PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Tourney Expansion Coming


bombay
03-23-2010, 08:47 AM
http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2010/03/19/visser-ncaa-officials-says-expansion-will-happen-likely-in/


As soon as next year.

Dukes
03-23-2010, 08:53 AM
Lets take the best tournament in sports and ruin it. Yeah!

SoDak Bronco
03-23-2010, 09:01 AM
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Garcia Bronco
03-23-2010, 09:04 AM
What a waste of time. It's already too bloated.

Man-Goblin
03-23-2010, 09:07 AM
The tournament should start in October and include every non-professional basketball team in the country.

Tombstone RJ
03-23-2010, 09:08 AM
Anything that involves Leslie Visser is just wrong.

tsiguy96
03-23-2010, 09:09 AM
so a #16 seed has never won a single game in teh NCAA tournament, but they feel teh need to add more teams anyway? does this not strike everyone as dumb? this may be the most fair and fun tournament in all of sports and they are going to ruin it to try and rake in more cash. real smart.

bfoflcommish
03-23-2010, 09:31 AM
wait.......the fabulous sports babe is still on the radio??? I havent heard her in Denver in ages. shes got to be well over 50 i think, maybe she should drop the babe portion of the name?

Doggcow
03-23-2010, 09:36 AM
so a #16 seed has never won a single game in teh NCAA tournament, but they feel teh need to add more teams anyway? does this not strike everyone as dumb? this may be the most fair and fun tournament in all of sports and they are going to ruin it to try and rake in more cash. real smart.

I'm against the tournament to start, but-

Likely the teams getting 16 seeds will still be 18/20 seeds in an expansion. This would just allow for more of those "on the bubble" teams to get in and then all those garbage conferences with automatic bids dont really affect other solid teams.

tsiguy96
03-23-2010, 09:39 AM
I'm against the tournament to start, but-

Likely the teams getting 16 seeds will still be 18/20 seeds in an expansion. This would just allow for more of those "on the bubble" teams to get in and then all those garbage conferences with automatic bids dont really affect other solid teams.

so in other words, add more teams that will inevitably lose? or is this to make sure uconn and NC dont NOT make it anymore?

Br0nc0Buster
03-23-2010, 09:44 AM
f*** it
lets get 200 teams in there, division II teams also

1st round Kentucky vs. Flint Hills Tech College
lets do it

Irish Stout
03-23-2010, 09:45 AM
Until they expand it to allow for at least one Colorado team to make the tourney, I will not care.

Irish Stout
03-23-2010, 09:46 AM
**** it
lets get 200 teams in there, division II teams also

1st round Kentucky vs. Flint Hills Tech College
lets do it

I think we need to expand it to 250 teams to guarantee that CU, CSU, DU or UNC have a chance to play in it.

cousinal11
03-23-2010, 09:49 AM
I really cant believe they are doing this. A very big mistake in my opinion.

I hate college football because of the BCS, non-playoff bull****, but have always been a huge college basketball fan.

Makes me sick.

WolfpackGuy
03-23-2010, 09:52 AM
If the NCAA does opt out, the highest bidding network will insist on more games/teams.

tsiguy96
03-23-2010, 09:55 AM
how about just get rid of the NIT, its more embarrassing to go to that then not go to anything. if you dont make NCAA 64 (65) then you dont play.

bombay
03-23-2010, 10:02 AM
wait.......the fabulous sports babe is still on the radio??? I havent heard her in Denver in ages. shes got to be well over 50 i think, maybe she should drop the babe portion of the name?


Yeah, I was shocked. Saw her once at CB & Potts on Arapahoe. She goes about 3 bills.

Man-Goblin
03-23-2010, 10:06 AM
how about just get rid of the NIT, its more embarrassing to go to that then not go to anything. if you dont make NCAA 64 (65) then you dont play.

I was surprised to hear that like 50 years ago the NIT was bigger than the NCAA tournament. It used to be a huge honor to be invited.

TheChamp24
03-23-2010, 10:09 AM
They want to expand to 96 teams, right?
Well, 48 vs 48, next round 48 teams.
Next round 24 teams
Next round 12 teams
Next round 6 teams
Then...next round 3 teams?

How will it work out?

bombay
03-23-2010, 10:10 AM
They want to expand to 96 teams, right?
Well, 48 vs 48, next round 48 teams.
Next round 24 teams
Next round 12 teams
Next round 6 teams
Then...next round 3 teams?

How will it work out?


Probably byes for the top 8 seeds in each bracket.

tsiguy96
03-23-2010, 10:11 AM
They want to expand to 96 teams, right?
Well, 48 vs 48, next round 48 teams.
Next round 24 teams
Next round 12 teams
Next round 6 teams
Then...next round 3 teams?

How will it work out?

3 team game of horse to decide champ

Doggcow
03-23-2010, 10:15 AM
so in other words, add more teams that will inevitably lose? or is this to make sure uconn and NC dont NOT make it anymore?

Realistically if UNC went up against Kansas, I think they would have had a shot in the first round.

I think it will just bump down the ****ty teams that only make it because we're forced to give them a bid.

spdirty
03-23-2010, 10:17 AM
Sweet! Maybe CU will now get in every third year!

HAT
03-23-2010, 11:07 AM
They want to expand to 96 teams, right?
Well, 48 vs 48, next round 48 teams.
Next round 24 teams
Next round 12 teams
Next round 6 teams
Then...next round 3 teams?

How will it work out?

Same as it does now, but there will be 32 "play in" games instead of 1.

Teams 1-32 get byes....33-96 play each other and the winners get re-seeded in with 1-32.

96 teams sounds like overkill on the surface but it's really not that big of a deal....It's one extra game.

Selection Sunday...Play in games on Tuesday....64 team tourney on Thursday like normal.

bombay
03-23-2010, 11:31 AM
"Whether or not they expand the size of the tournament, I hope they establish some transparent, fixed, permanent rules in regard to the selection criteria as they <NOBR>apply (http://www.redbirdfan.com/msgforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13571&start=15#)</NOBR> to the at-large selections and the seeding of teams.

I know I've posted this before, but I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest teams must finish above .500 in their conference play, establish a set RPI standard above which a team must finish, and require programs to play a certain minimal number of road games in their non-conference schedule other than tournaments and "Challenges" in order to prevent any program from rigging the system beyond a certain point.

As for the seeding of the teams, take some of the subjectivity out of it and simply seed them 1 through Whatever based on their RPI and continue to have them play all games on a neutral court, taking into account only that teams from the same conference do not play against one another in the first round.

Personally, I couldn't care less if they trim it back to 64 or expand it to something like 80; but whatever they do, I hope they establish some rules to prevent it from becoming the "Power 6 Conference Tournament After What Used To Be The Regular Post-Season Conference Tournament." If they don't it will not only water down the product, it will also kill the spirit of the tournament while continuing to potentially exclude the UNIs and ODUs of the college basketball landscape for the sake of getting the Seton Halls, Texas Techs, and Northwesterns into the tournament."


^ ^ ^ ^

This guy is a dreamer, but I really like his ideas.

DBroncos4life
03-23-2010, 12:15 PM
I think we need to expand it to 250 teams to guarantee that CU, CSU, DU or UNC have a chance to play in it.

If we are doing favors for CU we better make the field 300 so NU can get in.