Expanding the Field, Increase the Madness - article

[FoxPerez]

http://tinyurl.com/cjv4au

"I want to expand the tournament field.

I love the play-in game, but I think they're getting it wrong because it's the only part of March Madness that nobody cares about. Think I'm wrong? When you ask the person running your office pool when brackets I due, I guarantee you that 99.9% of the country's brackets are due Wednesday night or Thursday morning before the games start. Because nobody cares about Tuesday's play-in game. The game is always between two teams that you've never heard of on their way to a loss against a Number 1 seed. No 16 seed has ever beaten a 1 seed in the history of the tournament.


Here's a way to make it more exciting: http://tinyurl.com/cjv4au

[FoxPerez]

Expand the tournament by 3!

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Adding one more round would get an extra 64 teams (minus the play in games) in the tourney. With well over 300 colleges playing ball that still allow for a lot of good matchup and give a lot more of the mid-level conferences a shot at the post season. They said only 4 bids went to at-large teams outside of the big 6 this year. That's just not right.

[FoxPerez]

Read the article. I didn't say add a round. I said, add three teams to the field and have a play-in game for every region.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Read the article. I didn't say add a round. I said, add three teams to the field and have a play-in game for every region.

I'd add another round before I'd create three additional play-in games. I'm not sure what that really does besides give the one seeds an extra team to potentially crush. A play in game is for the worst conferences to get a chance that they normally wouldn't get.

The bigger issue with the tournament concerns teams like San Diego State that had an RPI in the 30's, play in a decent conference, and end up playing in the NIT.

[j-6]

I'd add another round before I'd create three additional play-in games. I'm not sure what that really does besides give the one seeds an extra team to potentially crush. A play in game is for the worst conferences to get a chance that they normally wouldn't get.

The bigger issue with the tournament concerns teams like San Diego State that had an RPI in the 30's, play in a decent conference, and end up playing in the NIT.

I'd just take an at-large bid away and return this to 64 teams. For most people, filling out the brackets and having Cinderellas emerge is what makes the tourney exciting. It sucks that teams like Saint Mary's and SDSU have to play in the NIT while Arizona and Maryland get bids, but as we've learned from the BCS, the NCAA thrives on controversy. Besides, someone's always going to be butthurt as long as at-larges are available, whether it's 64, 65, 68, or 128 teams that get invites.

[FoxPerez]

The winners of the play-in games wouldn't play the #1 seed, they'd play the 5-seed. And automatic bids would be ineligible for the play-in games. Imagine if St. Mary's was playing San Diego St. in a play-in game tonight. You'd watch that!

[K-State Spur]

Adding one more round would get an extra 64 teams (minus the play in games) in the tourney. With well over 300 colleges playing ball that still allow for a lot of good matchup and give a lot more of the mid-level conferences a shot at the post season. They said only 4 bids went to at-large teams outside of the big 6 this year. That's just not right.

there are enough mediocre teams in the dance already. my cats were a bubble team this year and i have no problem saying that we had no business competing for the national title.

i'd be alright with 3 additional play-in games (make it a tuesday night event in Dayton as opposed to just one meaningless game), but an extra round is completely unnecessary....except to a few whiny coaches who want to keep their jobs.

[FoxPerez]

Thank you K-State Spur! K! S! YOOOOOOOOO! WILDCATS!

[Extra Stout]

They said only 4 bids went to at-large teams outside of the big 6 this year. That's just not right.

There are two reasons for that:

1) Representatives from the six major conferences collude with one another to stack their own teams on the bracket, so they can control as much of the money as possible, similar to what they do with the BCS.

2) National viewership of tournament games is not what it used to be, so CBS depends more on the regional audiences interested in specific teams. The big schools in major conferences have more fans than schools in mid-majors do.

[NFGIII]

Though I understand how you feel about the excitement this tourney creates I think the format as it stands is just fine. Too much of a good thing usually leads to abuse. In this case it would just be too much. Getting to the tourney should be a honor and a result of a winning season. I don't want to see marginal teams make it just becasue the NCAA and their respective schools want to make more money. Look at what has happened in pro sports as well as the NCAA football bowls. They keep expanding so as to sell more tickets. No NCAA football team should go to a bowl game with 7 -6 record. That's barely above .500 and don't get me started on the fact that many teams play 12 to 13 games a year now, too.

I'm concerned with over exposure as well as the concept of the student-athlete. But I pretty much know I'm in the minority on this subject.

[FoxPerez]

Thanks NFGIII. Appreciate the comments. If the tournament ever did expand by three in the ways I wrote about, I think it would make things more interesting and exciting without that "bowl season" feel to it. Hopefully it wouldn't become an avalanche leading to an extra round. I agree that an extra round is going way too far. I like to think my way is far more reasonable.