OT(?) Coaches Favor Tourney Expansion

[jessej]

Anonymous CBB poll reveals coaches are in favor of NCAA Tournament expansion

Despite its reputation as one of the most exciting single-elimination tournaments in U.S. sports, there are some in college athletics who want to make changes t

www.si.com

IMO - regular season conference champ gets a play in

is there an agreeable metric/rating to order the teams?

 

[gmubrian]

Anonymous CBB poll reveals coaches are in favor of NCAA Tournament expansion

Despite its reputation as one of the most exciting single-elimination tournaments in U.S. sports, there are some in college athletics who want to make changes t

www.si.com

IMO - regular season conference champ gets a play in

is there an agreeable metric/rating to order the teams?

Coaches, who's job depends on making the tournament, want the tournament expanded. Color me surprised.

In other breaking news, bears are, reportedly, sh!tting in the woods.

 

[GMUgemini]

Coaches, who's job depends on making the tournament, want the tournament expanded. Color me surprised.

In other breaking news, bears are, reportedly, sh!tting in the woods.

Compromise, just expand NIT to 64 teams. You get your postseason but it’s not in the big show.

 

[NewPatriot]

If Heath Ledger were head of the NCAA...aggressive expansion

View: https://youtu.be/P10bC0Bxp20?si=Npk8Yn5XwaY4hOuP

 

[hoopsjunkie75]

Coaches, who's job depends on making the tournament, want the tournament expanded. Color me surprised.

In other breaking news, bears are, reportedly, sh!tting in the woods.

Yes, but expanding the tournament will push the bar for the coaches as well, maybe further than the potential benefit.

If the tournament is expanded by 6-12 teams, it would no longer be enough for coaches to “make the tournament”; too easy. They would now be expected to win a game or three once there…

Careful what you wish for guys.

 

[Verdad]

I don't think there is anything wrong with expanding - just as with the football playoff when it was 4 teams, we see teams on the wrong side of the bubble that were certainly just as good and deserving as the last few teams selected. And with parody we know those first teams left out are capable of making the sweet 16.

I'd like to see the first 4 expanded, if there is any expansion and let the bottom 8 or 12 or whatever bubble teams have a one game playoff to make it into the field of 64 - and put every conference tournament champ into the field of 64, stop screwing over the bottom conferences.

Maybe even make the regular season champ an aq into the playin bracket, if they aren't ranked higher or tournament champ.

Expand to 76, bottom 16 at larges play in, with the 8 winners becoming the 11 and 12 seeds.

 

[gmubrian]

I don't think there is anything wrong with expanding - just as with the football playoff when it was 4 teams, we see teams on the wrong side of the bubble that were certainly just as good and deserving as the last few teams selected.

That logic leads to expanding it to every single team.

You mentioned FBS so, let's compare. There are ~134 teams where it used to be 4 and it went to 12. That is still less than 10% of teams make it.

There are ~350 D1 basketball teams and 68 already make it. That is right at about 20% of teams making it.

I am not (necessarily) arguing against expansion of the basketball tournament, but I don't think the FBS situation is a good argument for it. If anything, basketball is an argument for expanding FBS (ignoring the typical difference in rest times between games in the two sports).

The point of my earlier post was that it shouldn't be the coaches that determine if it gets expanded or not. I think it should, ultimately, be the fans via how much revenue they generate for the tournament. If it get's too big, I am assuming it will just water it down and kill interest in the whole thing, or at least the earlier rounds.

 

[Patriotsince81]

Give it ten years and 256 teams will dance. Or, there will be a P5 tourney and an everyone else tourney. It's all about $$$$$.

 

[mkaufman1]

Give it ten years and 256 teams will dance. Or, there will be a P5 tourney and an everyone else tourney. It's all about $$$$$.

Jokes aside it already feels like the Power 5 invitational considering what it takes to make the darn thing.

If they do expand, lets hope they make it "spicy" enough that it catches fan interest with the right type of incentives for the programs and fans. The Tuesday night play in games I don't really watch, but I'm sure for the fans of the low major programs, they enjoy the opportunity.

 

[gmubrian]

Jokes aside it already feels like the Power 5 invitational considering what it takes to make the darn thing.

If they do expand, lets hope they make it "spicy" enough that it catches fan interest with the right type of incentives for the programs and fans. The Tuesday night play in games I don't really watch, but I'm sure for the fans of the low major programs, they enjoy the opportunity.

I bet you would watch if Mason was in a Tuesday night play in game.

