Required Reading From Dana O'Neil

[golfitup]

Great column on why tournament expansion is HORRIBLE for college basketball.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5048513


Personally, I feel anyone who thinks expansion to 96 teams is a good idea is an idiot.

[Xman95]

One of the best articles she has written.

Here's one of the truly amazing things about this: the majority doesn't want expansion of the tournament, but the NCAA is going to make it happen. The majority would like to see a tourney for college football, but the NCAA won't let it happen.

The NCAA is about money and money only. They should do away with all Prop 48 crap, any kind of regulations regarding academics, maybe even anything regarding eligibility. None of this is about the student, the athlete or the fan. It's about $$$. That's it.

Honestly, this expansion might push me over the edge...to the point where I don't give a damn about the tourney except when Xavier is playing. It's not bad enough that the NCAA has been a joke recently. Now it's turning into a whole stand-up act.

[Xman95]

Personally, I feel anyone who thinks expansion to 96 teams is a good idea is an idiot.

Or a Big East coach. Well, I guess it's the same thing.

[SixFig]

The sad thing about expansion is that while I HATE the idea more than I hate UC, UD, and Adam Morrison's mustache combined, I will still watch the games.

[GuyFawkes38]

I thought about reading the article, but I think it will make me too depressed.

uggghhhh

It honestly pisses me off. I lost a lot of respect for Bobinkski for pushing this.

[Flexo]

Good tweet by Dan Wetzel on this subject today: "NCAA won't touch postseason most hate (BCS) will screw w the one most love (hoops). Pure obstinance and corruption."

[GuyFawkes38]

Did anyone see the press conference on ESPN.

The NCAA official basically admitted that a big part of the decision comes down to money. He stated that if they did this, it would go a long way to funding other NCAA sporting events.

Everyone recognizes that this will be bad for college basketball. It's extremely frustrating to watch this happen.

[SixFig]

If ESPN won coverage of the Tournament, would this article have been written?

[coasterville95]

And the teams that are going to suffer? Teams like us. Every season we talk about who the big non conference signature win is going to be. If, as most people have said, this is going to render the regular season meaningless, why would schools book games they know they have a real chance of losing.

Teams that will benefit from this? The 200-300 RPI teams that consider the non-con part of the schedule fundraising time. Prepare for a november and decemer full of games that resemble the Harlem Globetrotters vs. the Washington Generals, except without alll the humour.

And that game schedule sound brutal - consider for a 33-96 seeded team:
Play Friday in Round 1, play Sunday in round 2, then play Tuesday in round 3 (it could happen), then play Thursday in round 4, then play Saturday in round 5. Survive all that, then you can get a week off for Final Four. They haven't mentioned how the game venues would go, so is it rounds 1, 2 and 3 at "First Round Sites", then 4 and 5 at regionals, then 6 and 7 at finals? Either way teams are going to have to make a wicked 'circus jump' somewehre. In that hypotheticla above. If they travel after round 2 then its play Sunday in round 2, travel Monday to new location which could be clear cross country, the round 3 on Tuesday. If they travel after round 3, then they play Tuesday in round 3, probably at 7 or 9 pm, then on Wednesday have to travel, maybe even cross country to regionals, they will barely have time to LOOK at the regionals arena, much less have time to get settled in. If they round 3 a whole new venue, then look out. Much less the fans, I mean we know airlines are so very accomodating when you try to book a flight 48 hours before the trip. I'm guessing this scenario would abolish the Dayton Flyer Invitational Play In Game.

But yeah, let's mess with what most consider to be near perfection for a tournament, while failing to establish a football tournament. For football let's just start with a 32 team tournament, We're talking 5 weeks. The college football season ends around the first week of December. By Mid January you can have that tourney done with just one round a week. Use a 16 team field and its 4 rounds. Right now we have what 3 major bowls and the BCS title game, so thats 8 teams, so 16 sounds about right. Not to mention 15 games instead of just 4, and if you don't think rabid football fans would travel as a team advances .

[XUglow]

Here's one of the truly amazing things about this: the majority doesn't want expansion of the tournament, but the NCAA is going to make it happen. The majority would like to see a tourney for college football, but the NCAA won't let it happen.


