Basketball NCAA in final steps to expand March Madness to 76 teams, expected to begin in 2027
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
Puke
Just what we need 14 schools from the sec and big 10 in the ncaa
Just what we need 14 schools from the sec and big 10 in the ncaa
Last edited:
The 20 you’re referring to are getting in no matter what they are adding more to mediocre middle third of the field
more play in games more $$$
for the pike haters this actually probably makes his seat hotter
Indiana Oklahoma auburn all would’ve made it none had thrilling resumes all had a lot of losses
BUT wait you’d have to go another 4 teams beyond them to get to the actual cutline which brings in the likes of Seton Hall, Stanford, Cincinnati, West Virginia and SDSU
18 wins and 9-10 big ten wins is not asking a lot
I'm fine with moving to 4 play-in 16 seeds, only 2 of 8 15/16 seeds were competitive, Duke/Siena & UConn/Furman, and that says they need to do a better job of seeding teams than anything. 3 of 8 13/14 seeds were competitive, Gonzaga/KennSt, Va/WrightSt & Kansas/CalBaptist.
It's what they do with the other 8 spots is the question. They SHOULD reward 8 good seasons to the Miami Ohio type teams vs P4/5 or 6, if Big East or Pac12 qualifies as that or not we will see each year.
They might even do a 6/6, 4 16 seeds and 2 15s and wherever the other 6 falls. 11/12/13 seeds.
It's what they do with the other 8 spots is the question. They SHOULD reward 8 good seasons to the Miami Ohio type teams vs P4/5 or 6, if Big East or Pac12 qualifies as that or not we will see each year.
They might even do a 6/6, 4 16 seeds and 2 15s and wherever the other 6 falls. 11/12/13 seeds.
What an asinine move. Trying to bleed dry the patient. Hell, why don't they just add another full round and make it 128 teams?
I believe they will be doing play in’s for all the 16s and the last 8 at larges
The bids will go to mostly Power 4 and they will be play in games. NCAA is cowering to the Power 4!
It won’t work and the power 4 in both football and basketball will break away from the NCAA and form its own league w the help of Private Eauity and corporate sponsors.
I only hope we still have a seat at the table. Keeping these inept coaches and hoping for mediocrity is not the answer. You better start spending now and a lot. A school must be relevant or they will be gone.
It won’t work and the power 4 in both football and basketball will break away from the NCAA and form its own league w the help of Private Eauity and corporate sponsors.
I only hope we still have a seat at the table. Keeping these inept coaches and hoping for mediocrity is not the answer. You better start spending now and a lot. A school must be relevant or they will be gone.
What should happen is they should add an additional rule that awards an autobid to conference champs with a NET metric of X or better. I don’t know what X should be (50, 75, 100?) but there should be an X…
In my opinion, even if X were 50 and would rarely, in practice, end up impacting the field it would still be a positive to have a threshold in place that’s a guarantee for a champ.
Actually....
Oh I forgot - "most sense" means only care about ratings and not actual sports.
Maybe you are right then.
It is about money not about making programs feel good.
Actually....
Oh I forgot - "most sense" means only care about ratings and not actual sports.
Maybe you are right then.
Doing what I suggested would make sense for both. Top 50 or top 75 NET and a conference title should earn an autobid. In practice - it wouldn’t impact that many teams year in and out, but it would establish an attainable threshold for all. Miami (Ohio) wouldn’t have made the cut for a 50 NET requirement, but the possibility of them missing out because of it would seem less “unfair” if there was a quantitative metric whereby - if better than this, and you win your division your in. They then control their destiny in theory by scheduling harder or dominating more in their conference games.
What makes the most sense is reducing the field back to 64 like it was 25 years ago
would I root for 18-14 Rutgers against 17-15 auburn in a play in game…. Yes of course
but neither would deserve to sniff a significant basketball game in March
Based on what standard? The way things once were? Some preconceived meaning folks have assigned to the accomplishment of what was previously understood as what it took to qualify for the tournament?
I see it a little differently. When RU has no chance at the tournament, I can care less. I have no interest in Bracketology or the field. I know not everyone feels this way, but I bet more fans share this apathy level than not. Over time, I do believe the expanded field will be good for the sport overall because more fan bases will be engaged as the event approaches since far more teams will be in the hunt for a bid down the stretch.
