Should the NCAA expand the tournament to 96 teams?
There are 3 reasons that the tournament should be expanded:
1. Lower seeds will not have to play the giants in the 1st round. That means a 16th seed playing a 9th seed. I see a better game
2. More student-athletes participating. About 1600 play in BCS bowl games. Less than a 1000 play in the tournament.
3. Being a coach myself it would save coaches jobs. Most coaches success is based on getting into the tournament.
The tournament has grown from 8 teams in 1939 to the awesome event we see today. Each time it increase there was criticism, but with each increase the tournament IMPROVED.
Personally I was against it, but, if the top eight seeds in each region get a first round bye, then, not a lot has changed. I think this is how they plan to set it up, and if so, fine by me. I think the byes will allow the adding of so many more teams, keep the integrity of the tournament in tact.
Our society's priorities are screwed up. Something is wrong if a coach's success and destiny are based on his getting into the tournament.
What about a student athlete's character, academics, and success in life outside the athletic arena?
Yeah, I'm being too altruistic, life isn't just that way anymore.
I've argued that there are too many bowl games, too many games in the regular season.
Dale Brown (of LSU) was right. If money is driving the system, why can't the players get some of it?
I love March Madness the way it is. Maybe the selection process should be changed.
Absolutely not1 March Madness is the greatest sport spectacle of them all!
If they don't leave it alone, it will be as screwed up as football.
From 1980-1982 the NCAA got the NCAA tournament right. They had 48 teams in the field. 48 teams that had a legitimate shot to win it all. 48 teams split into 4 brackets consisting of 12 teams each. Anyone following the tournament for the last 20 years is very much aware that a #12 seed beats a #5 seed pretty much every year. From 1985-2010, a span of 26 years, this upset occurred 35 times. That's about 34% of the time. But more significant than that is the fact in this time frame 18 times a #12 seed has been able to win a second game and reach the sweet 16. Only 6 times has any team seeded lower than 12 reached the sweet 16 and no such team has ever made the elite 8. What is this telling us? THAT ANY SEED LOWER THAN 12 HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING THE TITLE AND SHOULD NOT BE IN THE TOURNAMENT. But as with it seems everything in this world we could not leave well enough alone. In 1983 the NCAA went to 52 teams followed by 64 teams in 1985 and then 65 teams in 2001. Of course the jump to 65 can be explained by noting that since no #16 has EVER WON that one extra team should have just as good a shot(eyes rolling). The real reason is the sympathetic, compassionate organization that is the NCAA was tired of someone's feelings being hurt every year for being left out. But as with it seems everything in this world if one person's feelings get hurt than several person's feelings must get hurt. So starting in 2011 we now have increased the field to 68 teams. Apparently having 16 scrubs with no hope was not enough. Now we have 20. Which means Joe Lunardi's job has become even more meaningless. I think Lunardi's day job should be implementing a new feature at DPS called "last four in, first four out" where they set up hoops like at dave and busters and people shoot their way to an available window. At the time of this hub here are the last four in and first four out; Texas, Tennesse, Oregon, NC State and then the horribly unfortunate Miami, Iona, Arizona, St.Josephs. Let's face facts. All of these teams are mediocre at best and there is little or no difference in the level of play between any of them. Now forgetting for one moment that none of these teams will get even close to the Final Four there will be 8 teams from really bad conferences who will get in ahead of these 8 simply because they won their conference tournament. If we look at the Southland Conference for instance we see that Texas Arlington is the #1 seed. Their non conference record was only 8-6 despite only playing one ranked team. What i am strongly implying is that any one of those 8 teams listed above can kick Texas Arlington's ass(in fact Texas did in the regular season) and so the "bubble talk" is concentrated on the wrong teams. What is really amusing though is the thought of where does it stop? There will be at least one team this year(and every year) who feels they should have got in. So how about 69 next year. Or why not 344 which would include all division 1 basketball schools. Even Nichols State which finished 6-10 in the Southland because they beat Houston Baptist and dammit that should count for something.
by Chupp225 years ago
Who is going to win the NCAA March Madness tournament?
by Julio E Olmo Sr5 years ago
Who is going to win the NCAA March Madness Tournament?Mike Krzyzeski is the man and he knows all about March Madness. Picking Duke Blue Devils in 2013
by Thomas Byers4 years ago
Are You Looking Forward To The ACC Tournament And March Madness?In case you don't know its going on right now. March 12th through the 16th. I would love to see Duke win. How about you. Who do you think will win the ACC....
by Kevin7 years ago
What do you think about the NCAA Tournament expanding?
by ballfan927 years ago
There have almost been too many great games in the tournament to count and I want to know what you guys think about ranking them and which game you think was the best and most exciting to watch in the tournament so far.
by Bizz8 years ago
THE tourney starts tomorrow(Thursday)Who ya got?I'm liking West Virginia to oust Kansas in the Finals.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.