Coaches want to expand the NCAA Tourney to 128

coachouert · Post by **coachouert** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:03 am

Some coaches are going to be pushing for an expansion of the total field in the NCAA Men's and Women's Tournaments at the committee meetings coming up.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2500025

I don't see it happening anytime soon, but I personally wouldn't be opposed to allowing some more teams in at some point. I think 128 may be a bit too much though.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:23 am

They only want to do this because they feel that mid-majors are taking away spots from teams that they feel deserve to be in, like the #5 team in the SEC or something. The motives behind this move are just more exposure for big schools and less for us.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:22 pm

CelticCat wrote:They only want to do this because they feel that mid-majors are taking away spots from teams that they feel deserve to be in, like the #5 team in the SEC or something. The motives behind this move are just more exposure for big schools and less for us.

Too true...

Swilly3224 · Post by **Swilly3224** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:50 pm

CelticCat wrote:They only want to do this because they feel that mid-majors are taking away spots from teams that they feel deserve to be in, like the #5 team in the SEC or something. The motives behind this move are just more exposure for big schools and less for us.

I would have to agree with them, some of the bigger school get snubbed and some of the conference winners are a complete joke.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:49 am

There are enough spots for at-large bids. If a team fails to make the tourney, fix the selection commitee so that the right team(s) get in. If a team can't get enough wins to get in maybe that team just doesn't deserve to be in the tourney.

whitetrashgriz · Post by **whitetrashgriz** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:40 am

one could easily make an argument for both sides of this. while i think 128 teams is a little far fetched, i think it is a little close-minded,(especially as cat fans) to think that the 65 that get in are always the best team. and even though i love the big sky, the fact remains that we are still "small time", and i would think that 2nd or 3rd place in a conference like the ACC, Big Ten, or SEC, would have an argument when they see the conference champs of tiny schools getting in. in the same way that we like to tell griz fans that they only made the playoffs in football because they had a soft schedule that inclded a d-2 team, that must be what it's like when a team plays a schedule that includes duke, carolina, syracuse, texas, and gonzaga, but fails to make the dance, yet eastern washington university could be dancing because they won their conference. it's not really right. there are too many very good teams out there, and due to location, confernece, and scheduling, many fall under the radar, and miss their shot of the big dance.

Billings Cat · Post by **Billings Cat** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:44 am

whitetrashgriz wrote:one could easily make an argument for both sides of this. while i think 128 teams is a little far fetched, i think it is a little close-minded,(especially as cat fans) to think that the 65 that get in are always the best team. and even though i love the big sky, the fact remains that we are still "small time", and i would think that 2nd or 3rd place in a conference like the ACC, Big Ten, or SEC, would have an argument when they see the conference champs of tiny schools getting in. in the same way that we like to tell griz fans that they only made the playoffs in football because they had a soft schedule that inclded a d-2 team, that must be what it's like when a team plays a schedule that includes duke, carolina, syracuse, texas, and gonzaga, but fails to make the dance, yet eastern washington university could be dancing because they won their conference. it's not really right. there are too many very good teams out there, and due to location, confernece, and scheduling, many fall under the radar, and miss their shot of the big dance.

But the 2nd or 3rd place teams from the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC are always getting into the tournament, it's the 5th through 8th place teams that sometimes aren't getting an at-large bid at this point that the big-time conferences are upset about. I just looked at the top ranked teams that didn't get in this last year from the SEC, Big 10, Big East, PAC 10, ACC, and Big 12, and based on what follows, I don't think that there is a compelling argument that the big-time conferences aren't getting enough teams in:

SEC
Pro: South Carolina, the 5th place team in the SEC East, won the NIT for the second year in a row.
Con: Arkansas, the 2nd place team in the SEC West, lost in the opening round of the NCAA Tournament to Bucknell from the Patriot League

Big 10
Pro: Michigan, the 6th place team in the Big 10, advanced to the NIT championship game before falling to South Carolina.
Con: Michigan State, who tied Michigan for 6th place in the Big 10, lost in the opening round of the NCAA Tournament to George Mason from the Colonial Athletic Conference.

Big East
Pro: Cincinnati, the 8th place team in the Big East, went 2-1 in the NIT.
Con: Seton Hall, the 7th place team in the Big East, lost in the opening round of the NCAA Tournament to Wichita State from the Missouri Valley Conference.

PAC 10
Con: Stanford, the 5th place team in the PAC 10, lost in the second round of the NIT to Missouri State out of the Missouri Valley Conference

ACC
Pro: Florida State, the 5th place team in the ACC, won their first game in the NIT before losing to eventual champion South Carolina

Big 12
Con: Colorado, the 5th place team in the Big 12, lost in the opening round of the NIT to Old Dominion from the Colonial Athletic Conference

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:22 am

Another compelling argument and one I'm sure we'll read much more about in the coming years is this: Mickey Mouse and his holdings also known as ABC/ESPN just lost the BCS Bowls to that other network--Fox so they're going to have to come up with something to recoup their losses. Makes sense for them to gamble on an expanded NCAA basketball tournament and lobby for that to happen. Just don't think they're capable right now of giving equal exposure to the women's tournament.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:46 am

As others have noted, I agree that if the field was expanded, we'd see no more mid-majors in the tourney and would instead simply see every single team from every major conference in the dance.

