billikendave Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Didn't see it posted here but Stu wrote a great article about the expansion of the NCAA dance. I know it has been discussed here before. Brad suggested a "district" format with the elimination of the conference tournaments. Anyway, interesting read and more good work by Stu... http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/st...19?OpenDocument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 imo that isnt enough. this would mean that there would be 16 play in games. of course there are 31 automatic bids where about 20 of the conference auto bid teams typically didnt deserve a top 64 bid. so are they really adding that much to the tourney? they are going to let the low ranking auto bids play each other on tuesday to get into the tourney. imo the minimum expansion should be to at least 100+ teams. however, i totally agree with coach soderberg's thinking and believe districts would be wildly successful. at least more so than the typical conference tourney (imo the big ten, sec and a-10 tourney's arent "typical") that said, soderberg has no chance of getting that to fly as that would cut into the profits of the big conference's too much. that is what it is all about. making sure the bcs schools get the lion's share of the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseugnekillib Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 perhaps this is the first step toward the BCS teams going their own way and all of the other NCAA teams going to a second tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Stu focuses on Barry Hinson and Missouri State, but something tells me it's the Gary Williamses of the world who are pushing for this and stand the most to gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StLouBlue Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Anytime the BCS conferences think something is a good idea, that probably means that it isn't. I understand why most coaches favor this because as can be seen in the discussion on this board the last few weeks, making the NCAA tournament is the Holy Grail. Anything opening up more bids which could mean better chance at job security is great for the coaches. Not surprised either that Elign was the only one that questioned how the seeding would be done. Mid-majors are usually low seeds and I am sure the BCS schools would like to give themselves all of the 1-4 seeds with byes and make every other school fight through an extra game for the pleasure of then playing these teams. After suffering numerous upsets in the opening round, this is a way those 1-4 seeded teams could avoid this, while eliminating many of those cinderella teams. Also since they don't want to extend out the timeframe, they would probably want to cram the new first round/play in game during that first week and then force extra travel to actual first round site on short rest to give those 1-4 seeds an even bigger advantage. I would guess backup selection show to Sat with play in round Tues & Wed and then keep first round Thurs & Fri. While it would be fun to see more basketball, I don't think giving the 1-4 seeds a bye would be fair. I would much rather make it a 128 team tourney where every team plays the same number of games than an 80 team tourney giving the 1-4 seeds a distinct advantage. And when I say 1-4 teams I am guessing around 90% of those to be BCS schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj_arete Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 and it's driven by the selfish interests of HIGHLY paid coaches. This is a competitive business and if a BCS-program can't make the 64-team field on at least a sporadic basis, then they deserve to face the consequences. Why follow in the footsteps of the football where all you have is a bunch of meaningless bowl games? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Because those games, like NCAA tournament games, make money. But the field still shouldn't go beyond 64. This is the greatest sporting event in America, and there's no need to change it. The tournament should be hard to get into, and there will be snubs every year- that's life. They can't let everyone with a winning record into the dance. And enough boo-hoos about MSU and their high RPI not making it. They didn't deserve it any more than the last teams in this year. Also, what would happen to the NIT in this situation? It would literally have to take every remaining team with an above-.500 record and make an even less important tournament than it is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj_arete Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 in the NIT, but didn't advance far. I'm tired of all of the people being sympathetic to coaches making six figures, especially Billikan. I think if you asked most area high school coaches, NAIA and Division II coaches if they would be willing to subjugate themselves to an unreasonable internet fandom, impatient donors and annoying media types in return to financial security, they'd jump in a heartbeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 if the field was truly the best 64 in the nation, no questions asked, no politics aside, then i would agree. but we all know that isnt the case. first you have the low major conferences with their automatic seeds. and assuming that "chosen" team is not the season champion, that can really get embarrassing. second you have the politics of the bcs and non-bcs schools. regardless of how missouri state did in the nit, they deserved to be in the ncaa field this year yet because of packerlike thinking, they were frozen out. that was wrong. adding 16 