Jump to content
RamSack

Larry Eustachy says the NCAA tourney should be expanded

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Wyobraska said:

No, leave it as is.  Some teams will always be left out that feel they should be in.  Do more in your season to make yourself a lock.  

Basically what LE is saying is that unless you're from a P5, you almost don't have much of a chance of getting an at-large. We see that with 18-14 teams from a P5 with a losing conf record over teams with higher RPI's from a non-P5 conf.  There were only 4 at-large spots that went to non-P5's this year.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? I wasn't exactly in favor of win the hey expanded it the first time seems to have worked out though but anymore expansion I think would water things down.

The NIT has a great history and many schools if they can't get into the NCAA like to play in the NIT as many use it as a lift off to the following season. If you make a tournament to big you water down everything and in today's world where most people's attention spans are getting shorter you may lose a lot of interest in doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

Why? I wasn't exactly in favor of win the hey expanded it the first time seems to have worked out though but anymore expansion I think would water things down.

The NIT has a great history and many schools if they can't get into the NCAA like to play in the NIT as many use it as a lift off to the following season. If you make a tournament to big you water down everything and in today's world where most people's attention spans are getting shorter you may lose a lot of interest in doing that.

I'd be ok with keeping it as-is if 18-14 P5 teams weren't allowed in over 25 win, 30 RPI non-P5 teams like it used to be.

 

For the record, I also like the NIT.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's time to return to the old days and split the NCAA into two leagues, regardless of P5/ G5 status. I'd do something along the lines of East/ North and West/ South. Have two separate, concurrent tournaments of 64 teams each with the champions of each one facing off for the National Championship. Gives David a pretty good shot at Goliath all around...

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

68 isn't enough?  

 

Perhps he should focus on creating a better team.

Back off! Larry's assistants are pounding the pavement at all of America's finest junior colleges!

 

As for Larry's wish to expand, he's naive to think that it will lead to more mid-majors getting in. A larger tournament would probably lead to our first ever at-large with a losing record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like David Letterman's idea. Let all 320 D1 teams play in a giant tournament at Madison Square Garden. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RamSack said:

...by adding the NIT teams.  Do you support this idea?  I assume he means to allow regular season champs and whatever other criteria the NIT uses in their selection process.

http://www.reporterherald.com/sports/ci_30884138/eustachy-bullish-future-colorado-state-basketball-mountain-west

 

I think all regular season champs should be invited.  I don't think we need to expand the amount of teams that play in the tourney.

Would we really have ended up with a different F4 because we didn't include some random team that was left out at home this year?

  • Like 2

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the hockey thread got me thinking on Sunday. Hockey has 16 of 60 DI teams make the tournament. I thought let's apply that to basketball. Rounded it off to 88 teams. Top 10 seeds in each region don't play in the opening round.

 

I wrote out the bracket with a friend. We made a couple rules that sound good I think.

Both regular season and tournament champs get in. Double champs get a guarantee of at least an X seed, we said 10.  That sounds high, in this year's bracket that was the 6 through 10 seeds, pushing the Shockers to like low 20s overall seed wise. But it also comes out that this means those teams go head to head. Also threw match up protections out the window, if the curve say B10 vs B10 and the winner plays yet another B10 team? That sucks to be them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fort Fun said:

Back off! Larry's assistants are pounding the pavement at all of America's finest junior colleges!

 

As for Larry's wish to expand, he's naive to think that it will lead to more mid-majors getting in. A larger tournament would probably lead to our first ever at-large with a losing record.

Larry gets a bonus for getting into the NCAA Tourney. of course he'd favor an expanded field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of season conference winners and conference tourney winners getting in...

But if we want to play on the love of March Madness and extend it another two weeks , how about making the final four and the championship a best of three series.

Might make it tough on fans of teams in the final four who can't stay for a week but would sell more tickets to those in the area of the hosted games.

Every ticket bought for the final four would be good for all three games ( if needed). Price point would be equal to a game and a half ticket. Difference in revenue would be made up in concessions and obviously the tv market. 

