Should NCAA Expand Tournament to 96 Teams?

[OldGiants]

1) Get rid of the play-in game. Keep the NCAA with field of 64 in March.

2) Make the NIT a truly national tournament by starting it the last weekend in November with 256 teams. 512 would work, but I don't see where all of them would come from.

3) That first weekend in November cuts the field to 128. The next NIT round is Christmas week. These would be morphs of the Christmas tournaments that currently exist. The first round winners form groups of four, all of whom go to Hawaii or PR or Disney World, for example, and play two games and now you're down to 32 teams.

4) The next NIT round is MLK weekend in mid-January. Eight groups of four teams at convention cities and now you are down to eight teams.

5) The next round is President's Day weekend in February. Eight teams go to one site and play two games each to get down to the final two, who either:

a) play the final right there
b) Meet the last weekend of Feb, or first of March, depending on the school's preference. This can be a campus game.

When the NIT ends, the NCAA starts.

Teams that unexpectedly do well in the NIT get a boost in NCAA value and the NIT would hopefully knock out the made-for-ESPN 'bracket buster' games that are so lame.

[timmynausea]

To me what's fun about the tournament is the first weekend when it seems like anything is possible. I see expansion adding two more days of that. But I think there are some misconceptions.

The teams added to the field would not be "worse" than the 15 or 16 seeds we have now, as some people seem to assume. Resume-wise, those auto bid teams from tiny leagues would still be the worst and we'd see a bunch of top 50-100 rpi teams added to the field that otherwise would've been left on the bubble. The distinction to be made here is that it's not like Kansas is going to play a 32 seed now or something. The level of competition when we got to the field of 64 would actually likely be slightly stronger than it is now, based on the notion that the best of those bottom 32 would advance and some of the sub-.500 teams that got on a roll and won their conference tournaments would get eliminated.

So let's assume that what this adds is 32 games on Tuesday and Wednesday with the normal 64 tournament kicking off on Thursday and Friday as usual. We're essentially talking about play-in games for all of the seeds from 9 on down and the top 8 seeds getting a bye. So we might see Louisville (rpi 37) take on Lehigh (rpi 151) for the right to play an 8-seed in the round of 64. A team that missed out, Rhode Island (rpi 40), could take on Minnesota (rpi 62), one of the last handful to earn at large bids, to prove who deserves the 11th seed on the court, etc.

So just to illustrate my point, here are the RPI ratings of the 14-16 seeds:

14 - Ohio (93)
14 - Sam Houston State (70)
14 - Montana (97)
14 - Oakland (52)
15 - Robert Morris (129)
15 - North Texas (104)
15 - Morgan State (103)
15 - UC Santa Barbara (95)
16 - Lehigh (151)
16 - E. Tenn. St. (122)
16 - Arkansas Pine-Bluff (181)
16 - Vermont (118)

And the top 12 teams left out, which would now get a chance to play their way into the field of 64:

Rhode Island (40)
Wichita State (43)
UAB (45)
Kent State (46)
Memphis (53)
Miss. St. (54)
Dayton (55)
William & Mary (58)
Virginia Tech (59)
Seton Hall (60)
Ole Miss (61)
Arizona State (63)

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

And the top 12 teams left out, which would now get a chance to play their way into the field of 64:

Rhode Island (40)
Wichita State (43)
UAB (45)
Kent State (46)
Memphis (53)
Miss. St. (54)
Dayton (55)
William & Mary (58)
Virginia Tech (59)
Seton Hall (60)
Ole Miss (61)
Arizona State (63)

Stop trying to butter me up!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

2) Make the NIT a truly national tournament by starting it the last weekend in November with 256 teams. 512 would work, but I don't see where all of them would come from.

3) That first weekend in November cuts the field to 128. The next NIT round is Christmas week. These would be morphs of the Christmas tournaments that currently exist. The first round winners form groups of four, all of whom go to Hawaii or PR or Disney World, for example, and play two games and now you're down to 32 teams.

4) The next NIT round is MLK weekend in mid-January. Eight groups of four teams at convention cities and now you are down to eight teams.

5) The next round is President's Day weekend in February. Eight teams go to one site and play two games each to get down to the final two, who either:

a) play the final right there
b) Meet the last weekend of Feb, or first of March, depending on the school's preference. This can be a campus game.

