SOLO_Gold Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I have absolutely no tolerance for the argument of expanding the tournament. Anyone who subscribes to that idea is probably working on the premise that it's not fair when teams that "should" get in, don't make the tournament in the current 64/65 field format; nothing is life is guaranteed, and you'll never be able to "fix sports" so that everyone is happy. Yes it's sad that certain teams who "deserve it" don't get it, but isn't that more motivation to come back next year and eliminate the question all together? IMHO - If you're interested in everyone walking away with a trophy, go coach tee ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cornelius Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 When Jerkins (to his credit) refused to back down, Wojcik's final word on the matter was, "Look, all I know is that Mike Krzyzewski at Duke and Bobby Knight think they should expand it, and they know more about basketball than you or me, so that's good enough for me." Ooooh-kay... Ah yes, the appeal to authority. TU's AD is lobbying for the first round of the 96 round tournament to be played on campus sites and not on neutral floors... similar to the CBI. Hmmm... This would probably be funnier if it wasn't true: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORUJason Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I have to agree with OT's take on Doug Wojcik. I have not heard him in the past be so aggressive to the point of being rude in trying to make his point in an interview that should be lighthearted and a positive reflection of your program. It was somewhat bizarre how worked up Doug was getting about this issue. It seems clear from his response that he is under MAJOR PRESSURE to make the NCAA tournament very soon. I can see both sides of the argument, but it seems that they should only expand to 96 teams if both tournament winners and regular-season champions get auto-bids. This would certainly allow another 5-10 mid-major teams to make the tournament, but I assume it would also decrease the $ that go to each conference for each team that makes the tournament. If that change was made, then it would cause mid-major conference commissioners to change from rooting for the regular season champion (normally the best representative for the conference) to win their conference tournament and would instead be rooting against the regular season champions so that their conference could have 2 representatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeagleman5 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Good point there, Jason....TheEagleman is fairly certain that Summit League refs could take care of your last issue..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Titan Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Don't think for a minute that, from the BCS schools' point of view, expansion has anything to do with making the field more fair, or diverse. This is about them getting more of the tournament pie with the new TV contract up for bid. The BCS conferences do not want any more George Mason's earning a mid-major conference millions of dollars by making a run to the Final Four. What I worry is the BCS schools wanting the bottom 64 seeds playing "play-in" games, where the loser's conference does not get a share of the tournament money, while the top 32 teams in the bracket (99% BCS schools) get byes into the "first" (next) round. I would only be in favor of expanding IF: 1. All 96 participants' conferences qualify for AT LEAST a 1/96th share of the money (which is still less than the 1/64th share they get now, but better than just travel expenses if you lose in a "play-in" game) 2. Regular season and tournament champions OF ALL CONFERENCES get automatic bids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oruvoice Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Even at 96, the field of 'postseason' participants would be a smaller percentage than other sports. SInce the move to a 64 team field, there has been a pretty big increase in the number of D-1 teams. Pesronally, I like the idea of expanding the field...as long as some provisions (like OT's above) are included. Heck, I would mind a field of 128, with the first round being at home sites. Other than the college bowl system...pretty much every other sports playoffs are held on someone's 'home court/field'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former SID Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Expansion CANNOT include home sites. That would totally change the complexion of the tournament and almost totally remove the possibility of David beating Goliath, which is what makes the current tournament so appealing in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeagleman5 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 TheEagleman agrees that if the tournament expands to 96....regular season and tournament winners of ALL conferences must get automatic bids....and first round games must always be at neutral sites...that is the beauty of the NCAA tournament...heck, TheEagleman didn't think it was fair that last year Villanova got to play their first two games at the Wachovia Center in Philadelphia where they play 4-5 home games per season....I understand that teams will often have earned the right to play in a favorable local venue but it should never be a place where they have played multiple "home games" during the season....for instance, If TU or ORU gets assigned to the MIdwest regional in Tulsa at the BOK, it's fine because neither team plays home games there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oruvoice Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Expansion CANNOT include home sites. That would totally change the complexion of the tournament and almost totally remove the possibility of David beating Goliath, which is what makes the current tournament so appealing in the first place. I hear you, but disagree. If the #70 seed plays AT the #26 seed, the possibility of upset still exists. Other than the top 15-20 teams in the nation, there isn't a huge dropoff from #25 to #75, in my humble opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former SID Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 But there's a huge drop off from 25 to 26? Statistically speaking, home teams win between 75 and 80 percent of their home games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManiacAlum Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Wouldnt this just blow up the regular season? I'm sure the BCS schools wouldnt mind that... I'd almost rather they create a Division I-AA, or at least continue the freeze on expansion. I'd like to see them ask about 100 current non-competitive D-I schools to drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORUTerry Posted February 10, 2010 Author Share Posted February 10, 2010 If they drop those schools, who would the BCS schools play in their non-conference games? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bballmangc Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 The last teams in the tournament rarely make a run to the Elite Eight or Final Four (Seeds 60-65 and At-large bids #31-34), do some deserving teams get left out? sure every year, but really they didn't have a chance at winning it all and they should have won more games during the regular season. I think the tournament is big enough now...it would only serve to let more mediocre power schools in, and a few more mid-majors. Basically we would just see the NIT merge with the NCAA tournament and the CBI would become the NIT, do we really need that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORUTerry Posted February 10, 2010 Author Share Posted February 10, 2010 This is being driven by TV and money. If they (TV and NCAA) think that expanding the field and playing more games will generate more income - it will happen. The goal of the BCS schools is to marginaize the 'md-majors' and cut them out of a share of the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Titan Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 The last teams in the tournament rarely make a run to the Elite Eight or Final Four (Seeds 60-65 and At-large bids #31-34), do some deserving teams get left out? sure every year, but really they didn't have a chance at winning it all and they should have won more games during the regular season. I think the tournament is big enough now...it would only serve to let more mediocre power schools in, and a few more mid-majors. Basically we would just see the NIT merge with the NCAA tournament and the CBI would become the NIT, do we really need that? Here's the difference: The bottom few automatic seeds always have to play the very best teams in the land in the first round. The last few at-large seeds in the tournament a lot of times are talented, but simply suck. Yet, they get to play each other in the #8-#9 and #7-#10 games, so one of them comes out of each game looking good. I am convinced that, if the last 8 at-large teams each year were forced to play as #15 and #16 seeds, they would have the same failure rate as the low-major seeds currently have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bballmangc Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 so how would expanding the field solve that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Titan Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 so how would expanding the field solve that? It won't! That's why the only reason I would support expansion is IF the Summit League has the opportunity to put two teams in, via the automatic regular season champion AND the tournament champion route. Heck, if that were the case, you would NEVER again hear me complain about playing our conference tournament in Sioux Falls - or anywhere - because we would always have the opportunity to win the "regular season bid" beforehand. Make Sioux Falls the permanent home and sell it out every year! In effect, the BCS schools already have this rule: they already get both their regular season and tournament champions in, even if the regular season champ loses by 20 in the first round of their tournament to the worst team in their league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bballmangc Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 As much as I like 2 chances for ORU to get into the tournament. Do we really need 2 auto bids from every small conference in D-1? 2 bids from the Ivy League or other small conferences (Even the Summit)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.