The NCAA doesn't control football. That is controlled by the BCS. Anything that the NCAA wants for post-season football is merely a suggestion to those guys.

[joebba]

I am totally unhappy about this expansion talk. They should do away with conference tourneys if they do. I agree that this expansion would really make the regular season games less meaningful because if you are a marginally good team you will get to the tournament.

And brackets? I will never play a bracket game in an 96 team format, for one 96 TEAMS? You will not fit 96 teams onto one page neatly or legibly.

If they go through with the expansion I am serious that I will probably stop watching college basketball. This is so greedy and such a ridiculous idea. I did not realize I felt this strong about the issue until all the reports recently are talking about it being likely to happen.

If it does expand I hope fans react to it in such a way that the NCAA realizes how dumb this idea is.

I stopped caring about baseball (and watching) after the last major strike and have never looked back.

Maybe I will start following women's basketball if their format remains 64 teams.

[Porkopolis]

Why don't we jut go ahead and turn it into the NBA? They already play a long, drawn out, meaningless season. And that is exactly what college hoops is getting ready to do with the expansion to 96.

[xnatic03]

I'm not happy about the expansion. My guess is that they'll play off the regular season still being important by claiming you're playing for the higher seeds (to get the byes). The teams that would have normally made the NIT might be lucky to get a single win in the tournament, but they will never make noise in the tourney. Also, the teams that load up on powder puffs will show their lack of being tested when they hit the tournament.
All that being said, I will still watch college basketball. It is my favorite sport (by far) and will remain so. The funny thing is, Va Tech will probably still have one of the worst OOC schedules and be sitting on the bubble at #97 with Seth Greenberg bitching about being left out.

[Muskie1000]

The only thing I see good about it (and there really isn't much) is the fact that some of the smaller conferences may get 2 teams in. Last night on ESPN, they discussed that one of the ideas was that both the reg conference winner and the tourney conference winner would get in. In the bigger confereneces, normally that isn't a big deal because most of the time both make it anyway. I can't imagine how I team feels to lead their conference all season only to lose it during one game during the tournament. If I had a choice I still say don't expand but if its gonna happen, at least that is one good thing that could come out of it. The rest of it stinks.

[Frank D.]

The only thing I see good about it (and there really isn't much) is the fact that some of the smaller conferences may get 2 teams in. Last night on ESPN, they discussed that one of the ideas was that both the reg conference winner and the tourney conference winner would get in. In the bigger confereneces, normally that isn't a big deal because most of the time both make it anyway. I can't imagine how I team feels to lead their conference all season only to lose it during one game during the tournament. If I had a choice I still say don't expand but if its gonna happen, at least that is one good thing that could come out of it. The rest of it stinks.

I totally agree that giving autobids to the regular season and conference tournament champs would make this proposal much easier to swallow. This would partially solve the problem of the regular season being rendered completely meaningless (at least the conference season - the non-conference, as has been mentioned in this thread, would no doubt become a joke).

But ultimately, I don't think this will happen because this proposal would seem to favor the small-conference teams.

[Xman95]

I totally agree that giving autobids to the regular season and conference tournament champs would make this proposal much easier to swallow.

Agreed. Give all conferences two automatic bids. Seems obvious most would give one to the regular season champ, one to the conf. tourney champ. Should that be the same school, give the 2nd bid to the reg. season runner-up or the tourney runner-up. Or conferences can set up a tournament system that allows the regular season winner to sit out (being that they're already in).

But, even with that system, the 96-team field is still going to be WAY too much. Does anyone really think it would have been a good idea to add UNC, Dayton, Kent St., etc. to this year's tournament? Those teams weren't very good and didn't deserve to dance. And those were some of the better NIT teams. What about the bottom half of that field? Ugh.

[Perma Fro]

The "Power 6" conferences will benefit most from this expansion. I can almost see it now. The usual suspects on ESPN (except Gottlieb) will be arguing the merits of a "Power 6" team with .500 overall record and a losing record in conference being more deserving of a bid than a team with 4 or 5 loses from a "Mid-major".