When the NIT ends, the NCAA starts.

Teams that unexpectedly do well in the NIT get a boost in NCAA value and the NIT would hopefully knock out the made-for-ESPN 'bracket buster' games that are so lame.

You realize of course that this scheme loses money for most of the people stuck with hosting these matchups not of their own choosing right?

And that a host of first round matchups with dozens of blowouts (as #1 meets #256) has virtually no TV appeal so it can't even generate much revenue to help cover the costs (notice how relatively few of the holiday tournaments get any TV already?)

And we haven't even touched on what this does to both the regular season scheduling for every team involved (since they do not know how many games they'll have in this hypothetical tournament) and how it disrupts conference play.

In short, this is just silly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

And the top 12 teams left out, which would now get a chance to play their way into the field of 64:

Rhode Island (40)
Wichita State (43)
UAB (45)
Kent State (46)
Memphis (53)
Miss. St. (54)
Dayton (55)
William & Mary (58)
Virginia Tech (59)
Seton Hall (60)
Ole Miss (61)
Arizona State (63)

At most only 1-2 of which had any business being anywhere near the NCAA
tournament. Not exactly a selling point there chief.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At most only 1-2 of which had any business being anywhere near the NCAA
tournament. Not exactly a selling point there chief.

Playing Devil's Advocate here (because I find timmy's argument interesting and because I just like talking about this stuff) - in theory this setup gives you the 64 best teams and the auto-qualifiers. Rather than what you have now - which is around the 50 or so best team, and then the auto-qualifiers.

you essentially wipe-out the auto-qualifiers with mid-seed teams, potentially making for more compelling matchups at 64 teams.

I'll be honest, I never fully thought out how this would work. Pretty much thought of it as a 1 going vs. a really low seed. Timmy's argument, imo, has some interesting merit.

I still would prefer keeping it at 65, but...

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

96 teams are way too much, but I am not against the idea of making Tuesday a "play in" day with four games featuring the eight lowest seeded teams, so that there is a play in winner for each #1. This would add three more at large spots and give the play in gameday more of an oomph because there would be more games.

I came into the thread to post this thought as well.

Why is there only one play-in game? And why in the world did Kansas (the overall #1 seed) not play the winner of the play-in game instead of Duke? Since in theory the play in teams are #64 and #65 in the bracket, they should have played the overall #1.

But beyond that, they should just make it even and symmetrical by adding 3 more play in games. It just makes sense to use baby steps for expansion, and this is the logical way to do it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

you essentially wipe-out the auto-qualifiers with mid-seed teams, potentially making for more compelling matchups at 64 teams.

Then do that, I won't complain.

But not at the expense of an additional round of games for so-so teams.

[Mustang]

No. I'm against it because

1. I like it the way it is
2. It is just about money. I won't buy the whole competitive angle if the NCAA dishes it out because they care about better competition in the basketball tournament and not football? No.. its just about money.

If anything, I'd rather have them be more up front about what teams might need to do to make the tournament. Be up front. Just say - Ok Mississippi State, you need to win out to get in or have Minnesota lose by the 2nd round of their tournament.

And do away with this 64/65 play-in bullshit matchup. It is the equivalent of having two 5 year olds arm wrestle at the small table setup at Thanksgiving to determine who can sit at the big table with the adults.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Why is there only one play-in game? And why in the world did Kansas (the overall #1 seed) not play the winner of the play-in game instead of Duke? Since in theory the play in teams are #64 and #65 in the bracket, they should have played the overall #1.

That took a little digging to find but apparently the play-in winner is assigned to face the highest seeded team scheduled to play on Friday, which therefore eliminated Kansas & Kentucky as possible opponents for #65.

[Warhammer]

But I don't want to see teams that had a chance to prove they belonged and didn't during the regular season have another shot to get in. The Ohios, ETSUs, and Robert Morrises of the world deserve their shot.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That took a little digging to find but apparently the play-in winner is assigned to face the highest seeded team scheduled to play on Friday, which therefore eliminated Kansas & Kentucky as possible opponents for #65.

Is there some reason that Kansas and Kentucky couldn't have played on Friday?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Is there some reason that Kansas and Kentucky couldn't have played on Friday?

