OT: The Dance - NCAA Men's Hoops Tournament - Expansion? What do you think?

Nope!

How big do we have to go to get Michigan and Vanderbilt in?

I can't think of any reason why it should be expanded, the NCAA just wants more money.  Personally I'd roll it back to a nice clean 64, but 68 is fine.

I think no. The majority of new teams you're going to get in will be 17-15 power conference teams. We don't need that

Some things are just best left alone.

No

crime against humanity. absolute atrocity 

Whenever somebody in my company suggests doing something radical (like this) my first question is always the same.  "What problem are you trying to solve?"  And it's amazing how frequently they are stumped to come up with an answer.  It just seemed, to them, to be a "better" idea and so they thought we should pursue it.

So I'll ask my NCAA Overlord betters the same question.  What problem are you trying to solve that increasing the field to 80 teams addresses?  Cant be ratings, those are sky-high.  Cant be Cinderella storylines, every year we have at least one if not more.  And it cant be that fantastic teams are being left out, the last several years the four teams playing in the pre-tournament, tournament all had about 14 or more losses.

This solves nothing because there isnt a problem to fix.

Count me as a solid no as well. I would actually roll it back to 64 as well, its just ridiculous to have these play in games because the committee doesn't like the criticism of choosing one school over another. 

And as always, The Onion saw this coming... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxyPeME9TbI

The NCAA men's basketball tournament.  What is that?

I don't know. If you are adding the second best Ivy League team and stuff like that, then maybe I see a point. But Michigan made it to the tournament in 2022 with 14 losses. Who cares about getting more teams like that into the tournament? They just aren't fun to watch because they have pretty clearly established they aren't particularly good.

It's absurd.  

64 teams was enough.

I feel like the quality of play in the NCAA tournament is already generally awful and this would only make it worse.  Frankly, I would suggest shrinking the field if it were simply the teams that really were tournament teams but I know that isn't happening.

Sitting right here right now I cannot name who was in the Final Four last year or who won the title.  It has been bad watching lately.

I oppose it for the same reason that I think twelve, or even eight, teams are too many for the CFP: namely that there are only so many teams that have a realistic shot at winning the title, and adding additional teams that have no shot is pointless. You're not adding more contenders, you're just expanding the bubble.

For football, in most years there are only a couple teams with a realistic shot of winning it all. This year was kind of an exception, as there were actually more teams that truly deserved a spot than the four spots available (hasn't typically happened), and if you squint you could maybe make an argument that there were upwards of eight-ish real contenders, but again, most years that's not been the case. In most years teams ranked nine through twelve, and often some of the teams ranked five (if not four) through eight, have no shot whatsoever, so all expansion does is add unnecessary games.

Same with basketball. Yeah, Cinderellas often make runs, but realistically there's what, ten, twenty teams that have a shot? I'm not opposed to the autobids, they make the tournament fun and teams that win their conference deserve a ticket, but adding another twelve spots for at-larges just pushes back the bubble and adds more games. I'm sorry, but if you can't make the tournament as it is right now, you just don't have any legitimate reason to get in...

Hell no.

Lunardi's most recent "first team out" is Texas A&M.  They're 15-12, in 10th place in the SEC, and riding a 4-game losing streak, 2 of those losses by 25+ points.  Ummmm .... we need them???

Frankly, I'd wish it was 64 instead of 68.  64 is a very mathematically pleasing number, and produces a logistically great tournament: to win it all you have to win 3 consecutive 4-team single-elimination tournaments.

Team 64 teams.

There's no reason for this other than money. But that's a pretty big reason to be fair.

The risk is definitely diluting the brand though. Already the 1st round games are often meh and lacking in any special "March Madness" vibe.

It's the classic problem. When you have something special you want to sell more of it, but the more of it you sell the less special it is. Ask the NHL about outdoor games.

keep the dance as it is but eliminate conference tournaments to make the regular season count again.  add a few non-conf games to help teams build resumes.   Set the regular season max at 30 games total.  

Conferences would add "play-in" games for ties at the end of the regular season to determine who gets the dance bye and who gets to add the banner in the rafters when multiple teams logjam at the top with identical conference records.  

No sir, I don't like it.

-Mr. Horse

Hard no…no reason other than straight $$. Will turn into scenario like 6-6 teams getting a bowl. Cheapens the entire product. College tourney is hands down best and most thrilling postseason in the world imho, don’t mess with it.

nooo... 64 was great. we didnt need play-in games. and we dont need more.