NCAA Tournament expansion

[RichmondNative]

Had a poll over on Reddit and may redo one on SpiderNation 2.0 once we get the numbers built up.

This was a well researched position paper by Matt Norlander of CBS Sports.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...hy-the-ncaa-tournament-doesnt-need-to-expand/

 

[RichmondNative]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1948417963473666420

Good news from my point of view.

 

[RichmondNative]

Final decision made for this year’s tournament - no change.

Expect this topic to come back up in early 2026. Maybe the van will get kicked down the road again. The only reason to expand is dollar chasing and that seems hard to do until TV contracts are up for renewal again.

 

[SFspidur]

They said the committee is going to continue conversations about going to 72 or 76 for the 2027 tournament. They’ve just run out of time to get anything done for this year.

 

[sman]

The only reason to expand is dollar chasing and that seems hard to do until TV contracts are up for renewal again.

I can't think of a good reason not to expand.

 

[Spider17]

I can't think of a good reason not to expand.

Waters down competition with more P5 teams that finish 18-15 in the season and have artificially high NET because of conference affiliation.

 

[Spiderguy]

Then there’s the question of what it does for us. Not sure how many prior years the expansion would have helped us. I just know we have plenty of work to do in scheduling and on court to currently put ourself in position to be included in any consideration. Take care of business, and results will follow.

 

[Gallipoli]

Maybe the van will get kicked down the road again.

That's going to hurt. When it happens let me know, I want to see it.

 

[RichmondNative]

That's going to hurt. When it happens let me know, I want to see it.

That’s what happens when you post via a phone instead of a computer. But maybe it is appropriate as the amount of effort required each passing year is more significant….

 

[Urmite]

They said the committee is going to continue conversations about going to 72 or 76 for the 2027 tournament. They’ve just run out of time to get anything done for this year.

So they are not expanding the 2026 tournament enough for us to get an at large?

 

[SFspidur]

So they are not expanding the 2026 tournament enough for us to get an at large?

 

[sman]

Waters down competition with more P5 teams that finish 18-15 in the season and have artificially high NET because of conference affiliation.

do you feel the 1985 expansion from 32 teams to 64 teams watered down the competition? somehow the tournament has been fine.

in 1985 there were 282 D1 teams. we had 364 last year.

 

[97spiderfan]

If they increase it to 72, that is just going to be 4 more P-5 teams that don't deserve to be in the tournament getting in. All of the non P-5 conference need to stand firm and band together and demand a more fair process and access to the NCAA tournament before they vote to expand. The P5's have gamed the NET.

 

[Spider17]

do you feel the 1985 expansion from 32 teams to 64 teams watered down the competition? somehow the tournament has been fine.

in 1985 there were 282 D1 teams. we had 364 last year.

There were 29 college basketball conferences that year according to my Google search. Every conference deserves to have at least 1 bid. Having only 3 at-large bids would be ridiculous and 64 seems like a good balance of getting the best teams in, representing all conferences, and not over-saturating the tournament. Now there’s 32 conferences for basketball. Essentially many low-tier conferences have their de-facto NCAA qualifying tournament with their conference tournament. Plus, most of the new teams since 1985 are schools that should not be D1. Just because more teams are joining the NEC or MAAC now doesn’t mean the tournament should expand imo.

 

[sman]

If they increase it to 72, that is just going to be 4 more P-5 teams that don't deserve to be in the tournament getting in. All of the non P-5 conference need to stand firm and band together and demand a more fair process and access to the NCAA tournament before they vote to expand. The P5's have gamed the NET.

if the next 4 best teams are from high majors, so be it. I'm not looking for any mid-major assurances.

I'm pro-expansion. a few more decent teams will be playing. more students and fans get to take part.
we already have First Four games. expansion won't bother me at all and it won't hurt the tournament. If the "64 is the only right number" purists have an issue, they can boycott the 1st 2 days. just pick it up at 64 on Thursday.

 

[RichmondNative]

I also heard today that the expansion to be debated is 76 invites. 72 was thrown around as a possible “compromise”, but I don’t think anyone was really in love with that option.

Any expansion is too much in my opinion and won’t do anything to improve the tournament. 64 teams is the best number based on the 32 conferences with autobids and an equal number of at-large bids. Seeds 1-16 in four regions works great and the tv schedule fit nicely too.

In addition, the transfer rules and paying of players etc is already further concentrating the talent in fewer teams leading to an even more defined top tier and then everyone else. To see the “best games”, you will want to totally skip the first few rounds. In addition, the P5 are going to make sure their teams get all the available spots just like the BS that is being proposed for the proposed expanded FCS football playoffs.

Stepping off of the soap box now.

 

[sman]

we're already at 68, Native. we're never going back to 64.
so if they're already playing 4 games on Tuesday/Wednesday, what's the difference if it's 8?

 

[Urmite]

we're already at 68, Native. we're never going back to 64.
so if they're already playing 4 games on Tuesday/Wednesday, what's the difference if it's 8?

I still look at it as symmetry. 1 at large game and 1 AQ game from each region on Tuesday/Wednesday seems right.

 

[RichmondNative]

we're already at 68, Native. we're never going back to 64.
so if they're already playing 4 games on Tuesday/Wednesday, what's the difference if it's 8?

Understand that the number is not going to be rolled back - at least not until the super league comes to be and everything changes. But my opinion is 64 was better than 68 as the additional games added nothing to the tournament. Yes, I realize that the Broad St boys are very fond of the “First Four”, but the hoopla came way after the initial “play-in” games. Plus, I think the pairings in these new additional games will be dictated by the P5 and we will get play-in games between the lowest tier conferences, which of course will further reduce the interest in those games.

 

[97spiderfan]

if the next 4 best teams are from high majors, so be it. I'm not looking for any mid-major assurances.

According to whom? I think we all know where those 4 bids will be coming from. It won't be high quality mid major that win 25 plus games, it will be barely above .500 high majors.

I would consider expansion if you had a stipulation that you had to at least be above .500 in conference. If you can't have a winning record in a conference of your peers, you don't deserve to play for a national championship. If I'm a mid major conference I would demand more subject criteria like this before I vote for expansion. The NET has proven to not be subjective but something that High major programs can manipulate quite well by only playing themselves and then racking up wins against vastly inferior opposition.