Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

DudeAnon wrote:Don't dilute what is arguably the best playoff in american sports. Fix the metrics so shitty P5 teams don't steal bids. And frankly, mid-major conferences should consider granting the regular season champion the automatic bid rather than the tournament winner.

Um, you do understand that if/when they go more with advanced metrics, teams like Providence last year won't make it.
Look at the end of year KP ratings....
Seton Hall- #51
Providence- #55

you say what about the ACC?
Wake Forest was # 30.
Virginia Tech was #44.

Kansas St- #29

really only one that would have gotten left out- #61 USC. But there- Utah was #47 and would have replaced them. Syracuse was left out- but was #50 in Ken Pom.

Fieldhouse Flyer wrote:
In short, a 96-team NCAA Tournament is likely to benefit the P5-conferences more than the Big East Conference or the Cinderellas.

Let me fix this for you...

Of the Power 6 conferences, a move like this would probably help the larger conferences that have more teams, than the ones with less, like the Big East and B12. However, in those years when the BE would get 4-5 teams in a 68 team field, they could easily add a couple more in a 96 team field. But exceeding 70% of teams in ANY conference would be difficult either way.

You're welcome...

GumbyDamnit! wrote:

Fieldhouse Flyer wrote:
In short, a 96-team NCAA Tournament is likely to benefit the P5-conferences more than the Big East Conference or the Cinderellas.

Let me fix this for you...

Of the Power 6 conferences, a move like this would probably help the larger conferences that have more teams, than the ones with less, like the Big East and B12. However, in those years when the BE would get 4-5 teams in a 68 team field, they could easily add a couple more in a 96 team field. But exceeding 70% of teams in ANY conference would be difficult either way.

You're welcome...

I actually think this would help conferences like the A10 and AAC that have a lot of just "OK" teams. Teams in spots 3-8 in those conferences, who are not P6 and are high mid-major are probably in the best positions to grab those spots IMO. Their overall records will probably be pretty good because of the watered down competition but they'll still have some good teams at the top of the conferences that'll help their SOS and RPI's. Teams like Temple, St. Joe's, La Salle, etc. would love this move.

GumbyDamnit! wrote:

Fieldhouse Flyer wrote:
In short, a 96-team NCAA Tournament is likely to benefit the P5-conferences more than the Big East Conference or the Cinderellas.

Let me fix this for you...

Of the Power 6 conferences, a move like this would probably help the larger conferences that have more teams, than the ones with less, like the Big East and B12. However, in those years when the BE would get 4-5 teams in a 68 team field, they could easily add a couple more in a 96 team field. But exceeding 70% of teams in ANY conference would be difficult either way.

You're welcome...

Not so sure about that.
ACC- already got 9 teams in. Syracuse would have been a lock for #10. Georgia Tech and Clemson both made the NIT as well- so that's up to 12.
Big Ten- already got 7 teams in. Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana all made the NIT. So that's up to 10/14.

What going to 96 would do for the Big East is provide a LOT more certainty. Getting 6-7 teams in would be pretty close to a lock. I mean, going back to 2014- year 1- the Big East only got 4 teams in- with PC only getting in due to winning the BE tourney. PC would have been safe obviously, but then also St John's, Marquette, and Georgetown would have gotten in easily to make 7.

What I would think 96 would do is eliminate a LOT of the drama in the conference tournaments.

GumbyDamnit! wrote:

GumbyDamnit! wrote:

Fieldhouse Flyer wrote:
In short, a 96-team NCAA Tournament is likely to benefit the P5-conferences more than the Big East Conference or the Cinderellas.

Let me fix this for you...

Of the Power 6 conferences, a move like this would probably help the larger conferences that have more teams, than the ones with less, like the Big East and B12. However, in those years when the BE would get 4-5 teams in a 68 team field, they could easily add a couple more in a 96 team field. But exceeding 70% of teams in ANY conference would be difficult either way.

You're welcome...

I actually think this would help conferences like the A10 and AAC that have a lot of just "OK" teams. Teams in spots 3-8 in those conferences, who are not P6 and are high mid-major are probably in the best positions to grab those spots IMO. Their overall records will probably be pretty good because of the watered down competition but they'll still have some good teams at the top of the conferences that'll help their SOS and RPI's. Teams like Temple, St. Joe's, La Salle, etc. would love this move.

Looking at the NIT base- really it would help the bigger conferences along with the A10/AAC. I mean look at the multi teams from the 2017 NIT tourney...
ACC, Big Ten, MWC, Pac 12, and SEC all got 3 teams in the NIT
AAC and Horizon got 2 teams in the NIT.

looking at 2016-
A10- 3
SEC- 3
ACC- 3
WCC- 2

2015- looks like ACC had 2, but SEC had another 3 team haul in the NIT. P12 had 2.
2014- SEC had 4!. ACC had 2. P12 had 2.

So looks like SEC would be a HUGE winner in this. Which makes sense, similar to what you were saying with the AAC/A10.

Fan of Creighton as a Missouri Valley team . . . . Yes, absolutely.

Fan of Creighton as a Big East team . . . Nah, why mess with it?

Sure I'm a hypocrite.

My take on the 96 instead of 72 or some number other than 64, is that I prefer 96 since it acts like a real Tourney from day one through the Championship game. I think the handful of "play-in" games is a farce and those games are pretty much given no attention by those who drool for the REAL games to start. The 64 teams that would compete in the First Round would bring excitement to each District in which they were held and develop TV audiences that would challenge the original Field of 64 First Round Games when that's all there were.

In summation, my preference would be to dump the play-in games and go back to 64. The closest thing to that would be a field of 96 with 16 games played on both Tuesday and Wednesday of week 1 at venues that would be used for the "Final 64" beginning on Thursday.

Just get expansion over with once and for all. Expand to 128 teams across four brackets:

32 Regular Season Champs
32 Conference Tourney Champs (or runner-up if same as regular season champ)
32 Power 6 At-Large Teams
32 Other At-Large Teams (one team from each conference wouldn't hurt that much)

This is a 'fair' distribution and gives credit back to the regular season and still makes conference tourneys relevant from a money perspective. 128/351 = 36%.

3 of the final 4 teams will be from the Power 6 conferences with one outlier if set up this way. Or, can mix Regular Season Champs with Tourney Champs and At-Large teams into two 64-team brackets playing simultaneously (or mix into four 32-team brackets by seedings). 1st and 2nd round games of Other At-Large teams can be at on-campus facilities. Lots of logistics to work out but point is that all the additional teams would be better than some of the auto-qualifiers today.

The Power 6 conferences usually get 30/32 at-large bids and smaller conference regular season champs don't make it many times because of a fluke conference tourney game loss while some scrub team automatically gets in.

Pretty much every team out of 351 can make the big dance by winning their conference championship the week prior. No need to expand past 68.

stever20 wrote:1985 teams- 282
2017 teams- 351

Does most of the growth in number of teams come from low-major teams just trying to get on the gravy train of Division 1 sports? Of the 69 new teams added over the past 32 years, are any of them relevant and/or would they actually fight for an at large bid with more teams in the tourney?

Honest question, I don't know. But would guess most of them would still be on the outside looking in?