[Lefty Noob]

Does anyone here think the NCAA tournament field should be expanded? I always thought no, but there was one good plan I read yesterday in my local paper... add teams so that there is a play-in game for every #1 (and maybe every #2) seed, and make it so that the play-in games involve the lowest-ranked at-large teams -- no conference champions. You guys like that idea? Have one of your own?

[legend]

There will always be someone crying no matter how many team are in. Leave it as it is.

[cjg11582]

On the surface I agree with Legend. But the tournament committee always has some egregious snubs (and this is the worst year in recent memory), and the common solution always seems to be that simply adding more teams will provide levity to a complex situation. But why not try to solve this problem from the inside-out? Why not implement better personnel on the committee to avoid situations like Illinois getting bids over Syracuse?

I do agree that there will always be someone complaining, but does any objective observer have a leg to stand on arguing that Illinois had a more successful season than Syracuse? Apparently the Big East didn't even have a representative on the selection committee, as to whose fault that is (The Big East's or the committee's), I have no idea. But some impartiality, or at least proportional subjectivity is appropriate.

So no, do not expand the tourney, just enlist more qualified and balanced officials to determine the field and we can limit as opposed to maximize any and all shortcomings.

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by cjg11582

the tournament committee always has some egregious snubs

see i disagree with that

if you dont win your conference you cant complain imo

win and your in.....at large bids are gifts......and im not even so sure those should be given at all

maybe have all conference winners get automatic bids....then all other teams can play to earn there way in......how about that ?

[candlejack]

I would go for it because me team might have had a chance to try.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by simple simon

win and your in.....at large bids are gifts......and im not even so sure those should be given at all

maybe have all conference winners get automatic bids....then all other teams can play to earn there way in......how about that ?

That's sort of what the plan I mentioned suggests... adding teams in terms of having extra play-in games, and have all the play in games feature the bottom 8 or however many at-large teams. No more arbitrarily forcing conference champs like Niagra to play their way in. I like it.

[cjg11582]

PHP Code:

win and your in.....at large bids are gifts......and im not even so sure those should be given at all 


Of course you win your conference tournament and you're in. But since we have teams that made it as a result of at large bids and teams that didn't, we can apply a semblance of critical thinking and determine whether or not one team's resume is more impressive than the other.

Syracuse has a comparable record (and even better in some cases) than Illinois, Purdue, Stanford and Arkansas. They are the only team in the past seven weeks to beat Georgetown, they went 10-6 in a conference with sixteen teams, of which they finished fifth (Louisville finished sixth, by the way, and landed a sixth seed in the tourney). Compare that to Illinois, who didn't win their conference either, and who's most impressive non-conference win was at home against Miami (OH), and a conference win late season at Indiana. Those are the highlights of their resume. Not to mention they played in a less competitive conference that undermines their record. This argument can be applied to all of the aforementioned at large bids.

It sounds like instead of expanding the field (which i think is asinine) you want to narrow it from 64 to 32 teams.