OT: Tourny Expansion 2011 Topic

asher413
Posts: 609 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 9 2 25 248 23 73 4
Rookie
But almost every team gets into the tourney, except Ivy League teams. They have conference tournaments that if they do well in win or go home mode, they can continue in win or go home mode.

My biggest beef with expansion isn't that 32 more teams get to play. It's which 32 they will be. More than likely, you will only see 3-4 more mid-majors there, it will all be bottom of the BCS conferences. I don't want to see any more of those teams play... I had a full regular season for that.
3/24/2010 9:05 AM
tpob18
Posts: 75 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 108 11 1
Prospect
I think they should let everyone in. They start the tournament with the teams from the conference all playing each other. The winner of the conference part gets an automatic advancement to the the next stage and they give 30 or so more teams a second chance based on what they have accomplished so far.

Every team is in the tournament now. Why would they ruin something that is so great right now?
3/24/2010 9:20 AM
alblack56
Posts: 3329 (0)
Hall of Famer
490
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By asher413 on 3/24/2010
My biggest beef with expansion isn't that 32 more teams get to play. It's which 32 they will be. More than likely, you will only see 3-4 more mid-majors there, it will all be bottom of the BCS conferences.
Based on one of the RPI services alone, these 21 mid-majors would get in if there were 32 more teams:

Witchita St; UAB; Kent St;, Memphis; Dayton; William & Mary; Va. Commonweaith; Marshall; Tulsa; Nevada; Charlotte; La. Tech; Portland; Wright St.; Fairfield; IUPUI; Morehead; Weber St; Iona; St. Louis and Indiana St.
3/24/2010 9:25 AM
aporter
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
319
Prospect
We need a new restriction of no teams that finish under .500 in conference play can get an at-large bid. If in effect this year, only 39 teams in the Big 6 conferences would be eligible for an at-large bid.
3/24/2010 10:53 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By gbous314 on 3/23/2010Coach Ryan and Coach Boeheim are big supporters of expansion. I saw an interview with Jay Wright (Villanova's coach) on PTI and he too supported tournament expansion, but he had a very flawed logic of doing so. He said more than half of the FBS football teams make bowl games, but failed to acknowledge the fact that only 2 play for the national championship in the postseason...and that's why he thinks the tournament should expand, because he took the apples of one sport and is applying it to the oranges of his sport, where 112?+ teams out of 347 make a postseason of some sort anyhow. I love how the support for expansion is that we get to make it like an elementary school field day where everyone gets a ribbon. Too much of a good thing isn't always good and like I said earlier, NOBODY thinks that 64/65 teams is bad/a problem...NOBODY. See Boeheim's interview with ESPN. I still stand by the fact that the tourney has expanded ten times and you all have no real basis to say that this wouldn't work since history has shown the exact opposite multiple times. This is really rather irrelevant. The last major expansion was in 1985 and it has remained rather pristine and great for 25 years, thus the timing of this all points to a money grab because the contract is up this or next year. Just because more people and more mid-major schools would profit is not a good reason not to expand. I would say it is even better to allow more student athletes to participate, considering only 65 out of the 365 get in. That would be 347 and why do people want college kids to be treated like grammar school kids?
3/24/2010 11:30 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By aporter on 3/24/2010We need a new restriction of no teams that finish under .500 in conference play can get an at-large bid. If in effect this year, only 39 teams in the Big 6 conferences would be eligible for an at-large bid
I disagree because some conferences are grossly more difficult than others, thus I don't think you can just make a blanket rule like this because each conference is different.
3/24/2010 11:31 AM
Iguana1
Posts: 369 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 65
Rookie
I think that the below .500 in conference would never fly. It makes sense that the coaches are in favor of expansion as the more teams in means less teams out and subsequently fewer coaches on the hot seat.

Especially as the conferences are positioning for another shift of multiple teams making the power conferences even larger.