Who wouldn't watch the final four teams ( or the Championship) play each other more than once? The chance that team A could beat team B in game two and force a third game... Tv ratings galore. Betting through the roof.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RamSack said:

Basically what LE is saying is that unless you're from a P5, you almost don't have much of a chance of getting an at-large. We see that with 18-14 teams from a P5 with a losing conf record over teams with higher RPI's from a non-P5 conf.  There were only 4 at-large spots that went to non-P5's this year.  

What teams were left out that really needed to be in the tournament this year or any year really?  The P5 is always going to get more teams in, that is just the way it is unfortunately.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fort Fun said:

Back off! Larry's assistants are pounding the pavement at all of America's finest junior colleges!

 

As for Larry's wish to expand, he's naive to think that it will lead to more mid-majors getting in. A larger tournament would probably lead to our first ever at-large with a losing record.

One of those Jucos just won CPOY.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Swoll Cracker said:

Larry gets a bonus for getting into the NCAA Tourney. of course he'd favor an expanded field.

I wouldn't ever go so far as to say that the NCAA needs to expand by 32, but I certainly wouldn't argue with adding 2 or 4 more play-in games, especially if it means more G5s in the tourney since there is clearly an agenda there.  How else do you explain 19-15 Vandy getting in over 28-7 Illinois St?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RambleOn said:

I wouldn't ever go so far as to say that the NCAA needs to expand by 32, but I certainly wouldn't argue with adding 2 or 4 more play-in games, especially if it means more G5s in the tourney since there is clearly an agenda there.  How else do you explain 19-15 Vandy getting in over 28-7 Illinois St?  

Teams get screwed on Selection Sunday by a committee that is heavily skewed toward the P5 conferences.  They use eye test when convenient, they use advanced metrics when convenient.  That wont change regardless of the field size.

I've grown tired of Eustachy and his excuses.  Tim Miles built an NCAA at-large worthy program at CSU on a limited budget. In 2012 (while on his way to an at-large), Tim was asked by the Athletic Director to put together a business plan that would allow CSU to become a top tier program.  Tim developed a plan complete with a significant increase in budget. That plan included significant increases in funding for recruiting, coaches salaries, player development, team travel (charters), etc.

When Tim left for Nebraska following the 2011-12 season, Eustachy walked right into an NCAA Tournament program with those funding increases. He won that first year with Tim's team (and assistant Niko Medved) and CSU went to the Round of 32 in the tournament.  Since then Eustachy has taken the program in the wrong direction. Sure they got screwed in 2014-15.  That being said, CSU is nowhere near being a regular candidate for an at-large berth with all of the budget improvements.

The answer to CSU getting into the NCAA Tournament doesnt come form the NCAA increasing the field size. The answer comes from within the walls of the McGraw Center. Its time for Eustachy to look in the mirror, take responsibility, and admit that he ain't getting it done instead of constantly bull-shitting us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RamSack said:

I'd be ok with keeping it as-is if 18-14 P5 teams weren't allowed in over 25 win, 30 RPI non-P5 teams like it used to be.

 

For the record, I also like the NIT.

The problem isn't the 18-14 teams, the problem is that those quality non-p5 teams are mostly gone.

 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 5:04 AM, UofMTigers said:

not when there are 32 conferences that get auto bids and 350 teams....70 is the way to go.

They just should make all conference championship tourneys a part of the NCAA tourney. Which it kinda is already. That way all 350 teams are technically considered invited.

Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented by this poster (Warbow) are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Univesity of Hawaii or it's loyal fans. All quotes and opinions from Warbow are valid for 30 days following the date of post transmission and are subject to change at any time. All information published herein by Warbow is gathered from his own opinions or sources which are thought to be reliable, but the reader should not assume that the information is official or fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NCAA tourney field should increase as D1 gets bigger. I'd say increase to 70 for now and possibly look at making sub-.500 conference teams ineligible to earn at-large berths.

 

7 hours ago, ph90702 said:

If you’re such a UNLV fan, why did you go elsewhere?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...