Unless there are some type of safeguards put in places (already mentioned auto bids for reg season and tourney winners) the small guys are still going to get screwed with the new set up.

[boozehound]

I totally agree that giving autobids to the regular season and conference tournament champs would make this proposal much easier to swallow. This would partially solve the problem of the regular season being rendered completely meaningless (at least the conference season - the non-conference, as has been mentioned in this thread, would no doubt become a joke).

But ultimately, I don't think this will happen because this proposal would seem to favor the small-conference teams.

I disagree. If we are expanding the tournament the last thing we need is more teams from the Sun Belt and MEAC conferences that don't have a shot of winning a game. I would rather see them get rid of auto-bids altogether and play a 64 team format in which the best 64 teams get in and we don't have Arkansas Pine Bluff's of the world as sacrifical lambs for the 1 seeds.

[Mark 3 Pointer]

First off, I hate the idea of expansion… Anytime a major rule change is made by the NCAA it takes years for the total affect to be seen by a program. Let’s face it X isn’t Kansas, Kentucky or UNC a decision like this won’t hurt or benefit those guys most seasons… they’ll always get the most highly touted recruits and be contenders (most of the time); X is in a spot where variation in the process will have a greater impact on the program overall. The only thing I want to know is will this expansion positively or negatively affect Xavier’s chances of making a Final Four.

With my limited ability to see into the future here’s my arguments for and against expansion from Xavier’s point of view.

Against Expansion:
-More teams = X’s odds to make the FF go down.
-Value of selling the school as a perennial NCAA team diminishes to recruits
-Less value placed on teams such as X, Gonzaga, Butler and Memphis as being special
-Teams such as Dayton can sell themselves as a perennial NCAA team to recruits

For Expansion:
-Schools with greater resources that haven’t made the tourney recently such as UC would now make the tournament… Thus, less coaching turnover and less chance X’s coach gets cherry picked… X will have the coaching continuity that we all crave.
-Chances are X would be in the tourney every year, some of those years with a by in the first round.
-The tourney is around for another week… I’m all for more basketball


Bottom line… I think expansion will do more harm to X’s chances of making a FF than good. How I see it is that the elite programs (Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Ohio State, Texas, UNC, Michigan State, ect.) will be able to retain their strength in recruiting while schools such as X will loose strength based on other schools ability to sell themselves as perennial NCAA teams. I look at tournament expansion as a “redistribution of talent” where elite schools loose nothing but schools like X, Gonzaga and Butler potentially lose a lot to mid to low tier power conference schools like Georgia, UC or Washington State.

Expansion is bad for Xavier!

[Frank D.]

I disagree. If we are expanding the tournament the last thing we need is more teams from the Sun Belt and MEAC conferences that don't have a shot of winning a game. I would rather see them get rid of auto-bids altogether and play a 64 team format in which the best 64 teams get in and we don't have Arkansas Pine Bluff's of the world as sacrifical lambs for the 1 seeds.

I sort of agree that more teams from the bottom third conferences probably does not make the tournament better. However, if they expand to 96, those bottom-third conference teams would be playing 9-10 seeds, instead of 1 or a 2. It certainly gives them more of a chance of being competitive. Not to mention that, while you're right about most 15 and 16 seeds getting boat-raced by the big boys, 15's have beaten 2's and 14's beat 3's all the time. And these are the most memorable games of the tournament when it happens. So it would stand to reason these guys could give middling bid conference teams a run for their money, and make for some entertaining games.

And just to be clear, I'm not advocating giving all conferences 2 bids - that was someone else's idea. I just like the idea of regular season and conference champs getting autobids, so it wouldn't necessarily result in two teams from the worst conferences.

[Xman95]

I disagree. If we are expanding the tournament the last thing we need is more teams from the Sun Belt and MEAC conferences that don't have a shot of winning a game. I would rather see them get rid of auto-bids altogether and play a 64 team format in which the best 64 teams get in and we don't have Arkansas Pine Bluff's of the world as sacrifical lambs for the 1 seeds.

