weberskipc
Active member
-
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
-
- Thread starter weberskipc
- Start date
weberwildcat
Active member
Should the field expand? It last expanded in the late 70z from 48 to 64. Were people against it then?
NCAA DI FBS post season: 32 bowls, 64 teams. There are 120 total teams,
53% in postseason
NCAA DI bball post season (not including NIT/CIT/CBI): 64 team dance, 64 teams. There are 347 teams,
18% in postseason
NCAA DI FBS post season: 32 bowls, 64 teams. There are 120 total teams,
53% in postseason
NCAA DI bball post season (not including NIT/CIT/CBI): 64 team dance, 64 teams. There are 347 teams,
18% in postseason
I don't post much but I have to say this: I hate the expansion idea. It actually means something to make the NCAA tournament, that 18% means it's an accomplishment. What does it mean to make a bowl game, that you had a .500 season. Yeah, that's a real accomplishment. Yes, Weber would've been in this year but is it worth it meaning less and one the big reasons for it: putting in .500 teams from the so called "power" conferences.
oldrunner
Active member
I support expansion.
I would change my mind if they limited the number of participants from each conference. The way it is now, you have sixth or seventh place teams from some conferences who are dancing. That is crazy. It makes the conference season meaningless and detracts from the excitement of each regular season game. I am sure that it has hurt attendance across the country. The number of D1 schools has increased and the number of participants should reflect that. Also, participation has a leveling effect on recruiting and more participation will spread the wealth a bit more. I am all for that.
When they expanded to 64 it made the event better and the same thing would happen now. Even better, would be to limit the number from each conference and take out the conference post season games to accommodate the earlier start of the big dance.
One old man's opinion.
:ugeek:
I would change my mind if they limited the number of participants from each conference. The way it is now, you have sixth or seventh place teams from some conferences who are dancing. That is crazy. It makes the conference season meaningless and detracts from the excitement of each regular season game. I am sure that it has hurt attendance across the country. The number of D1 schools has increased and the number of participants should reflect that. Also, participation has a leveling effect on recruiting and more participation will spread the wealth a bit more. I am all for that.
When they expanded to 64 it made the event better and the same thing would happen now. Even better, would be to limit the number from each conference and take out the conference post season games to accommodate the earlier start of the big dance.
One old man's opinion.
:ugeek:
Waldo2
Active member
If the field is expanded to 96, then just 27.6% of teams will play in the NCAA post-season.
The NIT is now owned by the NCAA and so the NIT would die off (and to be honest, I doubt very many people would miss it). Would you rather be one of 96 teams to play in the NCAA tournament? Or, would you rather be one of the 32 teams playing in the NIT?
I'll take the NCAA tournament any day. Plus, that all gives us one extra day to watch tournament games. Weber would also have a much better chance at winning a first round game, getting some confidence, and knocking off a team on Thursday/Friday.
The NIT is now owned by the NCAA and so the NIT would die off (and to be honest, I doubt very many people would miss it). Would you rather be one of 96 teams to play in the NCAA tournament? Or, would you rather be one of the 32 teams playing in the NIT?
I'll take the NCAA tournament any day. Plus, that all gives us one extra day to watch tournament games. Weber would also have a much better chance at winning a first round game, getting some confidence, and knocking off a team on Thursday/Friday.
SWeberCat02
Active member
Essentially what it would do is combine the NCAA tournament with the NIT tournament. But I would only support it if it meant that all regular season champs get in, regardless of how they do in their conference tournaments.
Waldo2
Active member
One proposal being discussed right now is that all conferences will get 2 automatic bids. It will then be up to each conference to determine who gets those bids. This is straightforward if you have two different teams qualify (1 winning the regular season championship and the other team winning the tournament). But, what if the same team wins both? Would you go with the runner-up of the regular season get the other bid? The runner-up in the tournament? Something to work out, but not too difficult to do.
Another issue is would this kill conference tournaments? I say no. You still have the tournament champ getting the auto bid, which makes it a big deal. You still have the regular season champ fighting for a better seed in the NCAA's. Conference tournaments will still be major events.
I fully support expansion if each conference gets two teams in the NCAA tournament and one of those teams is the regular season champion.
Another issue is would this kill conference tournaments? I say no. You still have the tournament champ getting the auto bid, which makes it a big deal. You still have the regular season champ fighting for a better seed in the NCAA's. Conference tournaments will still be major events.
I fully support expansion if each conference gets two teams in the NCAA tournament and one of those teams is the regular season champion.
I would support expansion if the Mid-majors got more teams in. I don't want to see all 12 ACC teams or all 16 Big East teams getting invites every single year to the NCAAs.
SWeberCat02
Active member
Delany calls larger tourney 'probable'
"An expanded 96-team NCAA men's basketball tournament starting in 2011, the subject of much debate during the current incarnation of March Madness, is considered "probable" by Big Ten conference commissioner Jim Delany."
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5043254
"An expanded 96-team NCAA men's basketball tournament starting in 2011, the subject of much debate during the current incarnation of March Madness, is considered "probable" by Big Ten conference commissioner Jim Delany."
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5043254
SWeberCat02
Active member
It looks like the tournament will expand to 68 teams, not the 96 previously discussed. Now the Big Sky will have to step it up to not end up playing in one of the four opening round (play-in) games.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5125307
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5125307
Waldo2
Active member
I personally don't like this approach. Either keep it at 64 or expand to 96.
This means that four teams are basically not really in the big dance. They are sort of invited, but not really.
I personally preferred the 96 format if each conference got two automatic bids. Otherwise, keep it at 64 and get rid of these insulting play-in games.
This means that four teams are basically not really in the big dance. They are sort of invited, but not really.
I personally preferred the 96 format if each conference got two automatic bids. Otherwise, keep it at 64 and get rid of these insulting play-in games.
