96 team tourney

[billiken_roy]

a thread debating this is running at the a-10 board. apparently the rumor is it is a done deal.

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/sources-96te...done-deal-27742

i hope that is true as i have long said the way to make the tourney better is to let more teams in. imo i'd let em all in or at least everyone with a 500 record or better.

[Postcard]

a thread debating this is running at the a-10 board. apparently the rumor is it is a done deal.

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/sources-96te...done-deal-27742

i hope that is true as i have long said the way to make the tourney better is to let more teams in. imo i'd let em all in or at least everyone with a 500 record or better.

I disagree. It's watered down as it is. You don't need to add another 32 teams. It won't make it any better.

[SluSignGuy]

a thread debating this is running at the a-10 board. apparently the rumor is it is a done deal.

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/sources-96te...done-deal-27742

i hope that is true as i have long said the way to make the tourney better is to let more teams in. imo i'd let em all in or at least everyone with a 500 record or better.

I disagree. What makes the tourney great for mid-majors during the regular season is the hope of getting in. Then when you do, it means something. If it goes to 96 teams, it means a lot less.

Example given: The New Bowl System. Who gives if you make it to a bowl now, everyone does.

[thetorch]

The overwhelming reaction from fans and the media to tourney expansion has been negative. The NCAA goes through wiht it anyway.

I would not mind a format where everyone is in in some manner. For me it should be all inclusive or very exclusive. SLU might get into a 96 team field and we don't belong there.

This will only help the BCS conferences. More of their members will get more bids. Mid and low major teams will scratch and claw for the same amount of bids.

[billiken_roy]

I disagree. What makes the tourney great for mid-majors during the regular season is the hope of getting in. Then when you do, it means something. If it goes to 96 teams, it means a lot less.

Example given: The New Bowl System. Who gives if you make it to a bowl now, everyone does.

the top teams will get byes and walkovers the first two rounds, but the middle teams will have all out wars. the second and third rounds (to get to the sweet 16) will be wars.

sure there will be more bcs teams get in, but there will be more worthy mid majors as well. the worthless 13 teams from the conferences that shouldnt get a spot will still be in, but look at the impact they will have out of 96 as compared to 65. it will be a huge difference for the better imo.

[Clock_Tower]

I disagree. What makes the tourney great for mid-majors during the regular season is the hope of getting in. Then when you do, it means something. If it goes to 96 teams, it means a lot less.

Example given: The New Bowl System. Who gives if you make it to a bowl now, everyone does.

Steve. 5 years ago, I would have agreed with you 100%. Today, though, I am really disgusted with the whole BCS/mega conference thing -- these teams play almost no home & home series anymore. Instead, they only play non-conference teams in money-making events on "neutral" courts. The rest of their games are "buy" games at home and conference games. With the bigger sized conferences and the conference tournaments (something that needs to be gotten rid of), there are just not many dates left.

Because I don't live in Chicago and b/c I did not travel there to watch, I missed what probably were SLU's best 2 opponents of the year - Northwestern & ND. If games like this were a home & home series, we would see a team like ND on the road/TV one year and at Chaifetz the next year.

Maybe, if RPI and wins/losses isn't so critical - maybe the BCS teams will not mind playing a few away games while risking a loss.

[Cowboy]

-without it being played a year or two to see how it would actually work, i don't like it for the following reasons, which after seeing it played couldl be overcome, maybe:

1-watered down - 64 is the right number to me, 65 is not as i believe the 2 schools playing in dayton on tuesday are not really looked at as being part of the tourney anyway so 96 is too many

2-dates - are they going to reduce the schedule or force teams to play the same number of games in a shorter period of time requiring more travel and more missed class, at least for some in order to finish the tourney at the same time?

3-tv - i am not a fan of how cbs produces a game anyway, but currently the next weekend cbs has the Masters, they would have to make a call or see #2, but i would not mind not having to listen to some of their folks (of course, i would mind having to listen more to some of the espn folks, so problably a wash from that angle)

4-d1 - there were 320 d1 schools in 2000 and now there are 346, i think this will lead more teams to think they should drink from the trough as well as access to the tourney money will be easier as more spots and how many more teams can there be in d1 before the top (see bcs) says we want our own league, screw the rest of you we don't need you, we can buy games with you if we chose

5-equality - if i can count there are 73 bcs schools, i believe they would conitnue to get too many teams in the tourney, part of the tourney i enjoy is valpo beating miss or cleve st beating wake or any little guy beating the big guy

6-qualification - i have always been in favor of a .500 conference record floor to qualify for the tourney, if this were established it would lessen the blow, but the bcs would be so against this i can't see it flying

7-betting - while more tourney games to bet on, the format of pools changes, i like the current format of the pools i enter

8-set up - why would the trend as i see it of the tourney pairing non-bcs schools against each other change?

