Expand by 4 or 8 teams

Quote:

---

The models would expand the 68-team field to 72 or 76 teams, with additional at-large selections as well as at least one additional First Four site. Any expansion would begin, at earliest, in the 2025-26 season. If the men's event expands, the women's tournament is likely to undergo a similar expansion.

---

Method Man said:

---

I'm for adding four teams but play in games are to 21 with twos and threes and no running clock.

---

the two head coaches have to play to 21 with "no blood, no foul" rules.

taylorswift13_ said:

---

I hate when they make a 16 seed who won their tourney play in a play-in game, and somehow the random big 10 team with a near losing record gets to play the first weekend

---

I don't like giving worse seeds better draws...

bobinator said:

---

I'm fine with expanding it by four teams. If you're going to have play-in games for two of the 16 seeds and two of the 11/12 seeds you might as well have play-ins in all four brackets.

Although I'd be a little more radical with it. The new play-in games wouldn't be for 16 seeds. In my mind the 16 seeds have earned their way into the field. So kill off the 16-seed play-in games and make all four of the play-ins for the last eight at-large teams in the field.

Those teams are all mediocre and didn't earn their way in by winning a conference championship, so put them all against each other in a mid-week bubble play-in series.

---

Those teams actually play teams better than high school level. They earned it far more than West Lafayette Tech who's best win is likely Northeast Central Mississippi Trade School.

Put a 16 or 15 vs 8 at-large for play in games and let's watch as 15 and 16's bat less than .100

If they can't beat an at large, they didn't deserve to be there. Now the at large moves on and plays a 1 or 2.

bobinator said:

---

So kill off the 16-seed play-in games and make all four of the play-ins for the last eight at-large teams in the field.

Those teams are all mediocre and didn't earn their way in by winning a conference championship, so put them all against each other in a mid-week bubble play-in series.

---

Agree.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Lets just expand it to 300 teams. Participation trophies for everyone!

---

Don't forget to break up the teams into 2-3 divisions and a separate champion per division.

No matter how many times you claim the auto bids earned their way in doesn't make it so. Like I said, if you're so confident, then put them all up against tge at large teams. You say that's against the spirit while weirdly being ok seeing them face 1 seeds. To me, it's perfect. Bottom feeder conference auto bids have no business being on the same court as a true title contender. In fact, they have less business than an at large who likely had played competitively and maybe even beaten a title contender along the way. So let the happy to be there auto bids play the last in at large bids. They have a far better chance at winning a game than they do playing a top seed. And we get to see a true shakeout of the fluff at the bottom and the fluff in the middle. Winner gets to go on and play the seeds they always would have. NCAA gets their expanded tournament.

bobinator said:

---

If you don't think winning your conference tournament to sure an automatic bid is "earning" your way in then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And I'm obviously not saying the 15-16 seeds are as good as the at-large teams, they obviously aren't. But the magic of this tournament isn't about it being the 64 best teams. People love it because the small schools get their chance to take down a giant and sometimes they do it.

Although this goes back to what I said last year about the 16-seed play-ins, I think it should be up to those conferences what to do. Do they prefer one winnable game in Dayton before playing the 1 seed or would they rather have the whole week to prepare for the 1 seed? I honestly don't know.

---

They earned it less than the at large teams that actually had to compete against high level competition. I'm ok with them being there. But they shouldn't get guaranteed more than a play in game. So to me, it's perfect letting creampuffs who shouldn't be there compete against mediocre battle tested teams to determine who gets to actually be there. If all 15's and 16's played 8 at larges in play in games, I'd bet you'd have 3-5 15's or 16's make it through every single year. And that will have been fully earned.

Simply put… March Madness is one of the best and most beautiful sporting events ever, stop trying to change it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How would that even work though? Would they play in as 11/12 seeds?

Quote:

---

"I want to see the best teams competing for a national championship, no different than [the Big Ten and SEC] want to see in football," Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark told Yahoo Sports in February. "I'm not sure that is currently happening."

