Tournament expansion

For any college sports discussion not based in Kingston
User avatar
Rhody74
Sly Williams
Posts: 4901
Joined: 11 years ago
x 2484

Tournament expansion

Unread post by Rhody74 »

0 x
Slava Ukraini!
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23994
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8986

Re: Tournament expansion

Unread post by ramster »

Can't open. I don't subscribe.
0 x
User avatar
STC
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1825
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Quahog
x 1120

Re: Tournament expansion

Unread post by STC »

Between realignment, the portal, and now this, college sports is doing everything they can to kill my interest.
0 x
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10355
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6622

Re: Tournament expansion

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

I'm actually in favor. If you're going to keep expanding the teams allowed to be Division 1 you're eventually going to have to expand how many teams make the tournament. Maybe expand the tournament and do away with the NIT?
0 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
User avatar
adam914
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9844
Joined: 11 years ago
x 7597

Re: Tournament expansion

Unread post by adam914 »

For me, the most important point is the bolded part below.

The NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee discussed expanding the NCAA Tournament field during its meeting this week, but adding to the 68-team bracket is “not imminent,” the committee said Thursday.

The tournament is about as perfect as it gets in sports, so I really hope they don't mess with it too much. A small expansion like the last time is no big deal to me. Either way, I'm glad it sounds like it's not something we need to worry about right now.
1 x
reef
Frank Keaney
Posts: 14944
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5261

Re: Tournament expansion

Unread post by reef »

RhowdyRam02 wrote: 9 months ago I'm actually in favor. If you're going to keep expanding the teams allowed to be Division 1 you're eventually going to have to expand how many teams make the tournament. Maybe expand the tournament and do away with the NIT?
I am as well , don’t see anything wrong with 90 or 96 in this current landscape
0 x
Jersey77
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 7993
Joined: 4 years ago
x 3893

Re: Tournament expansion

Unread post by Jersey77 »

I am okay with leaving it at 68.
My biggest gripe is allowing teams from P5 to get an at-large with a losing conference record.
0 x
User avatar
NYGFan_Section208
Frank Keaney
Posts: 12267
Joined: 8 years ago
Location: West K
x 6654

Re: Tournament expansion

Unread post by NYGFan_Section208 »

I don't think, regardless of how many D1 teams there are, that you 'have to' expand the tourney. It's not like you're going to be adding teams that might could win it all, but didn't make it in when it was 'only 68.' Doesn't matter to me though...make it 120 teams...the decision to expand or not comes down to 'cash money', not how anyone "feels" about the tournament. If/when those that make the rules think there's enough mo' money to be made by expanding, that's what will happen. I'm waiting for them to scale up the NBA "play-in" idea...where there's a pre-tourney tourney and the top x# from that qualify for the 'real' tourney.
0 x
Post Reply