-there are probably more i can't think of at this momemt

-imo bad idea

[Cowboy]

Steve. 5 years ago, I would have agreed with you 100%. Today, though, I am really disgusted with the whole BCS/mega conference thing -- these teams play almost no home & home series anymore. Instead, they only play non-conference teams in money-making events on "neutral" courts. The rest of their games are "buy" games at home and conference games. With the bigger sized conferences and the conference tournaments (something that needs to be gotten rid of), there are just not many dates left.

Because I don't live in Chicago and b/c I did not travel there to watch, I missed what probably were SLU's best 2 opponents of the year - Northwestern & ND. If games like this were a home & home series, we would see a team like ND on the road/TV one year and at Chaifetz the next year.

Maybe, if RPI and wins/losses isn't so critical - maybe the BCS teams will not mind playing a few away games while risking a loss.

-clock - see my #4 - i think this leads to the bcs saying screw you little guys and they form their own super division

[Tonka]

-clock - see my #4 - i think this leads to the bcs saying screw you little guys and they form their own super division

I certainly hope this doesn't happen. Comparisons to football are not relevant in my opinion. If football had a small tournament, I think that would solve a lot of problems.

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with the tournament and field of 64 in college basketball, so obviously I have the if it isn't broke then don't fix it mindset.

[STLfan]

In my opinion 96 teams are way to many. Can you imagine filling out your brackets, they wouldn't even fit on single sheet of paper. The NCAA tournament is already the best post season event in sports and there is no need to fix what isn't broken. Right now it is a big accomplishment to reach the tournament and I don't see any good reason to water it down. The only NCAA tournament expansion I would be ok with is adding three more play in games so there is one for each bracket.

Whenever this comes up it seems to be only the coaches that are really in favor of the tournament expanding and it's not hard to figure out why. Most coaches receive bonuses for making the tournament and for making it to different levels of the tournament like the S16, E8, F4, and so on. Also few coaches are fired after making the tournament.

In my opinion they don't need to expand the tournament they need to cut down on the number of NCAA D1 basketball teams.

There are teams that are D1 that play in the equivalent of high school gyms and can't even average 2,000 fans a game. How are these in the same division as teams like Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, or even teams like Xavier, SLU, Dayton ect.

Last year there were 110 D1 teams that couldn't bring in at least 2,000 fans a game. The only way these programs can afford to be D1 is by excepting buy games from bigger conference teams.

Even worse the following teams couldn't even average 1,000 fans a game. (excluding service academies)

Team - 2009 Average Attendance

Columbia - 996

Northern Ariz. - 996

Sacred Heart - 982

Coastal Caro. - 980

Savannah St. - 948

La.-Monroe - 907

Long Island - 867

Prairie View - 958

UNC Asheville - 945

St. Peter's - 935

Southern U. - 870

Dartmouth - 855

Texas-Arlington - 848

Eastern Mich. - 830

McNeese St. - 825

Alcorn St. - 803

UC Riverside - 802

Coppin St. - 801

Centenary (LA) - 761

Sacramento St. - 752

New Orleans - 743

FIU - 681

Tex.-Pan American - 563

Fairleigh Dickinson - 533

St. Francis (NY) - 477

Colgate - 406

In my opinion if you move every team that can't average more than 2,000 fans a game over say the last 10 years down to D2 you would eliminate most of the programs that can only afford to be D1 by excepting buy games from the big and mid major conferences. This would create more teams playing home and away.

There are currently 11 teams not counted above that are reclassifying as D1. Out of those 11 none average 2,000 a game and 6 can't even average 1,000.

A slower more PC way to accomplish the same thing would be for the NCAA to ban buy games and require teams that play each other to agree to either a home and away deal or a two for one deal. This would put many of the above programs in the red and they would have to move down on their own.

The NCAA doesn't need to expand the tournament it needs to shrink the number of D1 teams.

[Clock_Tower]

-clock - see my #4 - i think this leads to the bcs saying screw you little guys and they form their own super division

Yes. At the same time, because the BCS schools have completely taken over the NCAA selection process and therefore are allowed to pad their schedules with buy games and neutral court games, they are stacking the field of 64 with their middle of conference teams. The mid majors are currently being squeezed. As it is now, the mid-majors have only 1 or 2 opportunities to play a "top" team. With such a small margin for error, the mid-major have an off night and their whole season is over. My only hope is that a field of 96 will ensure that the mid-majors get included.

