Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

Joey Brackets has found a new drum to bang in the dog days of summer:

It's time again to think about expanding the NCAA tournament field - Joe Lunardi, ESPN – July 20, 2017

In college basketball's offseason, I think about what the Selection Committee got wrong … But I think mostly about the NCAA tournament selection and seeding process. Is it the best that it can be? Are we using the right data? Is it fair and open and inclusive?

This summer, though, something else has come up, mostly because a number of coaches have reached out on a seemingly separate topic: the size of the NCAA tournament field. The same ad hoc National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) committee, which last summer weighed in on selection metrics, is now kicking the tires on expansion. No formal action or proposals are anticipated, at least not now. Still, it got me thinking.

We have been at 68 teams since 2011, yet there is nothing magical or even permanent about that number. It is an accident of circumstance more than anything.

"It's also outdated," one coach insisted. "Division I has grown by leaps and bounds since 1985, so we shouldn't be trapped by that number moving forward."

This poll is open for 10 days (until July 31st), and you may change your vote before then if you wish to do so.

1985 teams- 282
2017 teams- 351

so it grew by almost 25%. Tourney grew by 6.25%.

tourney would be at 80 teams if the tourney grew as much as D1 did.

Also, from when the tourney expanded to 65-
2001- 318 schools
2017- 351 schools

increase of 10.38%.

tourney would be at 72 teams to coincide with the increase since 2001.

No. If anything, it needs to contract. The first four is just confusing and robs 2 schools of their spot in the real tourney.

DudeAnon wrote:No. If anything, it needs to contract. The first four is just confusing and robs 2 schools of their spot in the real tourney.

My thought as well

Only thing they should change is bid thiefs. Mid majors send their regular season champion so to put the best in the tournament

I think they should expand to 96 teams and give the top 32 seeds a bye in the first round. They could do the same schedule as the current first four (Tues games feeding into the Thurs/Sat group and Wed games feeding into the Fri/Sun group). The benefit to the top 8 seeds in each bracket would be that they would have an opponent that played a game two days earlier. It would give ample opportunity for mid-majors to have a seat at the table. More chance for Cinderella which the fans absolutely love--probably the general fan's favorite thing about the NCAA Tourney is the prevalence of Cinderella.

sciencejay wrote:I think they should expand to 96 teams and give the top 32 seeds a bye in the first round. They could do the same schedule as the current first four (Tues games feeding into the Thurs/Sat group and Wed games feeding into the Fri/Sun group). The benefit to the top 8 seeds in each bracket would be that they would have an opponent that played a game two days earlier. It would give ample opportunity for mid-majors to have a seat at the table. More chance for Cinderella which the fans absolutely love--probably the general fan's favorite thing about the NCAA Tourney is the prevalence of Cinderella.

People might think that, but look at the record of the first 4 teams in rd 2, playing a team always that's a top 6 seed. 7-7 in the rd of 64, and even 3-4 in the rd of 32. I know pretty small sample size, but having a game in the tourney 1st is actually a pretty big advantage.

I voted 'No'. In any given year, the number of teams that "should have made the tournament field" is not as plentiful as some suggest. The Selection Committee mostly gets it right, and the increased use of advanced metrics and greater reward for road wins will enable the Selection Committee to get it right more often. It may even help the cases of some mid-major teams that "should have made the tournament field", but didn't.

I voted No in the belief that retaining the exclusivity of a 68-team field promotes a high quality of tournament competition, and strongly encourages 'bubble' teams to play with intensity down the stretch and in their conference's post-season tournament games. If the field is expanded to 96 teams, P-5 conference teams with .500 conference records won't have much incentive to give their very best towards the end of the season, because they know they'll get a tournament invitation with an 8-10 or 9-11 conference record, so why burn yourself out over nothing?

From the 1940’s until present, earning an invitation to the NCAA Tournament has been a benchmark of accomplishment and prestige. Any substantial increase to the size of the tournament field would diminish the value of that accomplishment and associated prestige.

(68 tournament spots)/(351 Division I teams) = 19% . . . (96 tournament spots)/(351 Division I teams) = 27%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Lunardi voted 'Yes'.

The Final 2017 Bracket Matrix - bracketmatrix.com

The Final 2017 Bracket Matrix compiled the pre-Selection Sunday tournament field predictions and seedings by 174 different prognosticators.

ESPN's Joey Brackets finished in a tie for 134th place, along with 29 others. Only 14 competitors fared worse than Mr. Brackets.

It's quite understandable that he would rather write about Tournament Field Expansion instead of Bracketology.