Dave Sez

We the $#!^ are they thinking?!?! It's bad enough that we have teams from the MEAC and Sun Belt Conferences in the tournament (I strongly disagree with the conference tournament auto-bids). If the NCAA tournament expands to 80 teams, I predict that within 5 years the NIT will be the more competitive tournament.

The only expansion I think would make any sense would be for the last 8 at-large teams to fight it out for the final slot in each region (making a field of 68). My full thoughts are here:

http://www.statefansnation.com/index.php/archives/2006/03/14/random-ncaat-thoughts/

SFN has also linked this thread, since I completely agree with Dave's rationale for not making it easier for coaches to ride the gravy train.

BJD95 wrote:

The only expansion I think would make any sense would be for the last 8 at-large teams to fight it out for the final slot in each region (making a field of 6. My full thoughts are here: http://www.statefansnation.com/index.php/archives/2006/03/14/random-ncaat-thoughts/ SFN has also linked this thread, since I completely agree with Dave's rationale for not making it easier for coaches to ride the gravy train.

Thanks for the link, BJD. My first reaction at the idea of having those teams play "play-in" games was that I didn't like it. But now that I think about it, it's not so bad. Those games would be pretty fiercely contested - sort of like NIT games, but with more at stake.

On the other hand, they would be filled with teams like Florida State and Maryland (two teams you discussed in your article linked above) and did those teams really deserve to get in? Both failed late in the season to win games that they could and should have won to ensure their spot in the tourney. Adding more teams just lowers the bar for middling big conference schools.

I'll have to think about it some more.

Corny Tony had an idea about this that I thought wasn't half bad. Rather than "bring down" the greatest tourney on earth (NCAA hoops tourney), he suggests a new format for the NIT. I've linked it here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/19/AR2006031900752.html

I'd be curious to see what you think.

acchalfbreed wrote:

Corny Tony had an idea about this that I thought wasn't half bad. Rather than "bring down" the greatest tourney on earth (NCAA hoops tourney), he suggests a new format for the NIT. I've linked it here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/19/AR2006031900752.html I'd be curious to see what you think.

I don't like it. It just dilutes the NIT - in two ways - first by excluding teams from power conferences and second by having teams who already bombed out of the NCAA tourney.

Why should a team like GW get two chances at a postseason tournament when teams like Maryland and FSU get none?

I would agree with the argument about keeping it at 64/65 teams if there was a good way to determine who those teams are.

I think the best thing to do is to determine a number even if it is 64 or 72 or 96 and fix the bids by conference. For example the ACC gets 6 bids as do most of the BCS conferences. That would be 36 teams, then take however many bids are needed to get the field complete and divide those bids by the other conferences, based on strength of conferences, some may get 3 or 4, some 2 and some only 1. It would make the regular season more important, you are playing teams in your league for the spot or spots available. If you are the bubble team (last one in) and a lower team wins the conference tournament you get bumped, I'm not crying for the 6th place team sitting home because the 10th place team wins the tourney. If you want to have more teams so that smaller conferences can have at least 2 bids fine, if not go to 68 and let the smaller conferences divide the other 32 bids. No one really could complain with this format.

Don't know why I do it ... get on to see what "Davesez" about the lax tourney, and I open up to a statement like this:
"spurred on by coaches like Jim Boeheim (famous for bravely scheduling a brutal non-conference schedule full of home games against the likes of Cornell and Colgate)"

How you pick JB out of the endless coaches who schedule the early-season cupcakes is comical. I thought this was an ACC site ... take note of the ACC coaches who do the same! ;-)

See my lax comments in that write-up ...

MarkG (GO CUSE LAX!!) wrote:

Don't know why I do it ... get on to see what "Davesez" about the lax tourney, and I open up to a statement like this: "spurred on by coaches like Jim Boeheim (famous for bravely scheduling a brutal non-conference schedule full of home games against the likes of Cornell and Colgate)" How you pick JB out of the endless coaches who schedule the early-season cupcakes is comical. I thought this was an ACC site ... take note of the ACC coaches who do the same! See my lax comments in that write-up ...

I didn't pick him out. The article I linked to did. Boeheim was (is) one of the lead proponents of the change. Thus, he's fair game.

You'll notice that I took a random shot at John Swofford as well, unaware at the time that he'd also opened his big mouth on the topic.

I should add that if an ACC coach like Herb Sendek (OK, former coach) or Oliver Purnell had bitched, I would have made the same comments. I don't want to hear some guy who is afraid to schedule hard teams come out and claim that it should be easier to make the tournament.