- Joined
- Nov 3, 2008
- Messages
- 5,146
- Reaction score
- 1,317
- Points
- 113
Even A NCAA Tournament Traditionalist Could Support A "Double Champs" Field of 96
Column: Even A NCAA Tournament Traditionalist Could Support A "Double Champs" Field of 96
By BuzzKing (@Fieldof68Freak)
http://www.gopherhole.com/news_article/show/737073?referrer_id=331171
STADIUM VILLAGE, MN -- Trust me, as a NCAA Tournament traditionalist, I never thought I'd be typing the words to follow.
I have never been one for expanding the NCAA Tournament. Why mess with what's clearly working, right? But wait, hold that thought. In what will be a surprise to some, I've gradually changed my tune in the last year or two with regards to NCAA Tournament expansion.
I've grown weary watching quality mid-majors like Old Dominion (2015), Monmouth (2016), and Valparaiso (2016) get snubbed for at-large bids in favor of "power conference" schools like UCLA (2015) and Vanderbilt (2016), both selections which still have me scratching my head in disbelief.
Here's another shocker. I'd actually be in support of an idea Coach K tossed out there a few years ago, and some of you know how I feel about Coach K (blech)! Though I strongly disagree with the number of teams Coach Alphabet mentioned -- I believe it was 128 -- he suggested expanding the NCAA tourney field to include all conference champions (regular season & conference tournament) receiving automatic bids. I love that idea, so long as the field wouldn't expand beyond 96 teams.
The first and most important thing that would do is allow more access to the Tournament for the mid- and small-major conferences. I'm all for that, despite being a fan of a power-conference team. The second thing it would do is cause the number of at-large bids to vary from year to year. ... there'd be no set number like 36, like there is now.
If every one of the 32 regular-season champions also won the conference tournament, there would be 64 at-large bids. Conversely, if there was a different (tournament) champion in all 32 conferences, there'd only be 32 at-large bids. Obviously, each season the number would fluctuate between 32 and 64 at-large bids. I think it'd be pretty cool to have a "floating" number of at-large bids.
So you ask, "But what if a school -- especially one from a smaller conference -- wins the regular-season automatic bid and then decides to rest some of its key players?" for the conference tournament, thus allowing or all but assuring its conference gets an additional NCAA representative? Simple answer, in my book.
Any team that does double duty and wins both the regular season and conference tournament gets an automatic bye into the Round of 64. Size, status, or brand name of your conference? Does not matter one iota. A double-champ from the Horizon or Summit, etc. is = to a double-champ from the B1G or ACC, etc. Win both, and it's guaranteed you don't have to play the extra game (32 games in the Round of 96).
And yes, the conference tournaments would still matter, especially to a regular-season champion from a smaller conference. To wit, can you imagine the incentive for a double-champion from a league like the SWAC getting a pass to the Round of 64, while other higher-ranked and presumably better teams (in the eyes of the Selection Committee) have to play on Day 1 of the Tournament?
Yes, this could present some odd Round of 64 match-ups (if there are an inordinate number of double-champs), but so be it. Generally speaking, most seasons the best 15 or 16 teams in the country will be getting byes to the Round of 64. Those are the teams the Selection Committee tries to protect, anyways.
This specific "Field of 96" scenario is the only Tournament expansion I'd support. If it was expanded to 96 without the double-champ deal, no thanks. Then all it is is another expansion aimed to get more middlin' (read: not all that deserving) power-conference teams more at-large bids. At minimum, with the double-champs reward, the field definitely would have more smaller-conference representation in numbers, if not necessarily in percentage of teams in the field.
Your thoughts? Agreements and/or disagreements are welcomed, encouraged.
Column: Even A NCAA Tournament Traditionalist Could Support A "Double Champs" Field of 96
By BuzzKing (@Fieldof68Freak)
http://www.gopherhole.com/news_article/show/737073?referrer_id=331171
STADIUM VILLAGE, MN -- Trust me, as a NCAA Tournament traditionalist, I never thought I'd be typing the words to follow.
I have never been one for expanding the NCAA Tournament. Why mess with what's clearly working, right? But wait, hold that thought. In what will be a surprise to some, I've gradually changed my tune in the last year or two with regards to NCAA Tournament expansion.
I've grown weary watching quality mid-majors like Old Dominion (2015), Monmouth (2016), and Valparaiso (2016) get snubbed for at-large bids in favor of "power conference" schools like UCLA (2015) and Vanderbilt (2016), both selections which still have me scratching my head in disbelief.
Here's another shocker. I'd actually be in support of an idea Coach K tossed out there a few years ago, and some of you know how I feel about Coach K (blech)! Though I strongly disagree with the number of teams Coach Alphabet mentioned -- I believe it was 128 -- he suggested expanding the NCAA tourney field to include all conference champions (regular season & conference tournament) receiving automatic bids. I love that idea, so long as the field wouldn't expand beyond 96 teams.
The first and most important thing that would do is allow more access to the Tournament for the mid- and small-major conferences. I'm all for that, despite being a fan of a power-conference team. The second thing it would do is cause the number of at-large bids to vary from year to year. ... there'd be no set number like 36, like there is now.
If every one of the 32 regular-season champions also won the conference tournament, there would be 64 at-large bids. Conversely, if there was a different (tournament) champion in all 32 conferences, there'd only be 32 at-large bids. Obviously, each season the number would fluctuate between 32 and 64 at-large bids. I think it'd be pretty cool to have a "floating" number of at-large bids.
So you ask, "But what if a school -- especially one from a smaller conference -- wins the regular-season automatic bid and then decides to rest some of its key players?" for the conference tournament, thus allowing or all but assuring its conference gets an additional NCAA representative? Simple answer, in my book.
Any team that does double duty and wins both the regular season and conference tournament gets an automatic bye into the Round of 64. Size, status, or brand name of your conference? Does not matter one iota. A double-champ from the Horizon or Summit, etc. is = to a double-champ from the B1G or ACC, etc. Win both, and it's guaranteed you don't have to play the extra game (32 games in the Round of 96).
And yes, the conference tournaments would still matter, especially to a regular-season champion from a smaller conference. To wit, can you imagine the incentive for a double-champion from a league like the SWAC getting a pass to the Round of 64, while other higher-ranked and presumably better teams (in the eyes of the Selection Committee) have to play on Day 1 of the Tournament?
Yes, this could present some odd Round of 64 match-ups (if there are an inordinate number of double-champs), but so be it. Generally speaking, most seasons the best 15 or 16 teams in the country will be getting byes to the Round of 64. Those are the teams the Selection Committee tries to protect, anyways.
This specific "Field of 96" scenario is the only Tournament expansion I'd support. If it was expanded to 96 without the double-champ deal, no thanks. Then all it is is another expansion aimed to get more middlin' (read: not all that deserving) power-conference teams more at-large bids. At minimum, with the double-champs reward, the field definitely would have more smaller-conference representation in numbers, if not necessarily in percentage of teams in the field.
Your thoughts? Agreements and/or disagreements are welcomed, encouraged.
