What would a 90-team NCAA tournament look like?

ISU86

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
1,363
A little food-for-thought as the remaining conference tournaments wind down.

Personally, if adding twenty-two schools equates to sixteen of them being more dregs from the P5+BE, count me out. I have no desire to watch two sub-.500 crud programs that make it primarily by being a member of a certain conference(s).


On another front, I have wondered what the Dan Muller 2016-17 squad's NET ranking would have been and whether we would have been closer or further away. My guess is the latter.
 

DaveBird10

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
1,388
A little food-for-thought as the remaining conference tournaments wind down.

Personally, if adding twenty-two schools equates to sixteen of them being more dregs from the P5+BE, count me out. I have no desire to watch two sub-.500 crud programs that make it primarily by being a member of a certain conference(s).


On another front, I have wondered what the Dan Muller 2016-17 squad's NET ranking would have been and whether we would have been closer or further away. My guess is the latter.
Pedon talked about it Monday night and said "tell me why it would be bad idea. You'd have 1 more day of gambling and more eyes watching the tournament which is what people want anyways."
I am indifferent on it, I am for it if you add more mid majors to it but not certain that would be the case. You would probably get more .500 P5/P6 teams. You could fix a lot of it if you would just say to be eligible for the NCAA tournament you have to be .500 in conference play.
 

BirdGrad2011

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
2,225
If more bad P5 teams like this years Wisconsin then count me out. If more teams like us in 16-17 then I’m in. Cinderella and the chance of it is what makes the early rounds so exciting. It’s not watching .500 bad P5 teams play other bad P5 teams. Nobody is getting hype to watch Penn State play a Wake Forest.
 

ISU86

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
1,363
Pedon talked about it Monday night and said "tell me why it would be bad idea. You'd have 1 more day of gambling and more eyes watching the tournament which is what people want anyways."
I am indifferent on it, I am for it if you add more mid majors to it but not certain that would be the case. You would probably get more .500 P5/P6 teams. You could fix a lot of it if you would just say to be eligible for the NCAA tournament you have to be .500 in conference play.
Agreed. You showed against supposed similar competition that you are not worthy; plus, if you are sub-.500 still have a path in if you win your conference tournament.

I am sure the argument against will be these super conferences are no-longer round-robin in nature and any schedule is less/more difficult than any other (not my problem they went chasing dollars).

But they would rather ensure getting 15-18 Ohio State and 15-17 Oklahoma in first.
 

DaveBird10

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
1,388
Agreed. You showed against supposed similar competition that you are not worthy; plus, if you are sub-.500 still have a path in if you win your conference tournament.

I am sure the argument against will be these super conferences are no-longer round-robin in nature and any schedule is less/more difficult than any other (not my problem they went chasing dollars).

But they would rather ensure getting 15-18 Ohio State and 15-17 Oklahoma in first.
Or how in 2017 when our RPI was 33 and they gave Vandy an at large with 15 losses (first 15 lose team to make it as an large) because Vandy won 2 or 3 games in the SEC tournament.
 

DWRedbird

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
2,454
If more bad P5 teams like this years Wisconsin then count me out. If more teams like us in 16-17 then I’m in. Cinderella and the chance of it is what makes the early rounds so exciting. It’s not watching .500 bad P5 teams play other bad P5 teams. Nobody is getting hype to watch Penn State play a Wake Forest.

This is what it would be unfortunately. Any mid major or lower coach who thinks that a tourney expansion benefits them is way more optimistic than is healthy.

I think the tourney would be better off if they set rules for who can get in with an at large bid. Something like "Must win 20 games, finish 1 game above .500 in conference, have x ranked SoS" would likely go a long way towards getting more mid majors in than expanding the tourney ever will.
 

Birdswin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
2,179
Back when the NCAA Tournament was only 24 teams - only one team per conference was allowed. The "at-large" were from independents. Once that was changed in 1970's, which led to expansion, did the independents start finding conferences.

The problem with expanding to 90/96 teams - the top 32 teams get byes - it would be very limited or even rare for a non-P5 to get into that group - because the "committee" would change the seeding method. CBS/TBS has much more influence on the seeding and selections than most people think.
 

Baltimore Bird

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
1,584
I have thought for a long time that you must be at least .500 in your conference to be an at large team. That would open it up for deserving mid-majors. I much prefer watching a mid major team vs a p5 team than as someone stated a P5 6th place team against a P5 8th place team. I am not in favor of a 90 team tournament.

If you count the conference tournaments as part of the dance (which I do) it is single elimination for 300+ teams and double elimination for about 32 teams. Virtually all of those double elimination teams are from the P5. That is what I do not like, but I realize that is not going to change.
 

Redbird82

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
748
I have thought for a long time that you must be at least .500 in your conference to be an at large team. That would open it up for deserving mid-majors. I much prefer watching a mid major team vs a p5 team than as someone stated a P5 6th place team against a P5 8th place team. I am not in favor of a 90 team tournament.

If you count the conference tournaments as part of the dance (which I do) it is single elimination for 300+ teams and double elimination for about 32 teams. Virtually all of those double elimination teams are from the P5. That is what I do not like, but I realize that is not going to change.
If it was about fairness yes. I mean it’s kinda like the chairman saying OK st had 18 chances at quad 1 wins, so their 6 wins wasn’t enough. If you are P5 you have so many advantages, if you don’t like the rule join the Horizon. But it won’t happen, it’s all about money and the P5 aren’t giving it up
 

Phantom

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
1,919
If they were to expand the field again you'd probably see sub .500 P5 teams getting at-larges because they beat a ranked conference foe.
 

isuquinndog

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
7,235
Location
Redbird Country
Go look at the top seeds in the NIT. Othern than Liberty, North Texas and Sam Houston they are all P5 teams. And that doesn't count UNC who turned down the NIT.
 
Top Bottom