Yes, that was the reason Duke got to play the play-in winner. KU was the #1 seed overall and got to play in the Midwest as a reward. The #1 seed in the Midwest was scheduled to play on Thursday/Saturday.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Is there some reason that Kansas and Kentucky couldn't have played on Friday?

Hmm ... the dates for each host site are pre-determined months in advance (see this link from August that includes dates)

Kansas played in Oklahoma City, the most geographical location for them (closest Friday to them looks like Milwaukee), so I suppose that eliminated them from a Friday game.

As for Kentucky, I could see where Jacksonville (Fri) would have made as much sense as New Orleans (Thu) but NO doesn't make as much sense for Duke as Jax does, so I imagine either that or some rule I can't find about having the 1 & 2 overall play on the same day dictated Kentucky's eventual placement.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then do that, I won't complain.

But not at the expense of an additional round of games for so-so teams.

I understand your point, but...

I personally think the auto-bids are part of the charm in the tourney - so I'd hate to see them go away. If you eliminate the autobids and it becomes even MORE heavily dominated by high-majors, I think you lose a lot of your audience.

That's the thing. I feel like the 96 teams thing is a "fixing what ain't broke" situation.

If they do it, I hope it fails miserably from a financial perspective.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At most only 1-2 of which had any business being anywhere near the NCAA
tournament. Not exactly a selling point there chief.

Results don't seem to agree with you. If you put any weight into the RPI system at all, you have to acknowledge that just about every one of these teams that "shouldn't be anywhere near the NCAA tournament" is a much better team than, oh, say, Murray State, Sam Houston State, Lehigh, Robert Morris, Ohio or Montana. And I don't think anyone sane could say those five teams don't belong in some form after the games they played yesterday.

So I would say he actually has a pretty good selling point there.

All that said, I still believe the tournament shouldn't be expanded beyond perhaps a field of 68.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

So let's assume that what this adds is 32 games on Tuesday and Wednesday with the normal 64 tournament kicking off on Thursday and Friday as usual. We're essentially talking about play-in games for all of the seeds from 9 on down and the top 8 seeds getting a bye. So we might see Louisville (rpi 37) take on Lehigh (rpi 151) for the right to play an 8-seed in the round of 64. A team that missed out, Rhode Island (rpi 40), could take on Minnesota (rpi 62), one of the last handful to earn at large bids, to prove who deserves the 11th seed on the court, etc.

This basically turns the tournament into a BCS conference tourney with a few stragglers from the Horizon, Moutain West, WAC, and WCC.

What makes the tournament so awesome is days like yesterday, go to 96 and we don't have those. It also makes the regular season and conference tournaments meaningless. There was a ton of energy in Seattle for the PAC 10 title game because of what was at stake, FFS I was at Hard Rock Cafe and they had the game on their TV's instead of the usual music videos. Go to 96 teams and none of that matters.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The Ohios, ETSUs, and Robert Morrises of the world deserve their shot.

Just devil's advocate here, but why exactly? Because they formed a weaker conference with other equally small schools in a relatively approximately similar geographical location?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

There was a ton of energy in Seattle for the PAC 10 title game because of what was at stake, FFS I was at Hard Rock Cafe and they had the game on their TV's instead of the usual music videos.

This year's tourney title game was the exception. Usually the league is much stronger, and the only thing the title game might affect is the seeding of the two teams involved.

This year, because of the unusual weakness of the Pac 10 this season, there was a distinct possibility that the loser (especially if it had been Washington) would not even make it into the tourney. And that's a lot more like smaller conferences, which probably have more exciting (if on a smaller scale) tourneys as a result.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Just devil's advocate here, but why exactly? Because they formed a weaker conference with other equally small schools in a relatively approximately similar geographical location?

They are all D1 schools and all should be treated equally. We obviously know that can only happen in a vacuum but the people making these decisions should think that way.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

This year's tourney title game was the exception. Usually the league is much stronger, and the only thing the title game might affect is the seeding of the two teams involved.

This year, because of the unusual weakness of the Pac 10 this season, there was a distinct possibility that the loser (especially if it had been Washington) would not even make it into the tourney. And that's a lot more like smaller conferences, which probably have more exciting (if on a smaller scale) tourneys as a result.

I agree, but I think it is a good example. Obviously the PAC 10 usualy gets way more bids, but even in CAA W&M would have been in for sure, or the SEC title game, or even the ACC game, or Virgina Tech losing in round 1 was no biggie, etc...

