Coaches want more NCAA Tourney Teams

[TheBand]

Coaches hope NCAA will expand field of 65

Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS- Jim Boeheim wants more schools playing in the NCAA tournament, and his coaching colleagues appear to agree.

The Syracuse coach believes the tournament field should expand from its current 65 teams and hopes to start lobbying for an increase Friday during a meeting with the National Association of Basketball Coaches.

"I have a number in mind, I think it should probably be about four to six, somewhere in there," Boeheim said Thursday. "The problem really is that it shouldn't come down to logistics."

The field expanded from 48 to 64 in 1985, then added a 65th team to the field in 2001 when the NCAA increased the number of automatic bids from 30 to 31.

Boeheim believes the rapid increase in Division I schools, to more than 300, and increased parity, as demonstrated by George Mason reaching the Final Four, indicates its time to include more teams.

It's a proposal Boeheim said he has long supported, but he has not been able to convince those on the NCAA's selection committee in the past.

NCAA president Myles Brand said he has not much support to implement Boeheim's wish.

"There was some discussion of it in the last couple of years, and there hasn't been much enthusiasm for it at this point," Brand said. "I think that discussion needs to continue, but I don't see any movement in that direction."

Coaches, whose success is often measured by how often they make the tournament and how well they do in it, disagree.

After Boeheim discussed his plan during a news conference, Rice coach Willis Wilson and Clemson coach Oliver Purnell, both said they would support expansion. NABC executive director Jim Haney acknowledged it's an issue that warrants debate.

"At this point, I think the topic of expansion is a fairly new one, but clearly it's come up," Haney said. "I feel confident that it will need to be addressed."

Boeheim, who won the national championship in 2003, believes the primary reason against expansion is logistics.

NCAA officials may try to avoid playing more often than the current four-day schedule over three weekends, and it would be nearly impossible to place more than eight teams at one site.

One possible solution would be increasing the number of play-in games. Under the current structure, two teams play Tuesday night. One advances to a first-round game played on Friday.

But by adding six teams, the NCAA could have four play-in games at the same site, providing more of a tournament atmosphere.

"Even though you wouldn't want to be in that play-in game, you're still in the tournament," Boeheim said. "That's a lot better feeling than not being in the tournament."

Another factor in favor of expansion is George Mason's success.

The Patriots (27-7) of the Colonial Athletic Association became the first No. 11 seed to reach the Final Four since LSU in 1986, yet they were no lock to be in the field on selection Sunday.

Coaches believe the number of good teams has grown significantly. And why, they argue, should a team like George Mason be left out?

"There are deserving teams," said Purnell, who previously coached at Dayton. "George Mason could easily have been left out of the tournament. Obviously, they're a deserving team. If you expand it, you decrease the possibility of leaving out more deserving teams."

[TheBand]

Yes, I know I'm replying to my own post....

Its the logical next step. Having just the one "play-in" game is silly. From a financial standpoint, it would be an additional set of sites to generate ticket sales and tv revenue. From the parity standpoint, why should only one of the #1s get to play a team that has already played once that week. All four should and having 4 play in winners it would create that situation.

I personally dont think its enough...I've always liked Roy's idea of expanding to another weekend all together. 128 teams and eliminate the conference tourneys

[billiken_roy]

band, my latest compromise is to have the nit be a full 64 teams. the nit champ would become one of the final four teams. the other three final four teams would come from the other three legs comprised of 48 teams. let the automatic league champions plus the next 16 strongest at large teams fill those 48 teams. then let the next 64 strongest teams bet the nit tourney.

[billikendave]

Expanding the field to include play-in games is only going to favor BCS schools with mediocre records. Michigan, South Carolina etc. I don't think it will have a marked increase or benefit on the mid major bubble teams Mo. St., Hofsta etc. You could see it coming when the "play in" game was created because the committee didn't want to drop one at large bid.

It really robs the small conference tournaments from participating in the dance. All those teams really want to do is to stand on the same floor as Duke, Villanova, UConn. Making them "play in" after winning their conference tournament is awful. You get a real sense of the desire if you read a great book on the subject -- The Last Amateurs by John Feinstein.

[Cowboy]

I agree that I see participating in the play-in game as not really part of the Tourney and I think it is unfair.

I can only see a BCS school in the play-in game in the current structure after 16 seeds are beating 1 seeds regularly, and that may never happen.

I think Boheim (?sp) is seeing that perhaps the Big East may not get 12 bids every year in the current structure and he wants to be sure to be part of the Big Show, so why not pimp the perceived lower conferences with all of them "playing-in".

For me, the NCAA Tournament is in danger of losing me a fan because a big part of my being a fan is wathcing the little guy beat the big guy, esp when the big guy will never schedule the little guy during the season.

[kevinfootes]

I'm not against expaning the NCAA, but why give an automatic bid to a team that couldn't crack the top 48? Any team can win on a given night, but it's really not fair to give a team ranked higher than 48 a freebie. What happened this year is that a mid-major team EARNED its way in. That's different than giving a 16-14 Big 10 team a freebie.

[billiken_roy]

imo, putting all the automatic bid winners gives the high profile highest ranked teams their easy deserved bye games. if you only put the top 48 teams in those three legs, those three legs will be a tougher road to the final four than the remaining teams in the 64 team nit. so in reality you are rewarding the top 30 or so teams by allowing them the first round games vs those other 18 auto bid teams from the weak conferences.

[Taj79]

One side of me says more teams ... all the way to the point of letting everybody make it like broy has advocated in the past. Kind of like some of the state tournaments you see in high school ball in some states. But the logisitics there would kill it.

