Field of 128? Hoops coaches want tourney expanded


Jafus (Thinker)

Well-Known Member
Field of 128? Hoops coaches want tourney expanded

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2500025

Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS -- In a perfect world, college basketball coaches would nearly double the size of the 65-team NCAA men's tournament field. Realistically, they'd accept a smaller victory.

Motivated in part by George Mason's remarkable Final Four run last season, coaches will urge the NCAA to expand its most lucrative championship event during the men's and women's basketball committee meetings in Orlando, Fla., this week.

"They'd love to see the tournament double to 128," said Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches. "It's based on several things. First, there are a lot of good teams worthy of making the NCAA field, and second, the size of 64 or 65 has been in place for a number of years."

Potential models range from minor adjustments to major changes.

When Haney met with NCAA officials last month, he proposed the 128-team field in part because postseason bids may help coaches keep their jobs.

At this year's Final Four, though, Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim said he supported expansion on a smaller scale. Boeheim and others suggested adding three to seven teams, a move they claimed would allow as many as four opening-round games to be played in Dayton, Ohio, instead of the one now played between the two lowest-seeded teams in the field.

Some believe such a schedule would create a more realistic tournament environment since first-round sites also play four games on the first day.

But changes don't appear imminent.

In March, NCAA president Myles Brand said he didn't see much support to expand the field and vice president for men's basketball Greg Shaheen reiterated that point Friday.

"Many, many people believe the size of the championship is just right," Shaheen said. "A lot of people think there's enough recognition of teams that did well and there's a logical and timely conclusion to the season."

Shaheen said this week's discussions, which end Thursday, will mark the first time expansion has been on the agenda in several years. The reason?

After a four-year legal battle with the National Invitation Tournament, the NCAA agreed to buy the tournament for $56.5 million last August.

Expansion also faces additional hurdles.

If the NCAA opted for a 128-team field, the number of first-round sites would double and an extra week of play would likely be added. Plus, Shaheen said the NCAA would have to debate how best to provide maximum television coverage.

Shaheen said changes would also have to be made in conjunction with the women's tournament.

"There is no one model that is obvious here, and that's something we need to contemplate," he said. "The other issue is how the women's tournament would be similarly impacted here and they need to coincide."

The coaches, however, contend there are many reasons to expand. Among their arguments:

? The number of Division I teams has increased significantly since the last major expansion more than two decades ago. The field went from 48 to 64 teams in 1985, then added a 65th team to the field in 2001 when the number of automatic bids went from 30 to 31.

? George Mason, which was one of the last at-large teams to make the field this year, proved parity in college basketball is real. The combination of prominent programs losing underclassmen at faster rates and scholarship reductions have helped mid-major schools become more competitive. The coaches believe they deserved to be rewarded accordingly.

? Now that the NCAA controls both postseason tournaments, coaches think it's time to include some of the bubble teams that annually complain when they are left out.

Could it happen?

"I don't think the idea of doubling the field is going to happen right now because there are too many complications to do that," Haney said. "But I think the committee will seriously consider what the number will be. ... I think if it happens, it will have to happen soon because of the logistical issues."
 
There is no need to increase the number from 64. What the NCAA should do is limit the number of schools that can come out of each conference. In the past some conferences have had a many as 6 teams in the tourny. A team that finishes 4th, 5th or 6th place in its own conference has no business playing for a national championship.
 

Click here to visit HBCUSportsShop
SAME OLD G said:
There is no need to increase the number from 64. What the NCAA should do is limit the number of schools that can come out of each conference. In the past some conferences have had a many as 6 teams in the tourny. A team that finishes 4th, 5th or 6th place in its own conference has no business playing for a national championship.

:tup:
 
SAME OLD G said:
There is no need to increase the number from 64. What the NCAA should do is limit the number of schools that can come out of each conference. In the past some conferences have had a many as 6 teams in the tourny. A team that finishes 4th, 5th or 6th place in its own conference has no business playing for a national championship.

Let's be realistic here for a minute. You can't possibly argue for a team that finished 5th in a tough conference being left out for teams that finished 2nd or 3rd in a crappy one. BTW, Florida, which just happened to win the national championship, would have finished 4th or 5th in the SEC if the conference didn't have split divisions.
 
JaguarNation99 said:
Let's be realistic here for a minute. You can't possibly argue for a team that finished 5th in a tough conference being left out for teams that finished 2nd or 3rd in a crappy one. BTW, Florida, which just happened to win the national championship, would have finished 4th or 5th in the SEC if the conference didn't have split divisions.

C'mon 99 "IF", besides it doesn't matter because they won their tournament.
 
While I agree that they should limit the number of teams from each conference, but its all about the money. We all know that the 5th seeded team in the SEC will probably bring 5x more fans than the 2nd seeded team from the SWAC.
 