teams isnt going to bring in sub 500 teams. that is a ridiculous statement. the only way it will ever truly be fair is to let them all in and since we know the dukes of the world cant afford financially to ever let that happen, at least begin to approach it by opening the field more. while i agree it is the greatest sporting even going, that doesnt mean it cant get even better. and adding teams imo will indeed make it better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenmetz Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 This was probably Brad's idea, not Stu's...anything to save his own ass. 64 is fine. I hate having to watch CBS anyway. Another 3 weeks with Nantz, AssPacker, Gumble-to-Gumble (Family Guy reference) and Clark "The Ohio State University" Kellogg's cereal is enough to make me vomit in my own feces and make Leslie Visser eat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenmetz Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I hope that if Jim Laranaga or whatever the hell his name is at George Mason tells Miles Brand, Jim Boehim, Gary Williams, Al Skinner, Rick Barnes and especially Mike Brey to take this piece of crap legislation and, in the words of Buttermaker from "Bad News Bears," "Shove it up their left nostril." 64 is enough. We'd probably not even make an 80-team field. I don't want any pity handouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I never said that adding 16 teams would add sub-.500 teams. It is a ridiculous statement- one that I didn't make. Adding 16 teams would shove a lot of the smaller programs in the dance one round further out, and get rid of any Cinderella magic that brings in the added interest and money from fans. And the point I was making before is that the field will simply be watered down, not flooded with losing records. Some majors that barely break .500 and mid majors without enough big wins just don't deserve to get in, and these are the teams that will crack a field of 80. The field isn't the best 64 teams in the nation because of one point you made: the best team from low major conferences doesn't always win the conference tourney. I don't always agree with the automatic bids, and I don't know how much politics is a factor. Missouri State justly saw this year that more than RPI is factored into the decision. (They didn't beat anyone! They didn't lose any games they shouldn't have, but they didn't schedule any potential big wins). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikendave Posted June 1, 2006 Author Share Posted June 1, 2006 I think you are exactly correct in your assessment. The BCS/power conference schools are the ones seeking to gain the most from the expansion of the field and using the "little guy/mid majors" as the excuse. Personally, i don't think they should mess with it at all. The only complaint is that regular season champs don't get an automatic bid. But I understand why conferences use it as the lure for their conference tournament. It gives virtually every D-1 school a chance at the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikendave Posted June 1, 2006 Author Share Posted June 1, 2006 Roy, If you think that expanding the dance is going to help the little guys, think again. Putting more teams in isn't going to change the "packerlike" thinking. It just means that the 6th or 7th place Big 10/ACC/Big 12 teams get in. Sorry, I still disagree with you about Missouri State last year too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj_arete Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 is good enough. I don't think the 64th best team in the NCAA should be in the tournament. I don't want to see sub-500 teams from BCS conferences making the tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 "Packer-like thinking" is an oxymoron. Packer doesn't have the ability to think rationally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 do the math. if they seed the automatic seed (31 conference tourney champs) the rest are at large bids which will likely go to the the rest of the top 60 teams that werent in the 31 conference tourney champs. probably about 10-15 of the automatic teams are the conferences that the bcs conferences dont give a damn about. if you have 80 teams, 16 teams will play those play in games to get down to the normal 64 teams. guess which teams will comprise those 16? it wont be duke and michigan state! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 at 80 teams you are right. but what i advocate is more like 128 or better yet everyone or at least 256. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 The beauty of the NCAA is that a low level team can pull off an upset or two...see George Mason. Granted that may have been a fluke , but still when the "no names" give the names a game it's fun to watch. Leave it at 64. Is Maryland better than Geo Mason? Probably, but any given night is the beauty of this thing. Keep it at 64. Now can SLU please be one of the 64, UB? Coaches should feel the heat to make it.....$164,000 a unit ain't exactly chump change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikendave Posted June 1, 2006 Author Share Posted June 1, 2006 by expanding the field, the money to each school will likely drop by $30,000 per team. Also that money goes to the conference who distribute as each conference deems fit. It would dilute the tournament and money to each team for making the dance. I vote no on expansion.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveforVouk Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Expand it to 80 and SLU might get in next year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.