Then you're in favor of limiting D-1 to 65-100 teams and making the rest D-2 or lower. What you're in favor of takes the opportunity away from kids in smaller conferences. You'll have a field made up entirely of BE, ACC, B12, etc., with just a few others sprinkled in (X, Butler, Gonzaga, Memphis...). Why would a place like Cleveland State even bother to field a D-1 program when the odds will be insanely stacked against them? Even if they have a good team, schools from big conferences would stop scheduling them so their schedule is weaker. With no auto bid, they have no shot.

[Tardy Turtle]

John Feinstein's back-and-forth with Greg Shaheen at the FF introductory presser in regards to missed class time (full transcript HERE (http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=62561)):

(Tardy's TL;DR Cliff's notes:
- NCAA=greedy
- Missed class time < $$$$$
- G. Shaheen is a ****ing idiot)

-----

Q. Greg, you laid out in great detail the travel schedule for the first week. Just so I'm sure I have it right, you're going to play the round of 64 Saturday/Sunday, correct?
GREG SHAHEEN: Uh-huh.

Q. So you didn't lay out the travel schedule for the second week when presumably teams will be playing Monday/Tuesday, then winners would go almost directly to regionals on Thursday/Friday, if that's the schedule as I think it is.
GREG SHAHEEN: It's one of several models that exist. But actually it doesn't necessarily mean that the play continues on Monday/Tuesday. Actually, depending on the structure, there can be a break on Monday so that a team that, for example, is playing Saturday could play Saturday, then Tuesday. So they would have both Sunday and Monday without games.
You also have to keep in mind that on any day of competition, you're losing half the field. Half of the teams are losing and returning home. So, for example, in the first four days of the championship, whereas right now you go from 65 during that time to 16, here you go from 96 to 32. So the majority of teams by number will be back home at that point in time.
But then for the teams that do advance, they would play -- they could play that Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday, for example, going into regional week.

Q. To follow up, if you're going Saturday/Tuesday, Sunday/Tuesday then with the teams that advance if they're playing Saturday/Sunday games, right?
GREG SHAHEEN: They would play Saturday/Tuesday.

Q. So you're not going to play any games on Sunday of the first weekend?
GREG SHAHEEN: No. You'd play half the games on Saturday, half the games on Sunday.

Q. The Sunday teams that advance would play on Tuesday or are you saying Wednesday?
GREG SHAHEEN: Wednesday.

Q. Basically they'll be out of school an entire week the second week?
GREG SHAHEEN: Actually, if you were to look at the window for each individual team, you have to take each team and contemplate the fact right now you have half the field leaving campus on Tuesday, returning on Sunday or Monday.

Q. If they lose. I'm talking about the teams that win in advance. You're going to advance 16 teams.
GREG SHAHEEN: No, actually in the current model you have teams that depart on Tuesday, and even if they win, return on Sunday.

Q. We're misunderstanding each other. Under the new model that you laid out, you play 64 teams Thursday/Friday. 32 advance to games Saturday/Sunday. Then you are down after those games to 32 teams.
GREG SHAHEEN: Right.

Q. You're saying you play games in the round of 32 Tuesday/Wednesday. They would then advance to regionals when?
GREG SHAHEEN: They would continue into the regional as it's normally scheduled now.

Q. So they would go Tuesday to Thursday, Wednesday to Friday?
GREG SHAHEEN: Right.

Q. So they miss an entire week of school. That's what I'm trying to get.
GREG SHAHEEN: If you listened to my original answer, they leave now on Tuesday.

Q. I'm talking about the second week, not the first week. They play a game Saturday/Sunday, play a game Tuesday or Wednesday, then go directly to the regional. Tell me when in that second week they're going to be in class.
GREG SHAHEEN: The entire first week, the majority of the teams would be in class.

Q. You're just not going to answer the question about the second week. You're going to keep referring back to the first week, right? They're going to miss the entire second week under this model.
GREG SHAHEEN: So they're going to go to school the first week, and then they're --

Q. They're going to be under the same schedule you said basically the first week, and then they'll miss the entire second week.
GREG SHAHEEN: I'm clearly missing the nuance of your point.