[kshoe]

Yes. At the same time, because the BCS schools have completely taken over the NCAA selection process and therefore are allowed to pad their schedules with buy games and neutral court games, they are stacking the field of 64 with their middle of conference teams. The mid majors are currently being squeezed. As it is now, the mid-majors have only 1 or 2 opportunities to play a "top" team. With such a small margin for error, the mid-major have an off night and their whole season is over. My only hope is that a field of 96 will ensure that the mid-majors get included.

You are dead on.

When this topic first came up I was dead set against it because I felt it would water down the tourney and make the regular season less meaningful. Except for the most devout fans, college basketball already is a back-burner sport until mid January and February when football season ends and making it so that just about every team that can walk straight gets into the tourney would put even more emphasis on March.

That being said, I am so sick of the BCS monopoly on the at large bids and I have to admit this would go a long way to making sure more non-BCS teams get at large opportunities.

Is this being proposed to start next season? Without it, I envision the Bills being a bubble team where our at-large candidacy will depend on the results on one or two games. With it, I'd be hard pressed to see how this current team, with an additional year or experience and no major defections, isn't able to get into the top 80 or so of all at large candidates. Will it mean as much as if it was a toruney of 65? No. But it would still nice to have the excitement of selection Sunday for the first time since 2000.

[NH]

You are dead on.

When this topic first came up I was dead set against it because I felt it would water down the tourney and make the regular season less meaningful. Except for the most devout fans, college basketball already is a back-burner sport until mid January and February when football season ends and making it so that just about every team that can walk straight gets into the tourney would put even more emphasis on March.

That being said, I am so sick of the BCS monopoly on the at large bids and I have to admit this would go a long way to making sure more non-BCS teams get at large opportunities.

Is this being proposed to start next season? Without it, I envision the Bills being a bubble team where our at-large candidacy will depend on the results on one or two games. With it, I'd be hard pressed to see how this current team, with an additional year or experience and no major defections, isn't able to get into the top 80 or so of all at large candidates. Will it mean as much as if it was a toruney of 65? No. But it would still nice to have the excitement of selection Sunday for the first time since 2000.

If this happens, I will have never gotten to see the billikens play in the march madness I grew up with, I sincerely hope they do not change it, as that would be a drastic mistake IMO.

[dneuner]

I, too, think this is an awful idea, and I wonder what, if any, effect the Obama Administration/Justice Department/Congress have on this decision. Between Sen. Hatch, the state of Idaho, and the President, the BCS may not have much longer to exist. In fact, if I had to predict, I would say that this coming year is the last year for the BCS, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't get involved.

But I think that letting this many teams in, while it is still just under a third of the D1 schools, lessens the value of going to the NCAA tournament. The NCAA tourney is supposed to be on a pedestal as that ultimate goal and that most prestigious prize. I think this move would take that away.

[kshoe]

I, too, think this is an awful idea, and I wonder what, if any, effect the Obama Administration/Justice Department/Congress have on this decision. Between Sen. Hatch, the state of Idaho, and the President, the BCS may not have much longer to exist. In fact, if I had to predict, I would say that this coming year is the last year for the BCS, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't get involved.

Politicians have nothing to do with this. This is a money grab by the NCAA, plain and simple.

Even if the "BCS" disappears, the same 6 power conferences will still exist and will still find ways to exclude the other conferences from at large bids.

[Hawk]

I, too, think this is an awful idea, and I wonder what, if any, effect the Obama Administration/Justice Department/Congress have on this decision. Between Sen. Hatch, the state of Idaho, and the President, the BCS may not have much longer to exist. In fact, if I had to predict, I would say that this coming year is the last year for the BCS, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't get involved.

But I think that letting this many teams in, while it is still just under a third of the D1 schools, lessens the value of going to the NCAA tournament. The NCAA tourney is supposed to be on a pedestal as that ultimate goal and that most prestigious prize. I think this move would take that away.

One doesn't have anything to do with the other...

The NCAA is just inept. We need a 96 team tournament to figure out the best basketball team, and a 2 team tournament to figure out the best football team? Basketball doesn't need a change, and does. Football needs a change, and won't. This is a monumentally bad idea.

