Expansion

[Pumchavas28]

Question..... I hear a bunch of talk about how should they increase the number of teams & what not....

Why not just add 3 more teams to the NCAA Tournament & have 4 Play-In Games like the one last night... Have four 17 Seed Teams... have them play against the four 16 Seed Teams & the winners of those games play against the four 1 Seed Teams in the 1st Round of the Tourney?

That way your not going to crazy numbers in the Tourney.. your just adding 3.. and teams like Syracuse who many feel should have made it & possibly Air Force, could be in the tournament & have a chance to compete....

Obvioulsy someone always bitches, but that would solve so many problems....

[Pflugerville Ag]

I've heard your suggestion a couple of times this week and agree that it would be a good idea. However, I am not for adding any more than that.

[Mezentius]

I like it the way it is. The debate is good and really gets the buzz going. Plus it keeps conference tournaments interesting as performance in said tournaments really makes them like play in games for bubble teams.

[Dustin00whoop]

Hell no.....if you start that, then you open the flood gates. And the teams that would get stuck in those play-in games would be the conference champions from the small conferences. Getting their asses kicked by the #1 & #2 seeds are why those kids play the entire season. They win their conference tourney, they deserve to be in the big dance. Florida A&M got hosed & it sucks!

I say decrease the number of teams by 1. Get rid of that play-in game. Who would be left out if we did that? Arkansas? So what. The only people that are for increasing the number of teams in the tourney are the coaches. And the only reason they are for it is because that is how they are judged. If you don't make the tourney its a bad year. So rather than the coaches putting together a better team, they would rather increase the number of teams in the tourney.

[Pumchavas28]

Hell no.....if you start that, then you open the flood gates. And the teams that would get stuck in those play-in games would be the conference champions from the small conferences. Getting their asses kicked by the #1 & #2 seeds are why those kids play the entire season. They win their conference tourney, they deserve to be in the big dance. Florida A&M got hosed & it sucks!

I say decrease the number of teams by 1. Get rid of that play-in game. Who would be left out if we did that? Arkansas? So what. The only people that are for increasing the number of teams in the tourney are the coaches. And the only reason they are for it is because that is how they are judged. If you don't make the tourney its a bad year. So rather than the coaches putting together a better team, they would rather increase the number of teams in the tourney.


Then how's about Conference Champs are exempt from Play-In Games..... & BCS Teams are not exempt from play-in games....

For example... last night could have been Syracuse vs Niagra.... winner plays Kansas...

[Dustin00whoop]

Wasn't Niagra their conference champs?

[Pflugerville Ag]

Then how's about Conference Champs are exempt from Play-In Games..... & BCS Teams are not exempt from play-in games....

For example... last night could have been Syracuse vs Niagra.... winner plays Kansas...

That is exactly what I was going to suggest. Make the big conference bubble teams play the play in games. A hell of alot of people would watch Arkansas vs. K-State or Syracuse vs. Florida State for play in games compared to FAMU vs. Niagara.

[dresbf]

If you add three more teams people are just going to bitch about the next three teams that didn't get in. I don't think you should let more and more teams in for the sake of being fair that have no realistic chance of winning the tournament. Since they went to the current format the lowest seed to make the championship game was a #8. I don't see what letting in more teams will solve.

[Dustin00whoop]

But I see what you are saying, Pum. But again, once you open the flood gates, it won't stop. Look, we are sitting here talking about the 62-65 teams getting in the tourney. Does anyone really think they have a legit shot at winning the national title? Hell no! It fun to talk about who got snubbed, but expanding the field by 3 teams won't stop people/coaches from complaining. Its just going to be instead of saying a 10 win Big XII team should be in, you'll be saying an 8 win Big XII team should be in. It solves nothing.

[Dustin00whoop]

What dre's ho said. ;)

[Pumchavas28]

But I see what you are saying, Pum. But again, once you open the flood gates, it won't stop. Look, we are sitting here talking about the 62-65 teams getting in the tourney. Does anyone really think they have a legit shot at winning the national title? Hell no! It fun to talk about who got snubbed, but expanding the field by 3 teams won't stop people/coaches from complaining. Its just going to be instead of saying a 10 win Big XII team should be in, you'll be saying an 8 win Big XII team should be in. It solves nothing.


No they don't have a chance & yes it is fun to talk about the cry babies... but still... I don't see & or understand why there is only 1 play-in game... that never made sence to me.... why not just make all brackets even & make it so each bracket has a play-in game so everyone has it even...

If anything Florida should be the team playing against the Play-In winner since they are the #1 Overall Team in the Dance.. but for some reason Kansas got to play Niagra & technically Florida got stuck playing a tougher team... Will Florida Win... YES... but still, it doesn't make sence for the 4th Best #1 Seed to get the Play In Winner...

[Dustin00whoop]

Like I said...the best way I see to solve the problem is to get rid of the play-in game.

[adamrod]

Neither of the play-in teams have a chance to win the tournament. The lowest seed to ever win the tournament was an 8 seed, and I would argue that they shouldn't have even gotten the chance to play for it.

I think that only about 16 teams deserve the right to play for the championship in the tournament because they have done well during the season. However, since the scheduling works out well with 6 rounds in 3 weeks for both tv, travel, and marketing, it's probably better for the NCAA if the tournament stays as is.

[Chip]

I agree that if they were to add three more play-in games, all four of them should be for the final at-large bids, and not involve conference champions. If they want this, they should take the last four at-large teams in the field - Stanford, Arkansas, etc. - and make them play the last four left out - Syracuse, Drexel, etc.

The playoff game only exists because the BCS conferences lobbied to keep the at-large pool at 34 when the Mountain West Conference was created - giving the MW an automatic bid would have meant reducing the # of at-large bids from 34 to 33, and god forbid the ACC or the Big East or the Big 10/Big 11/Big 12/Big 57 should leave money on the table in any given year by having 6 instead of 7 teams make the NCAA field.

[Dustin00whoop]

The playoff game only exists because the BCS conferences lobbied to keep the at-large pool at 34 when the Mountain West Conference was created - giving the MW an automatic bid would have meant reducing the # of at-large bids from 34 to 33, and god forbid the ACC or the Big East or the Big 10/Big 11/Big 12/Big 57 should leave money on the table in any given year by having 6 instead of 7 teams make the NCAA field.

And that is BS. And by adding more play-in games you are allowing those big conferences to put even more teams in the tourney.

[Mezentius]

And that is BS. And by adding more play-in games you are allowing those big conferences to put even more teams in the tourney.


You are 100% correct.

[phatbc]

yeah i don't think they should add any teams, but at max they should make 4 play-in-games, although some should have to be a play-in for the 12 seed, since its usually big conference guys left out.