OT: The Dance - NCAA Men's Hoops Tournament - Expansion? What do you think?
There's an article on ESPN's site by Joe Lunardi where he suggests expanding the NCAA Men's Tournament (aka The Dance). The article is paywalled - and here's the link if you want to view it: https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/39608837/lunardi-why-ncaa-mens-tournament-expand-80-teams. He cites the history of expansion going back to the 1975 when the NCAA expanded from 25 to 32 teams.
What do you think of The Dance - and possibly expanding from the current 68 teams to 80?
I'm not a supporter of the idea - and value conference championships. My assumptions are: 1) conference championships should mean something - either regular season or tournament, and 2) 68 teams is certainly a large enough field for teams to qualify. The only rationale to add to this is driven by the almighty dollar - and probably to allow Power Conferences to place even more teams that the "seven to ten" they normally get.
Your thoughts?
February 28th, 2024 at 12:03 PM ^
Nope!
February 28th, 2024 at 6:37 PM ^
You forgot something...
/end thread
February 28th, 2024 at 12:04 PM ^
How big do we have to go to get Michigan and Vanderbilt in?
February 28th, 2024 at 12:09 PM ^
How many teams are in D1?
February 28th, 2024 at 12:13 PM ^
Michgan is in though. They just need to win the BTT. A certainty if there ever was one.
February 28th, 2024 at 1:58 PM ^
Definitely will win the BTT. We haven't opened up the playbook yet.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:17 PM ^
eleventyhundred
February 28th, 2024 at 1:32 PM ^
I think it's in the umpteens.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:06 PM ^
I can't think of any reason why it should be expanded, the NCAA just wants more money. Personally I'd roll it back to a nice clean 64, but 68 is fine.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:47 PM ^
Yeah I don't think the first four games added anything.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:56 PM ^
Respectfully, I think the "first four" games - added about five hours of "Tournament" basketball on Tuesday and Wednesday - and, added to the "business" of hotels in and around Dayton.
Beside that - I think you're 100% accurate - they added nothing.
February 28th, 2024 at 2:38 PM ^
I work next to the University of Dayton Marriott and with the exception of a bunch of buses that transport the teams around for a couple of days, it doesn't really seem like they get that much more business as a result of the "first four". Does anyone actually watch those games?
February 28th, 2024 at 3:58 PM ^
Compulsive gamblers?
February 28th, 2024 at 12:10 PM ^
I think no. The majority of new teams you're going to get in will be 17-15 power conference teams. We don't need that
February 28th, 2024 at 12:11 PM ^
Some things are just best left alone.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:16 PM ^
crime against humanity. absolute atrocity
February 28th, 2024 at 12:18 PM ^
worse than cheeseburgers or filming in public with 100,000 other fans in attendance?
February 28th, 2024 at 12:48 PM ^
Between those 2.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:16 PM ^
Whenever somebody in my company suggests doing something radical (like this) my first question is always the same. "What problem are you trying to solve?" And it's amazing how frequently they are stumped to come up with an answer. It just seemed, to them, to be a "better" idea and so they thought we should pursue it.
So I'll ask my NCAA Overlord betters the same question. What problem are you trying to solve that increasing the field to 80 teams addresses? Cant be ratings, those are sky-high. Cant be Cinderella storylines, every year we have at least one if not more. And it cant be that fantastic teams are being left out, the last several years the four teams playing in the pre-tournament, tournament all had about 14 or more losses.
This solves nothing because there isnt a problem to fix.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:22 PM ^
It's presumably just...more money? The CBS/Turner pay just over $1 billion/year for the 67 games. Adding 13 more teams means 13 more games - could be tens or hundreds of millions of added dollars
February 28th, 2024 at 12:29 PM ^
Great points, especially the Cinderella stories.
The lowest seed ever to win the tournament was 8 (Nova in '85). 12 of the past 16 winners were 1 seeds. Since 2000 only 2 winners were seeded higher than a 3. There's no need to let in more teams because we're potentially missing out on some amazing Cinderella stories.
Expanding the tourney would be a pure money grab that only dilutes the product.
February 28th, 2024 at 4:53 PM ^
I agree with you here and agree that going to 80 is a bad idea, but a good Cinderella story doesn't have to and in a championship. FGCU only made the Sweet 16 but was a great story. Same with Loyola-Chicago, UMBC, Butler and many others.
But 3 more Dayton sites won't create any more Cinderellas anyway.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:37 PM ^
Whenever somebody in my company suggests doing something radical (like this) my first question is always the same. "What problem are you trying to solve?" And it's amazing how frequently they are stumped to come up with an answer. It just seemed, to them, to be a "better" idea and so they thought we should pursue it.
A nickel for every time I've had that experience, at multiple companies ...
February 28th, 2024 at 12:16 PM ^
Count me as a solid no as well. I would actually roll it back to 64 as well, its just ridiculous to have these play in games because the committee doesn't like the criticism of choosing one school over another.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:16 PM ^
And as always, The Onion saw this coming...
February 28th, 2024 at 12:58 PM ^
One of America's finest news sources. Not "an" Onion. It truly deserves to be known as "THE Onion".