[Quality Is Job 1]

In my opinion they don't need to expand the tournament they need to cut down on the number of NCAA D1 basketball teams.

There are teams that are D1 that play in the equivalent of high school gyms and can't even average 2,000 fans a game. How are these in the same division as teams like Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, or even teams like Xavier, SLU, Dayton ect.

Last year there were 110 D1 teams that couldn't bring in at least 2,000 fans a game. The only way these programs can afford to be D1 is by excepting buy games from bigger conference teams.

Even worse some teams couldn't even average 1,000 fans a game. (excluding service academies)

In my opinion if you move every team that can't average more than 2,000 fans a game over say the last 10 years down to D2 you would eliminate most of the programs that can only afford to be D1 by excepting buy games from the big and mid major conferences. This would create more teams playing home and away.

There are currently 11 teams not counted above that are reclassifying as D1. Out of those 11 none average 2,000 a game and 6 can't even average 1,000.

A slower more PC way to accomplish the same thing would be for the NCAA to ban buy games and require teams that play each other to agree to either a home and away deal or a two for one deal. This would put many of the above programs in the red and they would have to move down on their own.

The NCAA doesn't need to expand the tournament it needs to shrink the number of D1 teams.

Some of those programs you mentioned probably couldn't pay folks to become loyal fans, let along give tickets away to get folks to come.

I agree that Div. I needs to contract. Also, I proposed earlier that guarantee games be eliminated (it might have been on Tigerboard, though, now that I think about it).

[Clock_Tower]

One doesn't have anything to do with the other...

The NCAA is just inept. We need a 96 team tournament to figure out the best basketball team, and a 2 team tournament to figure out the best football team? Basketball doesn't need a change, and does. Football needs a change, and won't. This is a monumentally bad idea.

NO. We don't need 96 teams to figure out the best basketball team. A Tournament of 16 teams is really all that is needed. The best team does not always win as some teams get on a roll and simply win. Villanova in 1985 is really about the last, and possibly only, team that "came out of nowhere" to win it all.

We need 64 teams to make sure we truly have the top 16 teams. We also need 64 teams to draw national interest, provide the quantity of games and pagentry and to reward all the schools (mostly the bottom 48 of the 64) for a good season. The Tourney is the basketball equivalent of going to a bowl game.

As stated, we might need 96 teams to make sure the non-BCS schools get invited. Are 96 teams truly needed? NO. Does 96 teams water-down the games? YES. The problem, though, is that the NCAA tried to legislate "fairness" with the "new RPI" that the Elgin and the Valley mastered and fully took advantage of. The "new RPI" rewarded teams that won on the road and that played tougher teams. Instead of making modifications to the "new RPI", the BCS and Billy Packers of the world threw the new RPI out and went the complete other direction - again to a fault.

We, the fans, are the victims of the NCAA greed. Who really wants to watch their team play a bunch of "buy" games at home, then 18 conference games and then go back and play a conference tournament. Boring, boring boring. Even in the Big East, Big 12, Big 10. Who really wants to watch Duke and NC play 3 times a year? 2 is enough. Wouldn't it be better to watch Texas play UCLA at Pauley Pavillion in December, and then return to Texas the next year? Wouldn't it be better to watch Duke play Kansas at Allen Fieldhouse and then back to Cameron Fieldhouse the next year? Neutral courts suck and are bad for the game.

Yes, our Bills played ND and Harangody but it would really be fun to watch him come to town. Frankly, there really isn't an interesting game this year. Do I enjoy watching our team? Sure. Did I enjoy the SIUC game? Yes. I watched the Missouri State game on TV due to being out of town, but still.

[billiken_roy]

the famous nc state team buzzer beater team that won was surely not a top 16 team.

[Quality Is Job 1]

The problem, though, is that the NCAA tried to legislate "fairness" with the "new RPI" that the Elgin and the Valley mastered and fully took advantage of. The "new RPI" rewarded teams that won on the road and that played tougher teams. Instead of making modifications to the "new RPI", the BCS and Billy Packers of the world threw the new RPI out and went the complete other direction - again to a fault.

Actually, the MVC had mastered the original RPI, without the road/home weighting system. The MVC has not "beaten" the "new" RPI.

[dneuner]

Make the NCAA tournament bigger? Timeout, some say

By Steve Wieberg, USA TODAY

The NCAA's exploration of an expanded Division I men's basketball tournament has touched a nerve among some disapproving schools and conferences.

Critics, including influential Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany, are expressing concern about watering down the sport's signature event, devaluing conference tournaments and further eroding interest in college basketball's regular season.