The other half of me says teams are already in with their conference tournaments. I remember Mizzou and Detroit making sentsational end-of-season runs in the old Big Eight and Midwestern tournaments and getting those automatic bids. Sure, some teams don't get that far, like Duquesne or St. Bonaventure in the A10 and South Florida and DePaul in the Big East. But do they deserve it? That's a huge question.

I think Boeheim is posturing for more spots for conferences like the Big East. No matter how you argue or what side you take, someone like Louisville who goes 4 and 12 playing the likes of UConn, Pitt and others is going to turn their nose up at having to play in with the likes of Monmouth, Hampton, Florida A&M and some of these other small fires. In the long run, I could see these little guys being the ones getting screwed when it comes to the addtions .... namely more and more of them will be bumped out of the 14 to 16 seeds and have to eliminate one another to get in. The new playin will drop teams like the George Masons of the world even further down in the brackets to some of those 14 to 16 seeds and they'll be one and done as well. Which means the Mega Conferences that share the wealth get more and more games, leading to more and more victories and additional rounds leading to more and more money.

Expansion can be pushed as a method to add more to share the wealth but in reality, the rich will continue to get richer. Fo the four teams in the MSG finals for the NIT, you have three power conference (SEC,Big Ten,Big East) and one small fry (Colonial). One could easily argue, based on those final four or even the final eight, those teams were the ones that should get in. Adding in the four teams from the NIT's Elite Eight, two more are power conferences (ACC, Big East) and one's a mid-major (Mo Valley) and the last is another small fry. So of those eight, you have over 50% coming from the usual suspects. And if they share revenue for NCAA bids like CUSA used to do, sure Boeheim wants it .. its more money for him.

I'm for leaving it at 65 ...... sure, some folks get screwed and some get left out .. but isn't that what adds to the overall excitement anyway? I think by adding teams, the little gusy will get screwed just the same.

[billyk]

I really don't think the winner of the NIT should get an easy pass to the final 4. Yes they would have to play 2 more games, but still they are playing against competition that wasn't good enough to make the big dance. Placed in the sweet 16 maybe, I could go that far.

My idea would make winning your league championship more important, and the big conferences wouldn't like it so it would never happen. First seed the schools as normal, but all the teams that didn't win their conference have to play a play-in game. Say a number 1 seed lost the conference they would have to play the lowest at-large team, but if they won they would still be the 1 seed.

[MICHAELSPAPPY]

The tournament is already watered down past all reason. 80% of the teams there have no chance to win it all. If it is expanded, why not just include all the teams?ip.

[billiken_roy]

george mason or south carolina? if you would have asked 100 fans before the tourney started, who do you think they would have predicted would be in the final four between the two?

that nit winner is going to be a crediable team and probably more deserving than the team that had to play less games with at least one of those games vs a far lesser opponent than anyone in the nit field i propose.

[billiken_roy]

i'm all far all in. it should be that way any way and get rid of the conference tourneys.

for those of you that advocate that is what the conference tourney is far, my point is actually the off court affects of doing this.

probably of the 32 conference tourneys, most lose money and those that dont probably dont make much. the big boys make money. and lots of it.

the ncaa gets paid an obscene amount of money for the tourney. enough to fund the entire basketball programs for the entire division one. yet that money gets split between the teams that only make the tourney. now they MIGHT (depending on their conference agreements) go back and split that money someway somehow with other teams in their conferences, however, the point is it is relatively paying the rich to get richer.

now if you take away the stupid conference tourneys and replace with 4 - 84 team regionals that split up into say 40 sub regionals for those first 3 rounds, and try to truly regionalize those subs, i bet the attendance and profits will exceed the current AVERAGE conference tourney.

the problem comes in the fact that the SEC, Big ten and ACC wont. they make a bundle on their tourneys and now would be splitting money and making less. plus you will enable more team with their new found revenue to compete because they can now afford the facilities, recruiting budgets and to pay their coaches.

plus, do you take the incentive to cheat out because the revenue will be the same for every program? the only incentive is pride.

split it up with everyone.

[billyk]

compare the 4 teams the George mason beat to the 6 that south carolina beat and there is no question that Geoge Mason run was more special. Now you will make each bracket tougher because there will 3 instead of 4 so now a 6 seed in the normal tournament becomes a 8 that makes it even tougher.

[billyk]

I don't think conferences are required to have conference tourney, it is just that all but the Ivy league do. If they were such money sinks then why wouldn't they go the Ivy league and used to be Big 10 way.

I love conference tournaments. It gives hope to more than half of the schools that would have no reason to play their last month. Yes it hurts the conference winners but the benfits IMO way outway the cons. Conference Tournaments in lesser conferences are like the extra couple of rounds that you want added, except they don't have to play the big boys til the 64.

[billiken_roy]

i dont think most conferences do the tourney for money making. i think they hope to break even but the tourney gives everyone a shot at the ncaa where they can then make money.

if xavier would have lost their first game, thurs, fri and sat in cincy would not have gone over 1000 people per session.

how can that make money?

the a-10 and other conferences bank on the home team carrying the attendance torch. that is why most of the tourneys i believe are hosted by the conference reg season champ.

[Iggy]

Since attendance at many of these conference tournaments is so small and dependant on the home team, I wonder why some conference hasn't tried the NIT format conference tournament. Seed your 12 teams as you normally would and the higher seed hosts the game. It might be a bit tough on a team to travel up to three days in a row, but you would guarantee nice regular home crowds at each game. You also reward the higher seeds by letting them host. There are some logistic issues like arena availability (not a problem once we open our own place) and ticket distribution (make it a part of the season ticket package and issue credits for unused games), but I think it might make some sense.