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Lathum

This basically turns the tournament into a BCS conference tourney with a few stragglers from the Horizon, Moutain West, WAC, and WCC.

What makes the tournament so awesome is days like yesterday, go to 96 and we don't have those.

I disagree. If Ohio can knock off Georgetown and Murray State can beat Vandy, either could beat Illinois in a play-in game. There'd be an extra two days of upsets and buzzer beaters that would essentially take the place of the NIT. In a year like this we might see a bunch of small conference schools pick up signature wins over name programs that are a little down like Louisville, Wake Forest, Memphis, UConn or even UNC if they made the cut.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

I disagree. If Ohio can knock off Georgetown and Murray State can beat Vandy, either could beat Illinois in a play-in game. There'd be an extra two days of upsets and buzzer beaters that would essentially take the place of the NIT. In a year like this we might see a bunch of small conference schools pick up signature wins over name programs that are a little down like Louisville, Wake Forest, Memphis, UConn or even UNC if they made the cut.

Nobody cares if Murray state beats Louisville on a Wednesday night play in game.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Nobody cares if Murray state beats Louisville on a Wednesday night play in game.

Murray State could then go on to beat Vandy.

My point was that it's silly to suggest that it eliminates the small conference schools. If they can pull upsets against top seeds, clearly they can pull upsets against bubble teams.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Murray State could then go on to beat Vandy.

My point was that it's silly to suggest that it eliminates the small conference schools. If they can pull upsets against top seeds, clearly they can pull upsets against bubble teams.

Two upsets in a row, how often does that really happen?

This whole argument is like an argument to improve bacon, it's perfect, why mess with it.

[Young Drachma]

Putting Together A 96-Team Bracket Articles

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Putting Together A 96-Team Bracket Articles

A 1-16 game of Duke vs. UConn might be worth watching.

Edit: And reading further down, another 1-16 of Kansas-UNC could be good, too.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Murray State could then go on to beat Vandy.

My point was that it's silly to suggest that it eliminates the small conference schools. If they can pull upsets against top seeds, clearly they can pull upsets against bubble teams.

Does anyone watch the current play in game? If not then why would people be interested in watching like five more of them? I honestly don't want to see Illinois play Rhode Island if it's solely for getting into the tournament. I know there will be some people, but I can't believe it's enough to warrant adding more games to a tournament that certainly isn't broken.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

They are all D1 schools and all should be treated equally. We obviously know that can only happen in a vacuum but the people making these decisions should think that way.

But they're not treated equally. Much weaker teams from weaker conferences can win an autoamtic bid while teams much better than they are are left home. And conference construction is somewhat arbitrary and/or more specifically tied to non-basketball reasons.

It was put up that these weaker teams deserve their spots, whereas much stronger teams in bigger conferences don't. Since the reason those spots exist is because of something as unrelated to basketball quality as conference construction, I think it's legit to question a statement that says those weaker conference teams "deserve" their spots.

I am having trouble agreeing that the arbitrary construction of conferences is the determining factor in "deserve" here.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Putting Together A 96-Team Bracket Articles

This is dreadful

Game 1 - No. 9 Wake Forest vs. No. 24 Jacksonville
Game 2 - No. 12 Cornell vs. No. 21 Montana
Game 3 - No. 13 Virginia Tech vs. No. 20 Northeastern
Game 4 - No. 16 Seton Hall vs. No. 17 Wofford

Cornell gets punished with a play in game? Va Tech, beat the worst team in your league in the conference tourny, Seton Hall is a mess and was a no show in the NIT.

Game 1 – No. 15 Wichita State vs. No.18 William & Mary
Game 2 – No. 10 Missouri vs. No. 23 East Tennessee State
Game 3 – No. 11 Washington vs. No. 22 Morgan State
Game 4 – No. 14 UAB vs. No. 19 Illinois State

PAC 10 champs have a play in game? A bunch of mid majors who didn't win their conference tournaments? The 3rd place finisher in Conference USA?

Game 1 – No. 9 Louisville vs. No. 24 Stony Brook
Game 2 – No. 12 Utah State vs. No. 21 Weber State
Game 3 – No. 13 Arizona State vs. No.20 Robert Morris
Game 4 – No. 16 UConn vs. No. 17 Siena

A UCONN team with no buisness being in post season play? Arizona St who couldn't beat Stanford when it mattered then lost to Jacksonville? Stony Brook? Weber State? Are they realy at large teams?

