to put a cap on league participation numbers, whether it be a minimum or a maximum. If the committee members decided that a league didn't warrent 1 or 2 participants, depending on results, then that would be fine by me.

I just would rather see a 26-4 team from a mid major contest that got tripped up in the finals of their conference tournament in the NCAA tournament vice a team that is 19-11 from a major conference that got bounced in the first round. There is only so much you can do with your conference schedule. I don't like seeing major conferences with half their teams in, with a couple with mediocre record while a conference only get their auto-qualifier in while while others in that league get snubbed soley because they are in a mid-major conference (see St Mary's for a refeference).

[Jacked_Up]

Re: 128

How about starting by adding three teams? Just add a play-in game to the three brackets that don't have one. Let the play-ins compete to face the No. 1 seeds, just like Moorhead will do against Louisville.

[zooropa]

Re: 128

Graham Hays said that conference tournaments make the regular season pretty meaningless for decent mid-majors. However, they're a revenue generator, so they're not likely to go away.

I still think the problem is with the committee and that as long as the committee's prejudices stand, you could expand the tournament all the way down to D-3 and it wouldn't make any difference....

[Evolution Prime]

Re: 128

How about starting by adding three teams? Just add a play-in game to the three brackets that don't have one. Let the play-ins compete to face the No. 1 seeds, just like Moorhead will do against Louisville.

You can do that, but that likely won't get more mid majors in. Creighton and St Mary's could have gotten in this year, but Penn State would have as well, pushing the Big 10 to 8 out of 11 teams in. Most of the time however, the extra at larges gained would go to middle of the pack to lower major conference teams while the lower major tournament champions get sent off to a play-in game. The middle of the pack majors would then take up the 11, 12, and possibly 13 seeds pushing the mid majors down to 14, 15 seeds.

I actually do see the NCAA doing this route eventually down the road.

[rcjacks]

Re: 128

You can do that, but that likely won't get more mid majors in. Creighton and St Mary's could have gotten in this year, but Penn State would have as well, pushing the Big 10 to 8 out of 11 teams in. Most of the time however, the extra at larges gained would go to middle of the pack to lower major conference teams while the lower major tournament champions get sent off to a play-in game. The middle of the pack majors would then take up the 11, 12, and possibly 13 seeds pushing the mid majors down to 14, 15 seeds.

I actually do see the NCAA doing this route eventually down the road.

I hope the NCAA's doesn't expand the tournament. There are already too many teams now.

[joeboo22]

Re: 128

How about starting by adding three teams? Just add a play-in game to the three brackets that don't have one. Let the play-ins compete to face the No. 1 seeds, just like Moorhead will do against Louisville.

that would be my idea... either get rid of the play in game, or do that idea.... I think if you add it any more your making it too long....

[mitchellrabbit]

Re: 128

I want to keep seeing the excitement of Binghamton, NDSU, Radford and others storming the court after winning their conference tourney. That is what championship week is all about. You add more teams, i think you'll ruin it. Keep it the same. No, actually get rid of the stupid play in game.

[zooropa]

Re: 128

get rid of the stupid play in game.

But if you do that, some poor BCS school will have to stay home, and a BCS conference will miss out on extra tournament revenue.

You don't want that to happen, do you?

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: 128

A long time ago, (back when I first found this board), I had seen an article discussing CBS's contract with the NCAA. I don't have time to look for it now, but I do recall that one area of discussion was expansion of the field. The current contract defines the terms of how the field will be expanded and what coverage would be provided. The term that wasn't defined is what would trigger the expansion. I seem to recall though that expansion was referenced as happening, not if it happens.

[rcjacks]

Re: 128

I want to keep seeing the excitement of Binghamton, NDSU, Radford and others storming the court after winning their conference tourney. That is what championship week is all about. You add more teams, i think you'll ruin it. Keep it the same. No, actually get rid of the stupid play in game.

I agree that the conference tournaments add excitement to the process. I also agree that the play-in game is stupid. Get rid of it and keep it at 64 teams.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: 128

But if you do that, some poor BCS school will have to stay home, and a BCS conference will miss out on extra tournament revenue.

You don't want that to happen, do you?

Actually, I think some poor mid major will have to stay home. The BCS schools are always getting in, no matter how big the field.