It may come down to being 6-7 conferences with 12-16 teams being all that exists in football. Could they have their own basketball championship outside of the NCAA?
3/24/2010 11:46 AM
aporter
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
319
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/24/2010 2:00 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Quote: Originally posted by dcy0827 on 3/24/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By gbous314 on 3/23/2010Coach Ryan and Coach Boeheim are big supporters of expansion. See Boeheim's interview with ESPN. I still stand by the fact that the tourney has expanded ten times and you all have no real basis to say that this wouldn't work since history has shown the exact opposite multiple times. Just because more people and more mid-major schools would profit is not a good reason not to expand. I would say it is even better to allow more student athletes to participate, considering only 65 out of the 365 get in.<!-- Message body -->Then why stop at 96? Why not 128 or 256? It's pretty simple really, if these student athletes want to participate in the tournament with a chance to win a championship then they have two choices: win their conference tournament and get the automatic bid, or win enough damn games in the regular season to get selected as an at-large. If they can't do either of those, then screw 'em, they shouldn't be in the dance.


agree 100%. the tournament is already 6, the CT is only 3 for most teams. so people can think of it as a 9 round 380 game tournament (or whatever it is). is it that much harder to win 9 with 2-3 against sub tourney teams or 7 against tourney teams?
3/24/2010 2:23 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/24/2010 5:16 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/24/2010 6:08 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
One more thing...if you pull for an 8 or 16 team playoff in college football, you're asking for 7-14% representation of FBS college football.

College basketball already has 18.7% representation (65/347) and (very few) people want to bump it up to almost 28% (96/347)? Hello context!
3/24/2010 6:22 PM
schroedess26
Posts: 54 (0)
All Star
29 1 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 3/24/2010One more thing...if you pull for an 8 or 16 team playoff in college football, you're asking for 7-14% representation of FBS college football.College basketball already has 18.7% representation (65/347) and (very few) people want to bump it up to almost 28% (96/347)?  Hello context!

MLB (27%): 8 out of 30
NFL (38%): 12 out of 32
NBA (53%): 16 out of 30
NHL (53%): 16 out of 30
MLS (50%): 8 out of 16
Nascar (22%): 10 out of 45(ish) possible to have more than 10 as well

So why are we so mad about just 28% of the teams making it in the NCAA if we went to 96 teams?
3/24/2010 9:15 PM
smokindavis
Posts: 25 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 85
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by schroedess26 on 3/24/2010
Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 3/24/2010One more thing...if you pull for an 8 or 16 team playoff in college football, you're asking for 7-14% representation of FBS college football.College basketball already has 18.7% representation (65/347) and (very few) people want to bump it up to almost 28% (96/347)?  Hello context!
MLB (27%): 8 out of 30
NFL (38%): 12 out of 32
NBA (53%): 16 out of 30
NHL (53%): 16 out of 30
MLS (50%): 8 out of 16
Nascar (22%): 10 out of 45(ish) possible to have more than 10 as well

So why are we so mad about just 28% of the teams making it in the NCAA if we went to 96 teams?

I don't know about other people, but I think March Madness is the best playoff system in American sports. And basketball isn't even my favorite sport. So why make March Madness more like the lesser systems?
3/24/2010 9:41 PM
tpob18
Posts: 75 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 108 11 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 3/24/2010
Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 3/24/2010
One more thing...if you pull for an 8 or 16 team playoff in college football, you're asking for 7-14% representation of FBS college football.

College basketball already has 18.7% representation (65/347) and (very few) people want to bump it up to almost 28% (96/347)? Hello context!

MLB (27%): 8 out of 30
NFL (38%): 12 out of 32
NBA (53%): 16 out of 30
NHL (53%): 16 out of 30
MLS (50%): 8 out of 16
Nascar (22%): 10 out of 45(ish) possible to have more than 10 as well

So why are we so mad about just 28% of the teams making it in the NCAA if we went to 96 teams


Because all of them them have too many!

Also the NCAA already has everyone in because of the conference tourneys.
3/24/2010 11:14 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7 Next ▸
OT: Tourny Expansion 2011 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.