Q. You and I miss nuances a lot. Thank you.
BOB WILLIAMS: Next question, please.

[Porkopolis]

Then you're in favor of limiting D-1 to 65-100 teams and making the rest D-2 or lower. What you're in favor of takes the opportunity away from kids in smaller conferences. You'll have a field made up entirely of BE, ACC, B12, etc., with just a few others sprinkled in (X, Butler, Gonzaga, Memphis...). Why would a place like Cleveland State even bother to field a D-1 program when the odds will be insanely stacked against them? Even if they have a good team, schools from big conferences would stop scheduling them so their schedule is weaker. With no auto bid, they have no shot.

Not to mention that the current format is the reason teams like X, Butler, Gonzaga and Memphis have the profile they do. Without auto-bids, we would never have reached this level. You have to get that first shot somewhere, see especially: Gonzaga.

[XmAn06]

John Feinstein's back-and-forth with Greg Shaheen at the FF introductory presser in regards to missed class time (full transcript HERE (http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=62561)):

(Tardy's TL;DR Cliff's notes:
- NCAA=greedy
- Missed class time < $$$$$
- G. Shaheen is a ****ing idiot)

-----

Q. Greg, you laid out in great detail the travel schedule for the first week. Just so I'm sure I have it right, you're going to play the round of 64 Saturday/Sunday, correct?
GREG SHAHEEN: Uh-huh.

Q. So you didn't lay out the travel schedule for the second week when presumably teams will be playing Monday/Tuesday, then winners would go almost directly to regionals on Thursday/Friday, if that's the schedule as I think it is.
GREG SHAHEEN: It's one of several models that exist. But actually it doesn't necessarily mean that the play continues on Monday/Tuesday. Actually, depending on the structure, there can be a break on Monday so that a team that, for example, is playing Saturday could play Saturday, then Tuesday. So they would have both Sunday and Monday without games.
You also have to keep in mind that on any day of competition, you're losing half the field. Half of the teams are losing and returning home. So, for example, in the first four days of the championship, whereas right now you go from 65 during that time to 16, here you go from 96 to 32. So the majority of teams by number will be back home at that point in time.
But then for the teams that do advance, they would play -- they could play that Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday, for example, going into regional week.

Q. To follow up, if you're going Saturday/Tuesday, Sunday/Tuesday then with the teams that advance if they're playing Saturday/Sunday games, right?
GREG SHAHEEN: They would play Saturday/Tuesday.

Q. So you're not going to play any games on Sunday of the first weekend?
GREG SHAHEEN: No. You'd play half the games on Saturday, half the games on Sunday.

Q. The Sunday teams that advance would play on Tuesday or are you saying Wednesday?
GREG SHAHEEN: Wednesday.

Q. Basically they'll be out of school an entire week the second week?
GREG SHAHEEN: Actually, if you were to look at the window for each individual team, you have to take each team and contemplate the fact right now you have half the field leaving campus on Tuesday, returning on Sunday or Monday.

Q. If they lose. I'm talking about the teams that win in advance. You're going to advance 16 teams.
GREG SHAHEEN: No, actually in the current model you have teams that depart on Tuesday, and even if they win, return on Sunday.

Q. We're misunderstanding each other. Under the new model that you laid out, you play 64 teams Thursday/Friday. 32 advance to games Saturday/Sunday. Then you are down after those games to 32 teams.
GREG SHAHEEN: Right.

Q. You're saying you play games in the round of 32 Tuesday/Wednesday. They would then advance to regionals when?
GREG SHAHEEN: They would continue into the regional as it's normally scheduled now.

Q. So they would go Tuesday to Thursday, Wednesday to Friday?
GREG SHAHEEN: Right.

Q. So they miss an entire week of school. That's what I'm trying to get.
GREG SHAHEEN: If you listened to my original answer, they leave now on Tuesday.

Q. I'm talking about the second week, not the first week. They play a game Saturday/Sunday, play a game Tuesday or Wednesday, then go directly to the regional. Tell me when in that second week they're going to be in class.
GREG SHAHEEN: The entire first week, the majority of the teams would be in class.