 

[mkaufman1]

I bet you would watch if Mason was in a Tuesday night play in game.

Of course I would. Doesn't matter if we were playing Coppin State in that round.

 

[Verdad]

Of course I would. Doesn't matter if we were playing Coppin State in that round.

Very unlikely we are ever a 16 seed fortunately

 

[GMUgemini]

Let’s think outside the box. Let’s eliminate the conference tournaments. Let’s take the 31 regular season winners plus the top at-large team (screw you PAC for screwing this up). Take the next 256 NET rated non-AQs and play a massive national playin tournament to fill the other 32 spots (4 games). Then start the tournament.

No at-large (other than 1 unless the PAC can reconstitute itself), most teams get a legit postseason experience. The best/most deserving teams make the top 64.

 

[mkaufman1]

Very unlikely we are ever a 16 seed fortunately

Yes true - but if there is some sort of expansion of some sort / play in round, there is a chance they could be a 16 or equivalent.

But this is more or less daydreaming than reality since its not happening as of this moment.

 

[gmubrian]

Very unlikely we are ever a 16 seed fortunately

4 of the 8 teams that played in the first 4 were 10 seeds.

 

[Verdad]

4 of the 8 teams that played in the first 4 were 10 seeds.

Yes, but Coppin St would be a 16 seed if they are playing in Dayton.

You’re slipping Brian

 

[GMUgemini]

Ok. So I can either Be grading or gaming out my fun (if stupid idea)…a little bit. So here are the 31 (minus PAC) regular season champs (caveat some of these conferences had co-champs and I only know about the A10s tiebreaker).

AAC South Florida 78

ACC UNC 8

A10 Richmond 73

Big 10–Purdue 3

ASUN Eastern Kentucky 219

Big12 Houston 1

Big East UConn 2

Big West Irvine 77

Big Sky Eastern Washington 143

Big South High Point 110

CAA Charleston 97

CUSA Sam Houston St. 152

Horizon Oakland 126

MAAC Quinnipiac 160

MAC Toledo 130

MEAC Norfolk St 223

MVC Indiana St. 28

MWC Utah St. 38

NEC Central Conn St. 249

OVC Morehead St. 106

Patriot Colgate 125

SEC Tennessee 7

Southern Samford 74

Southland McNeese St. 56

SWAC Grambling 257

Sun Belt App St. 72

Ivy Princeton 55

Summit S Dakota st 135

WCC St. Mary’s 16

WAC GCU 50

At-Large Arizona 4 (Ironic because they would have been AQ of the PAC 12 anyway).

So to semi game this out Mason’s NET was 93, but there would be 17 AQs better than us so we’d be seeded 76 out of that scenario (top half of the bracket!)

Round 1
76 vs 181
Mason vs. Merrimack

Round 2
51 vs 76
Mason vs. North Carolina State

Round 3
14 vs 76 (because of the upset)
Mason vs Wisconsin

That’s a pretty rough playin path for Mason but an exciting one.

Dayton by the way, would be seeded 16th in the playin field and would have a bit of an easier path

Round 1
16 vs 242

Round 2
16 vs 111

Round 3
16 vs 49 (assuming no upsets along the way)
Dayton vs. UCF (I’m not bothering to look up the other ones. It was a pain to do it just for Mason).

 

[gmubrian]

Let’s think outside the box. Let’s eliminate the conference tournaments. Let’s take the 31 regular season winners plus the top at-large team (screw you PAC for screwing this up). Take the next 256 NET rated non-AQs and play a massive national playin tournament to fill the other 32 spots (4 games). Then start the tournament.

No at-large (other than 1 unless the PAC can reconstitute itself), most teams get a legit postseason experience. The best/most deserving teams make the top 64.

After thinking about it, I kind of like it. I think the conference tournaments tend to hurt the lower leagues because they frequently are not sending their best team. If you get rid of the conference tournaments, you have almost another week of playing time. You could give more regular season time, longer OOC, OR, even expand the tournament a full extra round to 128.

Give the top two teams in each conference a bid and then the next top 64 (ish) NET teams a bid. The P5, other than losing their conference tournament revenue, shouldn't be against it too much since most of their teams will now get in. That is roughly 1/3 of the league in playoffs which is closer to what the NBA (and NFL) have which I only mention since I assume they have done some market research to optimize it.

 

[Falco]

Compromise, just expand NIT to 64 teams. You get your postseason but it’s not in the big show.

interesting thought

 

[FreeGunston12]

interesting thought

The argument for this might be better if so many teams weren’t already declining bids.