It would further marginalize the mid-majors and give almost every major conference team a free ride into the tourny.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:05 am

I would prefer to see a rule that states if you don't finish in the top 1/2 of your conference you don't get in period! With some of the power conference up 16 or more teams it is silly to debate if the 9th or 10th place team should make it into the tourney.

tetoncat · Post by **tetoncat** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:10 pm

I think that is a great idea that you need to finish in the top 1/2. I would also add that conference champs getting auto bids get seeded 13 or higher. I know there will be some better teams than some of the conference champs but really if you are 8th in a 16 team conference you should not get a high seed. This will also increase the ability of mid majors to win a few first round games. Always getting 14-16 seeds they will continue to get bounced out by the top 25 in the nation. This even happens to the power conference teams who are low in their conference and play a high seed right out of the gate.

GrizinWashington · Post by **GrizinWashington** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:58 pm

Cat Grad wrote:Another compelling argument and one I'm sure we'll read much more about in the coming years is this: Mickey Mouse and his holdings also known as ABC/ESPN just lost the BCS Bowls to that other network--Fox so they're going to have to come up with something to recoup their losses. Makes sense for them to gamble on an expanded NCAA basketball tournament and lobby for that to happen. Just don't think they're capable right now of giving equal exposure to the women's tournament.

Doesn't CBS still own the rights to the tournament?

GrizinWashington · Post by **GrizinWashington** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:01 pm

The whole idea is just terrible. A 16 has never beaten a one seed. How the hell is a 32nd seed going to do it?

The power conferences are more than represented. I, too, cannot understand how a team that finishes 17-14 and 6th in their own conference has a shot to play for the national championship. Goes against all reason.

bozbobcat · Post by **bozbobcat** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:16 pm

With 128 teams in the field, it makes me wonder how many of those will be the ninth place, 15-14, 5-11 conference record teams out of the power conferences versus a 20-8, 12-2 second seed in a smaller one. I think adding 3 more play-in "opening round" games would be a good addition.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:26 pm

GrizinWashington wrote:
Cat Grad wrote:Another compelling argument and one I'm sure we'll read much more about in the coming years is this: Mickey Mouse and his holdings also known as ABC/ESPN just lost the BCS Bowls to that other network--Fox so they're going to have to come up with something to recoup their losses. Makes sense for them to gamble on an expanded NCAA basketball tournament and lobby for that to happen. Just don't think they're capable right now of giving equal exposure to the women's tournament.
Doesn't CBS still own the rights to the tournament?

To the men's tournament--you're correct; however, one of the devil's advocates speaking against expanding the field queried this topic. Women are to receive equal billing and exposure (television wise, okay!).

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:32 pm

Looks like it will remain a field of 65 for now:

INDIANAPOLIS -- The NCAA's little guys could still get locked out of the most lucrative championship event in college sports -- even after George Mason's improbable tournament run last year.

On Thursday, the men's basketball committee announced it rejected a coaches' proposal to nearly double the size of the NCAA tournament field from 65 to 128, calling expansion unnecessary and not imminent.

It also voted down a more modest offer that would have added fewer than eight teams to the bracket and increasing the number of opening-round games in Dayton, Ohio.

"There is no enthusiasm on the part of the committee to expand the tournament at this time," Craig Littlepage, chairman of the men's basketball committee, said in a statement. "In the interest of sustaining the quality of the tournament, the committee has decided to maintain the current structure."

The women's committee, in an almost identical statement, also rejected expansion.

"The committee is committed to the growth of the game and the championship," chairwoman Joni Comstock said. "We will continue to work with membership groups to assess, identify and provide additional and equitable competition opportunities for women's basketball student-athletes."

Men's committee members considered information about the quality of competition, logistics, television ratings and the overall popularity of the event.

After meeting for five days, the 10 committee members determined the tournament would be best served by remaining at 65 teams.

Thursday's announcement ends, for now, a debate that Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim started during this year's Final Four.

Boeheim argued George Mason's tournament success was indicative of the parity in college basketball and argued more teams should be rewarded for strong seasons so eventual contenders are not left out.

At the time, Boeheim also said he supported increasing the number of teams by three to seven.

Last month, however, National Association of Basketball Coaches executive director Jim Haney told NCAA officials the coaches' group supported a bracket of 128 teams. One reason, Haney said, was that more postseason bids would provide coaches with greater job security.

But Haney acknowledged last week the proposal was unlikely to win committee approval this year. A message was left by The Associated Press at Haney's office following the announcement.

Coaches argue that since the last significant expansion, from 48 to 64 teams in 1985, the number of Division I teams has increased dramatically and that mid-major schools have become more competitive. A 65th team was added in 2001 when the number of automatic bids increased from 30 to 31.

They also cited George Mason's postseason success as an example of a team that could have easily been kept out of the tournament altogether but still managed to reach the Final Four.

Those arguments did not sway committee members.

One concern among NCAA officials is keeping the men's tournament and women's tournament, which has 64 teams, on similar formats.

This week's meetings marked the first time in several years expansion was even discussed, and the committee called it a worthy topic.

But the committee made no announcement about whether it would reconsider expansion again in the near future.