Some complain that the NCAA has moved too stealthily in proposing changes to the 65-team bracket — taking it to 68 teams or more radically to 96 — and shopping them to television networks.

The NCAA is weighing whether to opt out of the final three years of its 11-year, $6 billion contract with CBS. Its decision must be made by this summer. Greg Shaheen, a senior vice president who oversees the tournament and is spearheading the NCAA deliberations, says expansion is merely one area in which it is examining all options.

"I think nobody would disagree that the 65-team, three-week event … has worked," says Delany, a former chairman of the NCAA committee that runs the men's tournament. "You have David vs. Goliath. You have all sorts of internal story lines year in and year out. It's compelling. It's one of the great sports properties in the world.

"I have no problem with looking at expansion, whether it's small or big. I only say that issue is one that must be managed openly and transparently, (and) I have concerns that it's not."

Says Texas athletics director DeLoss Dodds: "If they're having discussions about those things, they should be more public and more open so people can weigh in on what the issues are and what the benefits are and what the downsides are.

"I don't know their process, but their process seems to be pretty hidden."

Countering those concerns, Shaheen says the late NCAA President Myles Brand kept university presidents on NCAA boards informed "for several years" of the association's study of the issue, including the potential for tournament expansion. Shaheen will brief the last of 31 Division I conference commissioners on the current NCAA plan this week, and says he has met with the head of the division's faculty athletic representatives association, among others.

"We appreciate the interest and certainly the need for dialogue," he says, "and think, at the conclusion of the process, as we learn more and determine more, the membership in various stages will have been involved."

"The really important thing to remember," says Oregon State President Ed Ray, who heads the NCAA Executive Committee, "is nothing has to happen. We have the option of deciding whether we want to do something different, and we don't have the information yet that would tell us whether that makes sense or not."

The most critical fill-in-the-blanks come with dollar signs. The current contract with CBS is back loaded, paying a little more than $2.1 billion in the final three years from 2011-2013. How much better can the association do? And no matter how attractive a new 2010 contract might appear, could a better one be found in a presumably better economy three years later?

SportsBusiness Journal, citing an NCAA request for proposal it said it obtained, reported Monday that CBS and Turner Sports are discussing a joint bid. ESPN/ABC and Fox also are seen as prospective bidders.

Beyond the question of what the networks can deliver is what to do with any increase in TV revenue.

"The top 20 or 30 teams in the country probably carry that TV package," says Texas' Dodds. "So you add another 30 on the bottom and, if you're going to split the revenue equally, is that right or fair?"

The NCAA already appears to have addressed one more issue: The window for a 96-team tournament wouldn't have to expand from three weeks to four, requiring it to tip off earlier or go later and extend the season. The intent is to squeeze the extra round into the same three-week format, with games after the first weekend, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions.

Another option is 68 teams, increasing the number of play-in games — or opening-round games as the NCAA officially calls to them — from one to four.

If there's expansion to 96, however, a tug-of-war looms over how to fill the additional slots. Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski calls for automatic berths for regular-season conference champions that fail to win their league tournaments. Or the NCAA simply could hand at-large invitations to the next-best 31 teams that now fail to make the cut.

Either way, there is concern about diluting the field and its effect on the event. Maryland last year became just the seventh team in the past decade to land an at-large berth despite finishing under .500 in its league. That frequency almost certainly would increase. "We know, in the first round, you have a lot of David and Goliath (matchups)," Delany says. "What happens when it becomes largely David vs. David?"

While noting he's not privy to detailed NCAA discussions, Pacific 10 Commissioner Larry Scott— previously chairman and CEO of the professional Women's Tennis Association before coming to the conference in March — cautioned that expansion "should be taken with a careful long-term view in mind.

"In professional tennis," he says, "the temptation to increase playing opportunities and go for the short-term economic value in adding tournaments led to significant dilution of value long term and other problematic side effects for the sport. One day, you wake up and realize that, while each expansion decision sounded good at the time, you have lost what was once so special. Once you go down that route, it's exceedingly difficult to put the genie back in the bottle."

Wake Forest athletics director Ron Wellman, a member of the 10-person committee that oversees the men's tournament, says he likes the idea of giving more players on more teams the opportunity to experience the event. He, too, questions whether expansion would rob conferences of regular-season and postseason tournament drama, but counters, "Those teams that have typically been out of it in February, now those games become more important.

"I am interested in expansion. I think there are some benefits to it," he says. "But i think we have to be very careful as we go down this path."