Game 1 – No. 15 Dayton vs. No. 18 Tulsa
Game 2 – No. 10 St. Mary’s vs. No. 23 Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Game 3 – No. 11 Old Dominion vs. No. 22 Winthrop
Game 4 – No. 14 Rhode Island vs. No. 19 Sam Houston State

Tulsa, the 5th team in Conference USA? ODU gets punished with a play in game?


TBH these games look terrible and would completely water down the product. All I would be thinking would be can we get to Thursday already.

[Lathum]

dola- I would also mention with this proposal it completely removes accountability for teams with regards to regular season performance.

UCONN, Arizona St, Illinois, Seton Hall, Rhode Island, etc... would all be in despite dreadful performances at times

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Lathum

TBH these games look terrible and would completely water down the product. All I would be thinking would be can we get to Thursday already.

But the truth is that the amount of time from Selection Sunday to Thursday would still be the same, and the product, starting on Thursday, would still be identical. If anything, you can make a pretty good case that it'd be a slightly better product (starting on Thursday) as the field of 64 could be slightly improved by the play-in process.

Aside from that, it's two days of basketball.

[Chief Rum]

Lathum, potato, potAto. I see value in those games. They would interest me. I don't think they completely devalue the regular season or the conference tournaments. I would enjoy another day of exciting tournament basketball, like an extended first weekend.

Just because you're of these opinions, doesn't mean they're facts. You may not watch them. But others probably will.

My guess is, before the tourney was expanded the last time, people made similar arguments about games we consider key and important now, like 5 vs 12 or 6 vs 11; etc.

FTR, I like the tourney as is, and I am for it staying as it is now, or maybe just adding three more play in games to even out the one seed doormat opponents.

That said, all of your arguments I have seen really come down to your opinion. Not everyone's going to agree with that.

[wade moore]

FWIW - I don't think that mid-major and low-major conference auto-bids "deserve" to be there, I just think it's plain more fun with those teams there.

[wade moore]

Also - one minor point of annoyance.

In a 96 team setup, you don't have play-in games.

You have 32 teams with byes.

[KWhit]

But the lower seeded teams that had to play on Tuesday or Wednesday would have a lesser shot of beating a rested team that had a bye. I think you'd get fewer upsets of favored teams on Thursday and Friday because of this. Which would suck. That's the whole beauty of the tournament.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by KWhit

But the lower seeded teams that had to play on Tuesday or Wednesday would have a lesser shot of beating a rested team that had a bye. I think you'd get fewer upsets of favored teams on Thursday and Friday because of this. Which would suck. That's the whole beauty of the tournament.

The top 4 teams in the Big East tournament had a double bye. Only one of the top 4 teams won in their first game.

[Lathum]

I agree it is all opinion CR. It wasn't my intention to pass it off as fact.

[Mike1409]

No!

The beauty of the tourney is the first 2 days.

Catching a big team not ready for the mid major or small auto qualifier.

Change this and now you are sending Ohio to play on Tuesday and win to get the chance to play Georgetown on Thursday.

Robert Morris wins and is now tired and they don't take Villanova to OT.

Now all the big teams get easier first round wins, and more get to say they make the tourney.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I think the overall excitement of yesterday's games is really prettying up the idea of an expanded tournament. Not every game is going to end up like Murray State-Vanderbilt. Drop 32 more teams into it and you'll likely end up with a bunch of Kentucky-ETSU games that nobody gives half a crap about. It's all speculation, obviously, but there would be years with mostly good games and years with mostly bad games. Personally, I don't think it's worth it to throw 32 more teams in there on the chance that a few early-round games will be dramatic.

If you want to see 32 more teams, exactly which 32 teams are you trying to add? Mid-majors? Minor conference teams? Or the big boys who couldn't even finish .500 in their conference? We're not far off from a power conference putting 9 or 10 teams into the tournament. I'm sure some could argue that that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it just starts getting silly to me.

[molson]

Maybe they should get rid of the tournament and institute bowl games.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I agree it is all opinion CR. It wasn't my intention to pass it off as fact.

Yeah, I think I came on too strong there. It was probably in response to the certainty of your argument, which is certainly not a flaw.