February 28th, 2024 at 12:17 PM ^
The NCAA men's basketball tournament. What is that?
February 28th, 2024 at 12:21 PM ^
Surely you joke. I know it was canceled this year and last, but it was a pretty big deal when it was played.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:20 PM ^
I don't know. If you are adding the second best Ivy League team and stuff like that, then maybe I see a point. But Michigan made it to the tournament in 2022 with 14 losses. Who cares about getting more teams like that into the tournament? They just aren't fun to watch because they have pretty clearly established they aren't particularly good.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:22 PM ^
It's absurd.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:22 PM ^
64 teams was enough.
February 28th, 2024 at 4:19 PM ^
Agreed, even more than necessary.
To decide a deserving champion I think a field of 32 with double elimination would be better, although there goes the fun of filling out brackets
February 28th, 2024 at 12:28 PM ^
I feel like the quality of play in the NCAA tournament is already generally awful and this would only make it worse. Frankly, I would suggest shrinking the field if it were simply the teams that really were tournament teams but I know that isn't happening.
Sitting right here right now I cannot name who was in the Final Four last year or who won the title. It has been bad watching lately.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:32 PM ^
This exactly. Adding teams that don't belong (and let's be honest, how can you argue that more than 64 teams belong?) just dilutes the quality...
February 28th, 2024 at 12:33 PM ^
Even the fact that Michigan still had a good shot to make it last year had it beat Rutgers is shocking. That was a very bad basketball team.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:29 PM ^
I oppose it for the same reason that I think twelve, or even eight, teams are too many for the CFP: namely that there are only so many teams that have a realistic shot at winning the title, and adding additional teams that have no shot is pointless. You're not adding more contenders, you're just expanding the bubble.
For football, in most years there are only a couple teams with a realistic shot of winning it all. This year was kind of an exception, as there were actually more teams that truly deserved a spot than the four spots available (hasn't typically happened), and if you squint you could maybe make an argument that there were upwards of eight-ish real contenders, but again, most years that's not been the case. In most years teams ranked nine through twelve, and often some of the teams ranked five (if not four) through eight, have no shot whatsoever, so all expansion does is add unnecessary games.
Same with basketball. Yeah, Cinderellas often make runs, but realistically there's what, ten, twenty teams that have a shot? I'm not opposed to the autobids, they make the tournament fun and teams that win their conference deserve a ticket, but adding another twelve spots for at-larges just pushes back the bubble and adds more games. I'm sorry, but if you can't make the tournament as it is right now, you just don't have any legitimate reason to get in...
February 28th, 2024 at 12:38 PM ^
Hell no.
Lunardi's most recent "first team out" is Texas A&M. They're 15-12, in 10th place in the SEC, and riding a 4-game losing streak, 2 of those losses by 25+ points. Ummmm .... we need them???
Frankly, I'd wish it was 64 instead of 68. 64 is a very mathematically pleasing number, and produces a logistically great tournament: to win it all you have to win 3 consecutive 4-team single-elimination tournaments.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:38 PM ^
Team 64 teams.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:42 PM ^
There's no reason for this other than money. But that's a pretty big reason to be fair.
The risk is definitely diluting the brand though. Already the 1st round games are often meh and lacking in any special "March Madness" vibe.
It's the classic problem. When you have something special you want to sell more of it, but the more of it you sell the less special it is. Ask the NHL about outdoor games.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:51 PM ^
keep the dance as it is but eliminate conference tournaments to make the regular season count again. add a few non-conf games to help teams build resumes. Set the regular season max at 30 games total.
Conferences would add "play-in" games for ties at the end of the regular season to determine who gets the dance bye and who gets to add the banner in the rafters when multiple teams logjam at the top with identical conference records.
February 28th, 2024 at 1:00 PM ^
Conference tourney week is some of the best basketball there is... pits rivals against each other with something on the line. teams making a run to get to the tourney... teams in a winner takes all scenario in small conferences..
and you get heavy hitters giving it everything for something that matters beyond seeding in the tourney.
February 28th, 2024 at 1:01 PM ^
In general I hate conference tournaments / championship games, for the reason you said. However, I think one of the things that makes March Madness so great is when a team that has no business winning upsets a big dog.
I like letting a team that was middling but went on a run and got a conference tourney title getting in and maybe making some noise.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:52 PM ^
No sir, I don't like it.
-Mr. Horse
February 28th, 2024 at 12:52 PM ^
Hard no…no reason other than straight $$. Will turn into scenario like 6-6 teams getting a bowl. Cheapens the entire product. College tourney is hands down best and most thrilling postseason in the world imho, don’t mess with it.
February 28th, 2024 at 12:59 PM ^
nooo... 64 was great. we didnt need play-in games. and we dont need more.
February 28th, 2024 at 1:00 PM ^
As much as I enjoy March Madness (I even take time off for opening weekend just so I can sit and watch basketball), I don't know that I want so many teams that I begin to experience fatigue by the time the Final Four is reached in mid-July.
February 28th, 2024 at 1:08 PM ^
No.
68 is plenty. There's little or no chance of any additional teams that might be added winning anything other than a play-in game