It's not a play in game, officially it's the Opening Round game. Both teams get credit for playing in the NCAA Tournament.

The tourney has expanded 3 times in its history, all expansions were originally opposed but made the tournament better. 65 out of the 300something teams go to the national tournament. That means of the teams that don't make the tourney, coaches jobs are lost and countless Div 1 student/athletes don't get the full experience and it's not fair to them. How do you judge that there are only 65 'good' enough teams to make the tournament. Mid-majors don't have the money to play a fair schedule, and thus have to play impossible schedules on the road against the top 10 teams for the money. Then you got the small conferences too who may have a great team but they don't win 3 games in a row and thus miss the tournament (many examples of small conference teams who were the best team in the regular season but had a bad game and missed their shot at the tourney). We have seen small schools without the exposure and seemingly 'lesser' talent take down the big boys (Princeton took down past national champion UCLA, Vermont took down Syracuse). Why is everyone so opposed to 96 teams if history has shown it has been traditionally good for the tournament? It is good for everyone. And the top teams would still only have to win 6 games to get a national championship if the bye weeks were allocated correctly.

Yea, the NCAA actually doesn't want the term "play-in" game being used. If you listen to announcers talking about the game they will all say opening round game. I'm pretty sure the team who loses gets the same amount of money as if they had gotten destroyed by a 1 seed, while the winning team gets more money since they play in 2 games. It seems to me everybody benefits.

I think the field should be cut down to 48...And eliminate all Automatic Bids.

Quote: Originally Posted By gbous314 on 3/15/2010The tourney has expanded 3 times in its history, all expansions were originally opposed but made the tournament better. 65 out of the 300something teams go to the national tournament. That means of the teams that don't make the tourney, coaches jobs are lost and countless Div 1 student/athletes don't get the full experience and it's not fair to them. How do you judge that there are only 65 'good' enough teams to make the tournament. Mid-majors don't have the money to play a fair schedule, and thus have to play impossible schedules on the road against the top 10 teams for the money. Then you got the small conferences too who may have a great team but they don't win 3 games in a row and thus miss the tournament (many examples of small conference teams who were the best team in the regular season but had a bad game and missed their shot at the tourney). We have seen small schools without the exposure and seemingly 'lesser' talent take down the big boys (Princeton took down past national champion UCLA, Vermont took down Syracuse). Why is everyone so opposed to 96 teams if history has shown it has been traditionally good for the tournament? It is good for everyone. And the top teams would still only have to win 6 games to get a national championship if the bye weeks were allocated correctly

wow.

How is it not fair to the coaches that cant occassionally get to the tourney? Or the players that arent good enough to play on the 'good enough' teams. Players that go to the low-D1 schools dont go with the expectation of making the tourney. And those schools dont fire their coaches for missing the NCAA tourney when only 1 school a year makes it from their conference.

You want in to the tourney, win more games against teams other than SE ******* State Tech. Its simple.

I'm a Syracuse fan. The NCAA effed us 2 years in a row by sending us to the (NCAA owned and operated) NIT, and I still say that if we had won a couple more games those years, or won the BET we'd have earned a spot. We didn't, so we set the NIT attendance record (SU vs. S. Alabama) instead. So be it.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 3/15/2010What? How can people like an idea that forces 12 and 13 seeds to play a "play in" game while every 14, 15 and 16 seed is automatically in the tournament.

Because those 14/15/16 seeds are going to be in automatically. That's the system, like it or not. So what we're to sort out is the best way to determine the remaining last few at-large teams.

Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By gbous314 on 3/15/2010
The tourney has expanded 3 times in its history, all expansions were originally opposed but made the tournament better. 65 out of the 300something teams go to the national tournament. That means of the teams that don't make the tourney, coaches jobs are lost and countless Div 1 student/athletes don't get the full experience and it's not fair to them. How do you judge that there are only 65 'good' enough teams to make the tournament. Mid-majors don't have the money to play a fair schedule, and thus have to play impossible schedules on the road against the top 10 teams for the money. Then you got the small conferences too who may have a great team but they don't win 3 games in a row and thus miss the tournament (many examples of small conference teams who were the best team in the regular season but had a bad game and missed their shot at the tourney). We have seen small schools without the exposure and seemingly 'lesser' talent take down the big boys (Princeton took down past national champion UCLA, Vermont took down Syracuse). Why is everyone so opposed to 96 teams if history has shown it has been traditionally good for the tournament? It is good for everyone. And the top teams would still only have to win 6 games to get a national championship if the bye weeks were allocated correctly.

wow.

How is it not fair to the coaches that cant occassionally get to the tourney? Or the players that arent good enough to play on the 'good enough' teams. Players that go to the low-D1 schools dont go with the expectation of making the tourney. And those schools dont fire their coaches for missing the NCAA tourney when only 1 school a year makes it from their conference.

Agreed, murph.

That's gotta be the whiniest, sissiest argument I've seen.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Personally I like it the way it is now (would prefer 64).

The only way I think this really would work, if they go to 96 is the following.

Take regular & tournament champions of each conference. That way when a 7 seed (with a losing or crappy record) in a non-power 6 conference basically steals a slot by winning their CT from a team like Miss St this year, there's an at-large for Miss St (or whoever). And the regular season acutally counts for some of the mid-major and lesser D1 conferences and that conference doesn't have to count on their CT to get a team in the NCAA.

Plus a lot of conferences champions will be both the regular season and conference tourney winners. That opens up potentially more at-large bids.

First of all, it's not just small conference schools, obviously the expectations are lower there. Bobby Lutz just got fired at Charlotte. It was his alma mater and he had been there for 12 years. He turned down bigger jobs to stay there. He reached the NT 6 times, barely missed the postseason other times. You can bring up the Syracuses and other teams that almost always make it, but when it comes down to it there are a lot of coaches with virtually no job security at colleges who have too high of expectations. Why do we we have to limit 80% percent of the student athlete population in division one to be allowed the luxary of attending the NT?

xlr8n that is what they are proposing I think. They want the regular season to count for something for the smaller schools

Its bs two teams that win their confeence tournement have to "play in" to play the top seed....they should make it the last two bubble teams play in to have the right toplay the 5th seed or something

Quote: Originally posted by joco45215 on 3/15/2010Its bs two teams that win their confeence tournement have to "play in" to play the top seed....they should make it the last two bubble teams play in to have the right toplay the 5th seed or something

its the frickin Big South and the SWAC, c'mon let's not pretend these teams are anything other than 1st round fodder.

Quote: Originally posted by gbousley314 on 3/15/2010First of all, it's not just small conference schools, obviously the expectations are lower there.  Bobby Lutz just got fired at Charlotte.  It was his alma mater and he had been there for 12 years.  He turned down bigger jobs to stay there.  He reached the NT 6 times, barely missed the postseason other times.  You can bring up the Syracuses and other teams that almost always make it, but when it comes down to it there are a lot of coaches with virtually no job security at colleges who have too high of expectations.  Why do we we have to limit 80% percent of the student athlete population in division one to be allowed the luxary of attending the NT? 

Hell why play a NT at all? Just give everyone a little trophy and a pat on the back like the YMCA does it! (Maybe even the coach takes the team out to CiCi's or Pizzahut!) </sarcasm>

To answer the question, because I want to see the best teams play... not Northeastern Michigan State Woman's College vs Tiny Tim's College for the Handicapped. Secondly it's not a "luxary" (luxury?) it's an earned invitation. (Ask UNC fans).