Q. You're just not going to answer the question about the second week. You're going to keep referring back to the first week, right? They're going to miss the entire second week under this model.
GREG SHAHEEN: So they're going to go to school the first week, and then they're --

Q. They're going to be under the same schedule you said basically the first week, and then they'll miss the entire second week.
GREG SHAHEEN: I'm clearly missing the nuance of your point.

Q. You and I miss nuances a lot. Thank you.
BOB WILLIAMS: Next question, please.


Wow... my head is spinning! Are you sure this isn't some type of exchange with someone from Congress?

The fact that he avoided the question at all costs speaks volumes about where their head is at = $$$$$$

I hate the idea of a 96-team tournament - as I explained to my Dad last night - because it waters everything down (Regular Season, OOC Schedule, Conf. Tournaments) - so they should basically just scrap the regular season and start playing college basketball in March (one-month season) and only play the tournament!

In all seriousness - the only expansion that I might be in favor of would be to expand to 68 teams and have 4 "play-in games" for the 4 16-seed spots that are available. This would give a lot of the smaller schools (the Arkansas Pine-Bluff's of the world) some exposure in March and a chance to say they made it to the NCAA tournament (which unfortunately under the 96-team format - almost every school would be able to claim)!

[STL_XUfan]

The "Power 6" conferences will benefit most from this expansion. I can almost see it now. The usual suspects on ESPN (except Gottlieb) will be arguing the merits of a "Power 6" team with .500 overall record and a losing record in conference being more deserving of a bid than a team with 4 or 5 loses from a "Mid-major".

Unless there are some type of safeguards put in places (already mentioned auto bids for reg season and tourney winners) the small guys are still going to get screwed with the new set up.

Get ready for this phrase to sneak its way into college basketball: "Tournament Eligible"

[xu95]

3 pointer, I disagree that this will hurt Xavier's chances of making the FF. In most years, Xavier is at least an 8 seed, which would get a bye in the first round. This format doesn't add any games. If they aren't a top 8 seed, they have to play one extra game. Either way, I don't see why it hurts them.

xu95

[GuyFawkes38]

You very well might see less casual fans fill out brackets (has anyone else seen the bracket, it looks complicated).

It's a terrible long run move. The NFL could expand the playoffs and make a lot more money. But that league is run by people who know what they are doing.

[CinciX12]

3 pointer, I disagree that this will hurt Xavier's chances of making the FF. In most years, Xavier is at least an 8 seed, which would get a bye in the first round. This format doesn't add any games. If they aren't a top 8 seed, they have to play one extra game. Either way, I don't see why it hurts them.

xu95

It hurts us because teams from the Big 6 won't schedule X anymore. Why schedule a tough OOC opponent like X when you can get in solely because of your conference resume? I wouldn't even take a call from Mike about scheduling.

It will place tremendous pressure on X to dominate the A10 regular season, granted thats not something we typically have a problem with. But with just our A10 resume, some years it will be extremely difficult with the bias out there towards the Big 6 schools to get us that 1-8 bye the opening round.

[golfitup]

More required reading. This time from the aforementioned John Feinstein.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040103458.html?referrer=emailarticle&sid=ST2010040104101

[golfitup]

Be sure to catch the part about the Women's NCAA Tournament...

[xu95]

It hurts us because teams from the Big 6 won't schedule X anymore. Why schedule a tough OOC opponent like X when you can get in solely because of your conference resume? I wouldn't even take a call from Mike about scheduling.

It will place tremendous pressure on X to dominate the A10 regular season, granted thats not something we typically have a problem with. But with just our A10 resume, some years it will be extremely difficult with the bias out there towards the Big 6 schools to get us that 1-8 bye the opening round.

I guess we will have to wait and see. I don't think schools are afraid to schedule Xavier now because it won't be considered a bad loss. It's not like we are Dayton or somebody like that.

Plus ESPN still makes made for TV OOC games.

xu95

[CinciX12]

More required reading. This time from the aforementioned John Feinstein.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040103458.html?referrer=emailarticle&sid=ST2010040104101

That article was brutal!