|
Post by motorcitysam on Jul 23, 2017 4:45:53 GMT -5
Joe Lunardi thinks it would be a good idea to expand the field for the NCAA tournament again. I'm not a fan of that idea. I thought 48 was a good number back in the early 80s. Coaches seem to be in favor if the idea for the purposes of increased job security (a coach quoted in this article wants the number to be at 96). As others have said, conference tournaments with auto bids pretty much gives everyone a shot at the Big Dance anyway. Additional expansion from 64, I mean 68 (I hate play in games), seems excessive. www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/20104342/worth-discussing-expanding-ncaa-tournament-field-72-teams
|
|
|
Post by kevinudm on Jul 23, 2017 9:48:12 GMT -5
I'm with you in resenting the ever-expanding playing seasons for college athletics; and needless expansion of the NCAA basketball tournament is a prime example. But having said that, I've come to appreciate the 68 team NCAA field. - For most people it's hard to watch the first two rounds of the NCAA tournament, with many of the games played during the workday and up to four games simultaneous. But the "opening round" provides two evenings in advance of the rest of the tournament with a televised double-header, where the second game features two of the last-four-in teams and will be watchable and potentially quite entertaining.
- As the number of conferences expanded, the availability of at-large slots decreased. Expansion to 65 and then 68 teams partially offset this problem.
- A number of mid-majors have managed to snag last-four-in slots: Wichita St. and Tulsa (2016), BYU/Dayton/Boise St. (2015), St, Mary's/MTSU/LaSalle/Boise St (2013), BYU/Iona (2012), UAB/VCU (2011). Each of these mid-majors would have been left out in the cold in a 64 team format.
- The Opening Round games featuring #16 seeds aren't very interesting, but afford low-majors an opportunity to score an NCAA victory and bring home some much-needed incremental tourney money to their conferences. And with six teams being designated #16 seeds, it creates a small qualitative improvement to the bottom tier and increases the likelihood that someday we might actually see a 16-seed take down a 1-seed.
Unfortunately, neither UDM nor any other member of the HL has been good enough yet to take advantage of the First Four to snag an at large bid; nor has the HL auto-qualifier been poor enough to get a 16 seed and a potentially winnable Opening Round game. So no benefit yet to the HL from tournament expansion. My beef with the NCAA tourney is that the selection committee seems to consistently undervalue mid-majors. Compared to poll rankings and computer rankings (KenPom or Sagarin, rather than the less meaningful RPI), mid-majors are consistently under-seeded or even excluded from the tournament. The NCAA tournament would more entertaining with fewer marginal teams from power conferences (with 17-15 records and the like) and a few more potential Cinderella's.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Jul 23, 2017 20:51:42 GMT -5
Whenever I think of, or hear others talk of, fiddling with the NCAA tournament, I remind itself it is about as perfect a sporting event as there is out there. Alter with care.
Kevin makes a good point about the last 4 in games giving casual fans interesting games early, and I've long pointed out that a 16th seed play-in ain't all bad because, as Kevin notes, it's a chance for a win and a better payday for team and conference. The "last 4 in game" I nonetheless don't like-- it just seems too odd that these 4 teams, deemed better than typically 14 to 18 teams in the tournament, have to play-in.
As for the number, in 1984, 48 of 275 D-I teams made the tourney, or just under 18% of the total. Last year it was 68 of 351, or just over 19%. In 1979 it was 40 of 264, about 15%. The 32 team tournament that lasted most of the 1970s had about 13% of D-1 teams. An expansion to 96 would be a vastly higher percentage of teams than ever before. It would also make the tournament unwieldy--you'd probably have to extend it another week. Better to leave the NIT as the consolation, and improve its quality by getting rid of its automatic bids.
Which brings to the 1 change I might make ( but probably wouldn't--see my opening): getting rid of automatic bids.
To most mid-major fans this is blasphemy. They fear middies would be cut out entirely. In fact, tho, the auto bids are not taking spaces from the P-5 and Big East, but from the mid majors. Take out auto bids, and Valparaiso qualifies last year ( even if NKU does not). Take out autobbids and choose 68. Going strictly by RPI (I know they wouldn't do that, but to simplify things here) these teams would have made the tournament (Asterisks by teams that did not make the actual field) - Gonzaga - Cincinnati - SMU - St. Mary's - VCU - UNC Wilmington - Nevada - Dayton - Rhode Island - Wichita State - *Illinois St. - Middle Tennessee St. - *UT Arlington - Vermont - Princeton - *Monmouth - *Houston - East Tennessee St. - *Akron - New Mexico St. - *Belmont - Bucknell - *Charleston - *BYU - *Colorado St. - *Central Florida
That's 26 bids. After Clemson, the next 5 RPI teams would be Winthrop, Valpo, Boise St., and UNC-Ashville. After Pitt, then would come Bakersfield and Fresno St., so even assuming strict RPI would not be followed, there are sure to be good mid-majors selected. And these would be 1st round opponents people want to watch.
Of course, doing this would also destroy much interest in conference tournaments--that might be the bigger impact on mid-majors.
I agree with Kevin that the middies get screwed in seeding, too. Then there is the bizarre practice of scheduling the best mid-majors against one another in the first round. I've seen analyses of this that indicate that that This happens enough I believe it is a conscious decision, though I won't say it is made with malice ( after all, it guarantees some mid major a win).
Anyway, bottom line-- leave the format; treat the middies more fairly in selection and seeding.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Jul 24, 2017 0:32:35 GMT -5
Good insight, guys.
Personally, I don't mind the play in games as much as I mind that some of them are for the right to be an 11th seed. Just seems weird.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Jul 5, 2023 18:01:51 GMT -5
About six years after we started this thread, the NCAA is still considering expanding the NCAA tournament. Per this article, an NCAA committee is "deliberating the issue" and could make a recommendation by late fall/early summer. I'm still in the "no expansion" camp, sharing some of the concerns that Izzo expresses here. Also, I don't see a good reason to expand it, speaking from an athletic competition viewpoint. As I have said before, I thought 48 was a good number back in the day, although I understand people saying 68 is better because of the increase in the number of D1 programs. However, the number they are talking about is 96, which seems like way too many to me. I'm still in the "it ain't broke" camp. Coach Self is an advocate of expansion, but his reason seems flawed. He says that the tournament should expand because the transfer portal has made more teams competitive. I know we're early in the transfer portal's current incarnation, but I don't think it's really increasing the depth of talented teams. I guess we'll see what happens in the next few years. www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/37935243/college-basketball-coaches-split-ncaa-tournament-expansion
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Jul 13, 2023 10:36:18 GMT -5
The NCAA will reportedly discussing tournament expansion, but no changes are "imminent".
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Jul 14, 2023 11:22:07 GMT -5
|
|