[LUconn]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2500025


This is going to happen eventually. Not because it should or because people want it to, but because sports writers keep writing about it every so often. It makes it seem like there's a demand when I doubt most coaches or fans want this to happen. The only coaches that do are the ones in the major conferences who's teams aren't good enough to make it off the bubble. There is only one thing wrong with the tournament right now, and it's the stupid play-in game. But from 1985-2000, the tournament was perfect.

[TDDance234]

I don't see why it's such a good idea. No team ranked 128 is going to beat a 1 seed or anything close to it. A 16 has never beat a 1 seed. It would be just silly to add another game thats not going to change much.

[TIMSCAR20]

TD,

what would happen is that you would have more opening round games and the higher seeds would get a bye. Theorhetically the person that wins the Championship might still only need to play 6 games but it could be more if they go to 128. I don't like this idea at all. I think it should stay the same or do what Boeheim said and just add a few teams. Doubling the tournament is just silly IMHO.

[thesportscritic]

Need to keep the tournament to 64 teams.

[Chris Lang]

LUConn, respectfully, the NCAA doesn't give a lick about what we sports writers think. The article was pertinent because coaches are starting to chirp about it again and it's a lead-in to the meetings down there. If sports writers could affect change, we'd have a college football playoff by now.

I've always been a proponent of expanding the tournament by six or eight teams IF, and it's a big IF, the teams forced into the play-in games are at-large bids from large conferences. It's completely unfair for the Big South champ or the MEAC champ to bust their tails through the regular season and conference tournaments only to get dropped into the play-in game.

I've also been a proponent of the reorganization of conference tournaments. If there's an undisputed regular season champion (not decided by a tiebreaker), that team should get an automatic spot in the conference tournament title game. That team has earned the opportunity to only have to win once to get to the NCAAs. Yeah, it would suck the life out of conference tournaments, but it would ensure the best team makes it. I just think a regular season championship should mean something.

[WinthropEagleFan]

LUConn, respectfully, the NCAA doesn't give a lick about what we sports writers think. The article was pertinent because coaches are starting to chirp about it again and it's a lead-in to the meetings down there. If sports writers could affect change, we'd have a college football playoff by now.

I've always been a proponent of expanding the tournament by six or eight teams IF, and it's a big IF, the teams forced into the play-in games are at-large bids from large conferences. It's completely unfair for the Big South champ or the MEAC champ to bust their tails through the regular season and conference tournaments only to get dropped into the play-in game.

I've also been a proponent of the reorganization of conference tournaments. If there's an undisputed regular season champion (not decided by a tiebreaker), that team should get an automatic spot in the conference tournament title game. That team has earned the opportunity to only have to win once to get to the NCAAs. Yeah, it would suck the life out of conference tournaments, but it would ensure the best team makes it. I just think a regular season championship should mean something.

I think the auto bid is up to the individual conferences to determine. If a conference wants to give the auto-bid to their regular season champ, they can (ie. the Ivy Leauge) as long as that's the way the league has it established going into the year. Though i like the 'purity' of having the regular season champ getting the bid, the winner-take-all intensity of the conference tourney is fun and the chance of an upset makes it intriguing. I like how alot of leagues are creating ways to give the regular season some meaning by giving the higher seeds advantages like home court (ie. the Big South) or a double-bye (ie. the West Coast Conference and a couple of others), but still giving other teams a chance, yet making their road a little tougher...

[LUconn]

In this particular situation, you're correct. It's whiny/inadequate coaches trying to save their jobs and Beoheim talking about it. But I think that the sports media has a bigger impact on sports policy/rules/regulations/rulings etc. than you think. Even before coaches started talking about this, it's been written/talk radioed about, probably since 1985.

[givemethemic]

I say add 6 more teams and have the 4 play-in games in Dayton on that Tuesday...That would get the Tourney off to a pretty good start, but it's not like it needs one....

[A.G.]

Hey, with 128 teams the Big South MIGHT actually get a 2nd team in.

[SuperJon]

Doubt it.

[ATrain]

Hey, with 128 teams the Big South MIGHT actually get a 2nd team in.

Umm, no...we'll just have every BCS team, the A10 and CUSA routinely get multiple bids every year, all the conference auto-bids plus extra CAA and MVC teams. Nothing changes for the low end mid-majors like the Big South. Except for Winthrop MAYBE winning a tourney game.