We might just make the NCAA tourney

[Tricky_Falcon]

Field of 128? Coaches want NCAA tourney expanded

INDIANAPOLIS -- In a perfect world, college basketball coaches would nearly double the size of the 65-team NCAA men's tournament field. Realistically, they'd accept a smaller victory.

The number of Division I teams has increased significantly since the last major expansion more than two decades ago. The field went from 48 to 64 teams in 1985, then added a 65th team to the field in 2001 when the number of automatic bids went from 30 to 31.

Motivated in part by George Mason's remarkable Final Four run last season, coaches will urge the NCAA to expand its most lucrative championship event during the men's and women's basketball committee meetings in Orlando, Fla., this week.

"They'd love to see the tournament double to 128," said Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches. "It's based on several things. First, there are a lot of good teams worthy of making the NCAA field, and second, the size of 64 or 65 has been in place for a number of years."

Potential models range from minor adjustments to major changes.

When Haney met with NCAA officials last month, he proposed the 128-team field in part because postseason bids may help coaches keep their jobs.

At this year's Final Four, though, Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim said he supported expansion on a smaller scale. Boeheim and others suggested adding three to seven teams, a move they claimed would allow as many as four opening-round games to be played in Dayton, Ohio, instead of the one now played between the two lowest-seeded teams in the field.

Some believe such a schedule would create a more realistic tournament environment since first-round sites also play four games on the first day.

But changes don't appear imminent.

In March, NCAA president Myles Brand said he didn't see much support to expand the field and vice president for men's basketball Greg Shaheen reiterated that point Friday.

"Many, many people believe the size of the championship is just right," Shaheen said. "A lot of people think there's enough recognition of teams that did well and there's a logical and timely conclusion to the season."

Shaheen said this week's discussions, which end Thursday, will mark the first time expansion has been on the agenda in several years. The reason?

After a four-year legal battle with the National Invitation Tournament, the NCAA agreed to buy the tournament for $56.5 million last August.

Expansion also faces additional hurdles.

If the NCAA opted for a 128-team field, the number of first-round sites would double and an extra week of play would likely be added. Plus, Shaheen said the NCAA would have to debate how best to provide maximum television coverage.

Shaheen said changes would also have to be made in conjunction with the women's tournament.

"There is no one model that is obvious here, and that's something we need to contemplate," he said. "The other issue is how the women's tournament would be similarly impacted here and they need to coincide."

The coaches, however, contend there are many reasons to expand. Among their arguments:

• The number of Division I teams has increased significantly since the last major expansion more than two decades ago. The field went from 48 to 64 teams in 1985, then added a 65th team to the field in 2001 when the number of automatic bids went from 30 to 31.

• George Mason, which was one of the last at-large teams to make the field this year, proved parity in college basketball is real. The combination of prominent programs losing underclassmen at faster rates and scholarship reductions have helped mid-major schools become more competitive. The coaches believe they deserved to be rewarded accordingly.

• Now that the NCAA controls both postseason tournaments, coaches think it's time to include some of the bubble teams that annually complain when they are left out.

Could it happen?

"I don't think the idea of doubling the field is going to happen right now because there are too many complications to do that," Haney said. "But I think the committee will seriously consider what the number will be. ... I think if it happens, it will have to happen soon because of the logistical issues."

[kdog27]

I like it the way it is. The first four rounds of games our always a blast. I think expanding the field would take away from that.

[Jacobs4Heisman]

I love the tourney the way it is. More teams would make it feel less special to actually get in.

If they want to reward mid-major's more, how about making the committee watch some game tape and start choosing a 23-8 MAC school over that 17-11 SEC school. It really isn't that complicated.

[Falconboy]

I love the tourney the way it is. More teams would make it feel less special to actually get in.

If they want to reward mid-major's more, how about making the committee watch some game tape and start choosing a 23-8 MAC school over that 17-11 SEC school. It really isn't that complicated.

What, that just makes way too much sense man , we can never do that.

[OptionQB]

Yeah, but in many cases that 17-11 SEC school still beats the 23-8 MAC school on a neutral court. It's not the record, it's who you play and how competitive you can be once you get there.

The MAC has been a very average conference the last 2-3 years with no one team being anything great, let alone justifying multiple berths.

[Redwingtom]

If they are going to expand it, just add 3 more teams and have four play-in games instead of 1.

I don't believe there are enough viable playing venues to warrant that many teams so games would probably be played at home arena's virtually taking away any chance of a major upset. So what good does one more ass whooping do for a .500 or sub .500 team from a smaller conference?

[Jacobs4Heisman]

Yeah, but in many cases that 17-11 SEC school still beats the 23-8 MAC school on a neutral court. It's not the record, it's who you play and how competitive you can be once you get there.

The MAC has been a very average conference the last 2-3 years with no one team being anything great, let alone justifying multiple berths.

I agree, but that's not the point. The point is that they said they want to do something to get more mid-major teams in the field. It's not rocket science how to do that. Just make it a requirement that you have to be better than .500 in your conference to get in the tourney (unless you win the conf. tourney). That right there would knock out 2-3 Major schools and open the door for the MAC, MVC, Horizon, whoever. I'm sure there are countless other little tweaks to formulas that would make it easier for the Kent States, Butlers, Manhattans, and George Masons of the world to show they belong with the big boys.

[KPAFalcon]

Keep it special, expanding would make it the equivalent to the NBA, one round too many.

[BleedOrange]

Naaah. The current cutoff is very awkward for college basketball. It forces the committee to draw an extremely difficult line that short changes dozens of teams based on conference affiliation. We end up with hairsplitting and speculation to the point that at-large bids are basically arbitrary. The current cutoff is such that middle of the pack teams from power conferences are often compared to good mid-majors, and that comparison is hard (especially since those good mid-majors can almost never get games with power conference teams). If we had 96 or 128, there would be a lot less of such controversy, and a lot less bitching overall. We're only talking about one more round, remember.

[Jacobs4Heisman]

not to mention 20-50 teams that don't deserve to be there, and a diluted product overall. I would love to see 3-5 more teams get in, as that seems to be the normal amount of leave-outs that make you scratch your head at the committee.

I haven't cried very much for the 30th team left out of the tourney in recent years.

[TG1996]

not to mention 20-50 teams that don't deserve to be there, and a diluted product overall. I would love to see 3-5 more teams get in, as that seems to be the normal amount of leave-outs that make you scratch your head at the committee.

I haven't cried very much for the 30th team left out of the tourney in recent years.

Add 3-5 teams and they'll cry and try to make a case for #6. Eventually, they'll nickel and dime their way to having an extra 30 teams anyway, why not do it now and give us an extra weekend of hoops off the top?

(For the record, I'm just fine with 65, but can see the argument for more.)

[hammb]

It's the best sporting event in the world right now. Don't F*** with it!!!

[KPAFalcon]

DITTO

[h2oville rocket]

It's the best sporting event in the world right now. Don't F*** with it!!!

You only say that because you've never been to a major "ride and tie" event!

[jacojdm]

It's the best sporting event in the world right now. Don't F*** with it!!!

You only say that because you've never been to a major "ride and tie" event!

I did take a weekend trip to Tijuana once....