Your thoughts on 96 teams in the NCAA tournament

[Thegreatone]

It still would be pointless. Yeah you get to watch them compete against the best teams in the country, but the results aren't nearly as big of a problem as they would be now. 96 teams UC easily gets in this year, meaning what UC has done so far against the top teams is meaningless. Put it like this, do you think a team doing what UC has done has earned a spot to go for the national championship? UC has the talent to be able to play for it, but they haven't produced on the court. Yet you think they should reward that?

Thats the whole point of the regular season being meaningless. I think, unless they go with my idea of reg and post season champs get auto bids, it only helps the big power conferences. They would then have no reason to schedule decent OOC opponents. Thus making it nearly impossible for non power schools to improve year to year.

What about a school like Gonzaga. We would all be in their shoes. Or even X. They have no threat to not go to the tournament because they will easily get to 20 wins because of the conference. They seem to like it OK.

 

[Kingsley Court]

I'm not talking already established programs though. Say this set up was the same 20 or so years ago, it would have been very difficult for a school like Xavier, or Gonzaga to become the programs they are today. They could have won their conferences, gotten 20 wins or whatever, but if they wouldn't have been able to schedule good OOC opponets, they would never be ranked, they would not get decent seeds in the tournament. It would have been a lot tougher to get nationally known IMO. It took them years of success in order to get to these type of OOC schedules, but when 96 teams get into the tournament, whats the point of scheduling a team that would be considered good OOC team?

 

[Thegreatone]

I'm not talking already established programs though. Say this set up was the same 20 or so years ago, it would have been very difficult for a school like Xavier, or Gonzaga to become the programs they are today. They could have won their conferences, gotten 20 wins or whatever, but if they wouldn't have been able to schedule good OOC opponets, they would never be ranked, they would not get decent seeds in the tournament. It would have been a lot tougher to get nationally known IMO. It took them years of success in order to get to these type of OOC schedules, but when 96 teams get into the tournament, whats the point of scheduling a team that would be considered good OOC team?

How is that much different? Xavier runs through the A-10 every year. Gets a middle seed and makes it to the sweet 16 with some years falling short and some year going to Elite 8.

It is not like these teams have a chance at the National Title. Too many things work against them. FF, sure. That is not the goal though.

 

[Kingsley Court]

It's different because teams like Xavier can schedule good OOC opponents now. In the past they weren't able to because they weren't succesful enough. Now with success, they can schedule good OOC opponents because if they do lose to X, it's not a bad loss, they win it's a good win.

However, lets go back 10 years and say it's a 96 team field. X doesn't have the greatest OOC schedule, and even if they win the way they did, why would teams from power conferences bother to schedule them? There would be little incentive to do so. I think you would see teams schedule easy OOC opponents so that 500 in their conference gets them an invite. But, since a decent OOC schedule is needed these days, there is incentive to schedule a team like Xavier.

I'm not so sure we are understanding each other. For a team like Xavier these days, 96 teams doesn't hurt them. I'm talking about say a team like Richmond. I don't know that if in a 96 team field they would be able to get to the likes of Xavier and Gonzaga. Why would a power conference team schedule them, when they could schedule a team like America instead? I just think power conference teams would try and schedule ridiculously easy OOC schedules so they only have to be around 500 to get an invite to the 96 team tourney. If they can't get good OOC schedules, then it would hurt their possible seedings, and it would be tougher to get recruits.

 

[Thegreatone]

It's different because teams like Xavier can schedule good OOC opponents now. In the past they weren't able to because they weren't succesful enough. Now with success, they can schedule good OOC opponents because if they do lose to X, it's not a bad loss, they win it's a good win.

However, lets go back 10 years and say it's a 96 team field. X doesn't have the greatest OOC schedule, and even if they win the way they did, why would teams from power conferences bother to schedule them? There would be little incentive to do so. I think you would see teams schedule easy OOC opponents so that 500 in their conference gets them an invite. But, since a decent OOC schedule is needed these days, there is incentive to schedule a team like Xavier.

I'm not so sure we are understanding each other. For a team like Xavier these days, 96 teams doesn't hurt them. I'm talking about say a team like Richmond. I don't know that if in a 96 team field they would be able to get to the likes of Xavier and Gonzaga. Why would a power conference team schedule them, when they could schedule a team like America instead? I just think power conference teams would try and schedule ridiculously easy OOC schedules so they only have to be around 500 to get an invite to the 96 team tourney. If they can't get good OOC schedules, then it would hurt their possible seedings, and it would be tougher to get recruits.

I understand what you saying now.

As for power conferences not scheduling it already happens. Syracuse and Uconn already do that.

I personally hope UC doesn't play anyone in OOC. We have little to gain by it. If we win them all verse bad and say 1 or 2 fairly good teams we go into conference play 12-1 and ranked #18 and then go 9-9 and finish 21-10 with a SOS around 50 and RPI around 35.

Sounds like a tournament team to me.

 

[catsfan32]

I would think that by adding more teams, teams would be more inclined to play better competition during the season because the threat of a loss isnt as severe and you get to play a quality opponent. Thus in turn, strenghtening your teams for a deep tourney run. Isn't that what its all about, making a deep tourney run? I mean seriously why have a tourney of 64 if only a handful of teams actually can win the title?

 

[Kingsley Court]

Good point, never really looked at it from that angle. Either way, if NCAA goes to a 96 team field I would love if all regular and post season champs got bids to the tournament. If that didn't happen, I would hate the expansion. There would be far too many mediocre teams in the tournament.

 

[Not Guilty]

Good point, never really looked at it from that angle. Either way, if NCAA goes to a 96 team field I would love if all regular and post season champs got bids to the tournament. If that didn't happen, I would hate the expansion. There would be far too many mediocre teams in the tournament.

You would rather have more flat out bad teams in the tournament than mediocre ones?

 

[lumberjack]

I say go back to the 32 team field and make the tourney actually mean something. It would also give the NIT a huge boost, making it much more relevent again.
.500 teams, even in the BE shouldn't be playing for a national title. Sorry.
Also, the team who wins the conference during the year should be the one who goes, not the winner of the tourney. Why play all the games if they are meaningless? Just forget that, and go straight to the conference tournament?
Just my opinion.

t
Right on it as usual.

 

[HoffVir]

I like the current setup, bubbles teams are fighting to get in. If you expand the field too much that goes away (or at least the battle goes down the line to "lesser" teams) and the out of conference schedules get watered down even more.

On 1530 yesterday a caller suggested if there is to be expansion, only add 3 teams. This gets in 3 more bubble teams and balances the bracket (4 play in games to play each #1 seed).

 

[DontMissHim]

You would rather have more flat out bad teams in the tournament than mediocre ones?

The only reason I could agree with him is because with 96 teams you can afford to reward a regular season conference champ while keeping the excitment of the conference tournament. Also- I dont really think it would add that many teams, I would be surprised to see more then 6-8 each year (I think the reg. season champ of low-majors would win the conference tournament more often then not) A lot of mid-majors and def BCS conferences would get there reg season champ in regardless anyways.

 

[HoffVir]

I like the current setup, bubbles teams are fighting to get in. If you expand the field too much that goes away (or at least the battle goes down the line to "lesser" teams) and the out of conference schedules get watered down even more.

On 1530 yesterday a caller suggested if there is to be expansion, only add 3 teams. This gets in 3 more bubble teams and balances the bracket (4 play in games to play each #1 seed).

Oh and if you added 3 more teams that would make it a 68 team field ... no one would want to be team 69.

Just sayin'.

 

[swg]

Nobody agrees with you more than yourself.