Ultimately, a final verdict on expansion is left to university presidents and chancellors on the Division I board of directors. Authority to act on the television contract — opting out of the current agreement and accepting a new one — lies with the NCAA president, at the moment Jim Isch as the interim replacement for the late Brand.

Delany and others have expressed sentiment for holding off action on such vital issues until a new president is selected and seated by the end of the summer.

"If we're within eight or nine months of having a new leader in place, to some extent you want to not jump the gun and make longterm decisions without having the opportunity to include that person in the discussions," says Oregon State's Ray. "… If somebody offers me 30 zillion dollars, I'd trust my instincts."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/men...nterstitialskip

[Postcard]

Why is everyone so against the BCS conferences? I thought most people on here want to join the Big East. Is it because we're on the outside looking in? The A10 is as close to a BCS conference as there is. If you ask people from the Horizon or WAC they probably feel that the A10 gets more teams in than it deserves much like A10 fans feel about the BCS. I think for the most part that the at large BCS selections are worthy. You can argue about a pick or two every year but for the most part they get it right. Year after year the BCS conferences are the most competitive. You can argue that they have a monopoly on the at large selections because they don't play the mid majors enought but you can't say that 99% of the time they're the most deserving teams.

[Cowboy]

-from the article....

-"The top 20 or 30 teams in the country probably carry that TV package," says Texas' Dodds. "So you add another 30 on the bottom and, if you're going to split the revenue equally, is that right or fair?"

-ah, goliath looking after goliath

[Clock_Tower]

Why is everyone so against the BCS conferences? I thought most people on here want to join the Big East. Is it because we're on the outside looking in? The A10 is as close to a BCS conference as there is. If you ask people from the Horizon or WAC they probably feel that the A10 gets more teams in than it deserves much like A10 fans feel about the BCS. I think for the most part that the at large BCS selections are worthy. You can argue about a pick or two every year but for the most part they get it right. Year after year the BCS conferences are the most competitive. You can argue that they have a monopoly on the at large selections because they don't play the mid majors enought but you can't say that 99% of the time they're the most deserving teams.

College basketball is more than the BCS schools. Their arrogance and the demands made by them is tiring.

As to the Tourney, no one is against the top BCS schools getting in. Without them, there would not be a Tourney. The trouble I have is that the way the rules are set and enforced, a BCS school which goes .500 in their own conference, or just slightly better than .500, does not have their rank/RPI sufficiently suffer. Instead, they refuse to play true "away" games, purchase alot of "buy" games, have a decent - but not really good year - in conference, get 10 to 15 chances to get one or more "quality wins" (1/2 of which are at home in front of their students/fans and some of which are against their true rival). Then, they act like they are so good b/c they are in XYZ conference.

W/o using local teams to keep this more objective, mid-majors like St. Marys lose out b/c they lose to Gonzaga and the NCAA determines their conference can only send 1 team. Or that b/c they are not their conference winner or regular season champ, there's no way their conference deserves 3 teams. I say B.S.

Keep the Tourney at 64 teams but punish teams for their "buy" games and for not playing "away" games. Neutral court games suck.

[Postcard]

College basketball is more than the BCS schools. Their arrogance and the demands made by them is tiring.

As to the Tourney, no one is against the top BCS schools getting in. Without them, there would not be a Tourney. The trouble I have is that the way the rules are set and enforced, a BCS school which goes .500 in their own conference, or just slightly better than .500, does not have their rank/RPI sufficiently suffer. Instead, they refuse to play true "away" games, purchase alot of "buy" games, have a decent - but not really good year - in conference, get 10 to 15 chances to get one or more "quality wins" (1/2 of which are at home in front of their students/fans and some of which are against their true rival). Then, they act like they are so good b/c they are in XYZ conference.

W/o using local teams to keep this more objective, mid-majors like St. Marys lose out b/c they lose to Gonzaga and the NCAA determines their conference can only send 1 team. Or that b/c they are not their conference winner or regular season champ, there's no way their conference deserves 3 teams. I say B.S.

Keep the Tourney at 64 teams but punish teams for their "buy" games and for not playing "away" games. Neutral court games suck.

All that makes sense but where do you draw the line? And why punish the BCS conferenences for having the best teams? Mid majors have buy games as well. You can't tell me that if Xavier and Belmont have similar Out of Conference resumes and conference records, that you wouldn't pick Xavier to make the tourney over them because they played in a much tougher league. It is what it is.