On a separate note, I don’t think it’s good for the sport that a team can go undefeated and lose in their conference tournament like Miami (Ohio) and miss the tournament. I do think something should be done to try to address this to make the regular season results more important relative to the end of season conference tournaments. Again, for the optics of the sport as a whole.
I don't care about the selection process or even the seeding process.
Its the tournament format that makes zero sense.
Selection process: Conference winner gets an auto-bid
Works for me. Gives literally every team in the country a chance to make it.
Seeding process: Resume based
No automatic seeds for conference champs. Your resume determines your seed.
Love it. Championship should get you in but no further perks.
Note: I'd be fine if you wanted to value champs and automatically seed them higher than at-large. But then approx all #1 through #8 seeds will be conference champs.
It would make the bottom seeds overly strong.
For example, the last at-large would be a #16 seed.
Tournament Format: Terrible. Awful.
You can't have "play-in" games with 11/12 seeds.
The worst seeds play the most games. It's how every tournament works.
Yeah I’d be okay with that too but it would never happen since their goal is to add more at large teams, not less which even at 76 wouldn’t be a guarantee if you give every major conference champ who doesn’t win their conference tourney a ticket into the field too.
Yet another case of the NCAA turning a perfectly good thing into a pile of shite.
Also makes the regular season meaningless! Finish in the top 10 in your conference and you’re in! Hate the expansion
One more reason to start watching NBA regular season games as much as college basketball's Regular season games that doesn't involve Rutgers or one of the programs I root for.
The irony of you hating expansion for atheltic reasons but loving the insane play-in format because of "ratings!" is very amusing.
They just want to expand to increase ratings.
That's the right idea, isn't it? Make decisions about the tournament based on ratings.
There is something about goose and gander in there......
Not really
It makes sense for the last at larges to play in
I would move away from having any 16 playing. Let the bloated toads from power 5 play each other
When schools like Washington and Northwestern can be bad but have acceptable Nets then someone needs to pay
Waters it down for who? Certainly not the 18-14 team fan bases who have a chance to make the field now.
I know. But they absolutely should.
Yeah - one with an extremely tough schedule. And again - they will have to win a play in game. Traditionalists can consider making the tournament getting a seed that doesn’t require a play in if they like. over time, maybe that’s how some will think about it. My only point is that it’ll ultimately good not bad for the sport overall for more fan bases to have a reason to follow their team come March time. That’s the positive in this - and it isn’t nothing.
Last edited:
No it doesn't. No matter how many times you repeat it.
It makes sense for the last SEEDS to play in.
Name just one example of another tournament in any sport anywhere in the world that gives lower seeds a bye while making higher seeds play more games.
I'll take even a tee ball rec tournament precedent.
It's literally the basic tenet of a tournament: lower seeds play more games than higher seeds
Not with a Pikiell schedule...wait til the cryin about a 16-16 big 12 or sec going over a notoriously poor scheduling 19-14 Big 10 school
Your missing the point. Those bubble arguments happen now. So the scales slide a bit as a result of this. All I’m saying is that as a direct result of expansion, more teams are in the conversation down the stretch and increased volume of interest and engagement is a good thing for the sport. Not everything about this is positive. A lot of negatives but that one thing, at least, is a plus. As I said, I wish they would also do something to lock in conference champs above a certain caliber, even if just white washing which it would almost always be the case at NET 75. Only a few exceptions here and there. If you win your conference AND you played well enough in non-conference to warrant being classified as Q1 at home - that’s a great season and should mean “in the field”.
Strangely - you raise a point that ties in to another potential positive of the expansion that is perhaps overlooked.
Folks are concerned that this change waters down the meaning of qualifying for the tournament. Arguably - overtime, the change at least should, in turn, increase the meaning of earning an At Large spot in the field without playing in. There will now be 12 bubblers playing in vs. 21 teams earning true at large spots. If there’s a status achievement associated with being selected as one of those 21 teams, that’s actually an improvement because by all accounts, those 21 teams will all deserve to be solidly in a clean field of 64. So there’s that…
Agreed - Nick’s way be would worst case scenario. Would make the regular season completely meaningless for so many teams. The planned structure, at least, arguably could do the opposite in a variety of ways when the dust settles.
What way would be worst case scenario?
I literally proposed the standard format for tournaments.
Nothing about selection process or seeding.
If you have an issue with the selection process - so be it.
That has nothing to do with "the lowest seeded teams don't get byes".