---

What? The best team does win; it's asinine to believe that the best team doesn't win the tournament.

The only thing that expanding the field will do is potentially provide more upsets, but that will depend on how they propose to expand the tournament. I'm pretty sure, all the big conferences are proposing a field increase because they want to ensure more teams from their conference make the tournament.

They're talking about adding more games during the play-in games and I'm thinking that if they add too many teams too fast, the tournament might be a watered down version of what it is now.

I honestly think that with conference realignment on the horizon, they should pump the brakes on field expansion until we see how that will impact the tournament selection.

Yeah it's just about wanting more money. A mild expansion makes sense to me because you already have a few play in games, there's no real difference in expanding it to make every bracket have play in games.

But I also don't think it's asinine to believe that the best team doesn't win the tournament. The best team in recent memory didn't win it, for example, (2015 Kentucky.) But that's not what he's really saying anyway.

But it's the same reason they're expanding the World Cup. More games, more TV inventory, more ads, more money. That's literally the only reason. And honestly, in this new era where players are going to be paid, it's hard to blame them. Everyone wants as many income streams as possible.

I'd prefer they go back to 64. Too many teams that have not earned anything end up making the field anyway.

In the '85 season when the field expanded to 64 teams there were 282 D1 programs.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/men/1985-ratings.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_tournament

There are 351 D1 teams now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_programs

So as long as they invite 79 or less it should still be more exclusive than back in the day when the shot clock was instituted.

https://fansided.com/posts/college-basketball-shot-clock-rules-how-is-it-different-from-nba-changes-and-more-01hsf2f448kq#

The % of teams argument is pretty disingenuous though. Basically every single team added to D1 since that time is a low-major program with no shot outside of their conference auto bid. Adding teams to the tournament based on that % isn't adding anyone from that group or providing more access for them. It would simply be allowing more mediocre power conference teams into the field because the TAMU-Commerce's of the world decided they wanted to be D1.

bobinator said:

---

How would that even work though? Would they play in as 11/12 seeds?

---

Don't seed them. Leave 15 and 16 blank. That's 8 spots. 8 tiny conference winners and 8 at large bubble teams. Duke it out for the 15 and 16 seeds.

You want the 1/2 seeds to play power conference teams in the first round? That would absolutely never happen.

bobinator said:

---

You want the 1/2 seeds to play power conference teams in the first round? That would absolutely never happen.

---

Solid point. Throws a wrench in my idea.

Topher17 said:

---

The % of teams argument is pretty disingenuous though. Basically every single team added to D1 since that time is a low-major program with no shot outside of their conference auto bid. Adding teams to the tournament based on that % isn't adding anyone from that group or providing more access for them. It would simply be allowing more mediocre power conference teams into the field because the TAMU-Commerce's of the world decided they wanted to be D1.

---

Fair enough.

Conferences were allowed 2 teams starting in '75 (2nd ranked USC was left out in '71 because UCLA was No. 1, and other unthinkable travesties today) - that's when it expanded to 32 teams.

40 in 1979.

48 in 1980.

51 in 1983.

64 in 1985.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_tournament

But we can't expand further because the 70 or so schools added to Div. 1 since 1985 aren't in the majors?

Indiana St. and St. John's would have been fun. Drake may have slipped in. We went from 25 to 64 teams in the space of 10 years to make sure all the power conference haves with a pulse got an invite for audience/television reasons. It seems a little disingenuous now to say that if we expand it more it's going to be too watered down because a few more meh major conference teams may get in with the have nots. We're satiated as far as the haves.

At some point they'll ruin it. NCAA is too stupid to just accept free greatness.

They should get rid of the play in games and go back to 64. Make a good plan to go to 8 play ins and 72 teams. Then when a team seeded 9 or lower wins the tournament, put it into action for 2 years later.