No, I was just pointing out that, while it may not work for you and for others who are of your opinion, the question is, does it work for enough people for such an arrangement to make th NCAAs a good chunk more cash, and where not everyone would consider those early games a joke or a devaluation of the regular season or the tourney. And my guess is that there will be enough fans of it to make it work.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe they should get rid of the tournament and institute bowl games.

At least in that case, East Tennessee State might be matched up against someone they could actually beat.

[lynchjm24]

I can't believe that there are 7 yes votes.

[dwardzala]

I don't think they should expand the tourney. They should get rid of the play in game.

But, most importantly, they should standardize the criteria for awarding at large bids, whether it be RPI, conference record, strength of schedule, color of uniforms or whatever, standardize and publish it.

Last year, SOS and # of games won in your conference tourney weren't as important as overall record and conference record. Next year, who knows what the committee is going to think is important.

I also think that the committee members should not be affiliated in an official capacity with any schools or conferences to completely eliminate any possible appearance of impropriety (not saying there actually is any).

Of course all these things put Lunardi and Dobbs out of job, so I don't expect it to happen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

the question is, does it work for enough people for such an arrangement to make th NCAAs a good chunk more cash, and where not everyone would consider those early games a joke or a devaluation of the regular season or the tourney.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Case in point might well be the minor bowl games, which I watch at about the same frequency as the average BCS bowl but will still acknowledge the lax nature of the matchup itself. We watch because we're bored, or because it's on, or because it beats the alternatives, not because we're overly compelled by it.

The same seems likely to occur with a watered down NCAA tournament, we'll still watch in similar numbers for at least the main rounds (I suspect this arrangement will actually drive down ratings a bit for the R64 as well) we just won't see the same passion about it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dwardzala

But, most importantly, they should standardize the criteria for awarding at large bids, whether it be RPI, conference record, strength of schedule, color of uniforms or whatever, standardize and publish it.
... Of course all these things put Lunardi and Dobbs out of job, so I don't expect it to happen.

So essentially take the human element out of it entirely?

Gosh, almost sounds like the BCS rankings.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But they're not treated equally. Much weaker teams from weaker conferences can win an autoamtic bid while teams much better than they are are left home. And conference construction is somewhat arbitrary and/or more specifically tied to non-basketball reasons.

And much weaker teams don't have the opportunity to play regular season games at home against major schools to raise their profile. So yes, it is unfair that a team from the SWAC gets in every year while an Illinois does not. But at the same time, that team from the SWAC has no chance at getting any power 6 school to play in their gym all year. I think it evens out in the end.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It was put up that these weaker teams deserve their spots, whereas much stronger teams in bigger conferences don't. Since the reason those spots exist is because of something as unrelated to basketball quality as conference construction, I think it's legit to question a statement that says those weaker conference teams "deserve" their spots.

I am having trouble agreeing that the arbitrary construction of conferences is the determining factor in "deserve" here.

Deserve is probably a bad term. Honestly, outside of the top 16 teams, no one else has a legitimate shot at the Championship. So basically teams 17-65 don't "deserve" to be in this tournament. But it makes it more fun to have those other teams. And to be honest, D1 basketball is much better when all teams know they have a shot at the tournament rather than just the power 6. You can't tell me that Davidson's run a few years ago wasn't a ton of fun. Or Adam Morrison and Gonzaga. I'd rather see that then the 13th best team in the Big East get knocked out in the 2nd round.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You realize of course that this scheme loses money for most of the people stuck with hosting these matchups not of their own choosing right?

And that a host of first round matchups with dozens of blowouts (as #1 meets #256) has virtually no TV appeal so it can't even generate much revenue to help cover the costs (notice how relatively few of the holiday tournaments get any TV already?)

And we haven't even touched on what this does to both the regular season scheduling for every team involved (since they do not know how many games they'll have in this hypothetical tournament) and how it disrupts conference play.

In short, this is just silly.

It is probably not a realistic, but I think it would be amazingly fun. I wouldn't seed it though and instead do it like the FA Cup in soccer. Throw all the teams into a drum and pull out the names (I know that's not exactly how it's done but close). Duke may have to play Savannah State on the road or they may get matched up against Kansas in the first round. Just a fun tournament that would be an absolute blast to follow. Would also give some more information on resumes as many of these power 6 schools are too pussy to play on the road.