SAME OLD G said:
A team that finishes 4th, 5th or 6th place in its own conference has no business playing for a national championship.
I disagree.
Some of the top conferences do have 4-6 teams worthy of playing for a title.
Heck, based on your thinking, the following teams would not have even qualified for the big dance
Pitt, with 25 wins
Kentucky, 22 wins
Maryland, 19
NC State 22
Tx A&M 22

I hope you aint waiting for the day that the major conferences will allow that to happen
 
mighty hornet said:
I hope you aint waiting for the day that the major conferences will allow that to happen

Actually MH, it's the major conferences that are pushing this through. I remember reading this after the tournament ended, and the bottom line is, with so much parity in college basketball now, the bigger conferences are starting to feel the heat the mid-majors, and small conferences are putting on them.

Their are too many schools being left out of the tournament from the big conferences that they're crying foul. As SOG alluded to, some conference are used to getting 6-8 teams in, and when that doesn't happen, it affects their bottom line.

The ACC is still crying for only getting 3 teams in this past year, and when you look at conferences like the MVC that got in 3 (I think). That doesn't sit too well with the decision makers.

Not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

NICE
 
D-NICE said:
Actually MH, it's the major conferences that are pushing this through.
I was speaking on the major conferences agreeing to a maximum number (less than 4) of teams from one conference to be in the big dance. They aint going for that. Whether the tourney expands to 128 or whether it remains at 64.
 
mighty hornet said:
I was speaking on the major conferences agreeing to a maximum number (less than 4) of teams from one conference to be in the big dance. They aint going for that. Whether the tourney expands to 128 or whether it remains at 64.

True dat.

NICE
 

Click here to visit HBCUSportsShop
this is all about money and the big conferences keeping it. if you recall how the formula for the tourney works it explains alot. the more teams you conference has in, the more games they win, the bigger the payout to individual schools. southern got about 162k for the one game that was split by them, the conferce office and the rest of the school. any big 10 school, gets about 1mil/per win. this is b/c they add units from the past 6 years. so the swac has 6 units, the big 10, 80 units. but I believe we are seeing mid majors closing the gap. the major schools are fighting back. they were able to get the ncaa to close the door on highschool seniors for at least one year, and a a few of those kids will decide they sorta like college or be convienced they aren't ready for the league and hang around longer. now, the want to add more schools so they continue to keep their edge in teams in the tourney and units rewarded. also coaches from the power conferences that aren't making the tourney any longer are in danger b/c mids are taking their spots. it benifits them to vote for this b/c they know they'll have a spot w/ 128 teams.

5/6 in any league shouldn't be playing for a championship. as a matter of fact for a league like the swac, where the conferece tourney is so poorly attended (presuming it's not a money maker), it might be better to just name the regular season champ the representative for the tourney.
 
SAME OLD G said:
There is no need to increase the number from 64. What the NCAA should do is limit the number of schools that can come out of each conference. In the past some conferences have had a many as 6 teams in the tourny. A team that finishes 4th, 5th or 6th place in its own conference has no business playing for a national championship.
For real.

No conference need to have 5 and 6 rep's..............no matter what schedule they play.

Top 3 from the conferences...................that's it.
The rest got to the NIT and build that up.

64 is enough.
 
These big schools will never cease to amaze me on the rules that they try to pass.

A lot of times good teams will be left out of the post-season. For example, in 2004 Texas was probably the second best football team in the Big 12. But they lost to Oklahoma in Dallas that year, and the Sooners played in the championship game. The 64 team limit (or 65 if you prefer) is enough.

The NFL still has cases where very good teams do not make the playoffs. Baseball has had numerous cases like these. It may not be a fun feeling to have a good team and fail to make the playoffs. But sometimes one has to be man (or woman) about it and accept it.

mighty hornet said:
I disagree.
Some of the top conferences do have 4-6 teams worthy of playing for a title.
Heck, based on your thinking, the following teams would not have even qualified for the big dance
Pitt, with 25 wins
Kentucky, 22 wins
Maryland, 19
NC State 22
Tx A&M 22

I hope you aint waiting for the day that the major conferences will allow that to happen

These are excellent points.
 
SAME OLD G said:
There is no need to increase the number from 64. What the NCAA should do is limit the number of schools that can come out of each conference. In the past some conferences have had a many as 6 teams in the tourny. A team that finishes 4th, 5th or 6th place in its own conference has no business playing for a national championship.



This can also be said for I-AA playoff systems. I think its pathetic that the A-10 and others conferences get so many teams in a 16 team playoff system that produces a National Champion. IMHO its more a regional thing than a Championship.
 
Increasing the tournament to 128 will only help the mid-major and lower schools. Those are the schools that will benefit the most because they will receive the bulk of those 2nd 64 bids, which means better recruiting.

I could care less, it doesn't get REAL until the final 2 rounds anyway.
 
Back
Top