ACC wants to expand NCAA tournament from 68 to 72 teams

#6
Great, so the 14th place ACC team will get to !!!!! about how they only got a 17th seed. Don't like Power 5 or 6 conferences sending 2/3 of their schools into the tourney and then leaving out the MVC 2nd place team because no one would schedule them.

Keep it at 68.
 
#7
Great, so the 14th place ACC team will get to !!!!! about how they only got a 17th seed. Don't like Power 5 or 6 conferences sending 2/3 of their schools into the tourney and then leaving out the MVC 2nd place team because no one would schedule them.

Keep it at 68.
Exactly.

On another note, can we expand this discussion to the other 3 things they want to do, most of which I am against?

1. Moving the 3 point line back. I just don't see the point. The only reason I could see to do this is if the current line is too easy and I don't think it is.

2. Resetting the shot clock to 20 seconds if a team grabs an offensive rebound. I just think this will make the game more like the NBA which I don't watch because I think it is too boring. But I guess that is a personal thing. If you like to watch NBA you may not be against this. But I kind of like having the ability to actually have time to run some plays. I was actually against going to 30 seconds from 35 (I think that was the last change). Also, why after an offensive rebound? Presumably to speed up the game but really is that so necessary?

3. Widening the free throw lane. I don't really have an opinion on this.
 
#11
They're going in the wrong direction...

64 teams please. The whole first 4 thing is such a joke.
The only reason I'm ok with 68 is because of the autobids for teams out of the NEC and SWAC and such. The 64 best teams in the nation are not in the field currently due to auto bids. It's annoying for teams like us that are on the bubble. But maybe thats just me.
 
#12
Former Krush Cow
South Bend, IN
Exactly.

On another note, can we expand this discussion to the other 3 things they want to do, most of which I am against?

1. Moving the 3 point line back. I just don't see the point. The only reason I could see to do this is if the current line is too easy and I don't think it is.

2. Resetting the shot clock to 20 seconds if a team grabs an offensive rebound. I just think this will make the game more like the NBA which I don't watch because I think it is too boring. But I guess that is a personal thing. If you like to watch NBA you may not be against this. But I kind of like having the ability to actually have time to run some plays. I was actually against going to 30 seconds from 35 (I think that was the last change). Also, why after an offensive rebound? Presumably to speed up the game but really is that so necessary?

3. Widening the free throw lane. I don't really have an opinion on this.
I believe they did #1 and #3 in the NIT tournament this year. Players definitely shot the 3 poorly in the games I watched and therefore reverted to more 2 point ball/driving the lane. #3 if I remember greatly favored the defending team, to the point where Notre Dame just didn't line anyone up when they were shooting free throws and just went back and set up their defense.
 
#13
I was all for keeping it at 64. So 72 makes as much sense as 68. Beyond that, might as well open it to every team, and cut the season down by a few games.
 
#16
They're going in the wrong direction...

64 teams please. The whole first 4 thing is such a joke.
That's where I am. No matter where you draw the line, people will say that these 3 or 4 teams got hosed. Since that is inevitable, draw the line at the right bracket number, which is 64.
 
#17
Exactly.

On another note, can we expand this discussion to the other 3 things they want to do, most of which I am against?

1. Moving the 3 point line back. I just don't see the point. The only reason I could see to do this is if the current line is too easy and I don't think it is.

2. Resetting the shot clock to 20 seconds if a team grabs an offensive rebound. I just think this will make the game more like the NBA which I don't watch because I think it is too boring. But I guess that is a personal thing. If you like to watch NBA you may not be against this. But I kind of like having the ability to actually have time to run some plays. I was actually against going to 30 seconds from 35 (I think that was the last change). Also, why after an offensive rebound? Presumably to speed up the game but really is that so necessary?

3. Widening the free throw lane. I don't really have an opinion on this.

I will add something that would really speed up the game especially near the end of the game when a player fouls out....the team has 60 sec. to replace the disqualified player....teams huddle with the coaches and basically turn this into another time out....give the coach 45 sec. to replace a player that has fouled out and do not let the players huddle with the coaching staff....violation of this would be a team technical and possible loss of possession....some games take 20-30 minutes to play the last 2-3 minutes off the clock....
 
#20
I will add something that would really speed up the game especially near the end of the game when a player fouls out....the team has 60 sec. to replace the disqualified player....teams huddle with the coaches and basically turn this into another time out....give the coach 45 sec. to replace a player that has fouled out and do not let the players huddle with the coaching staff....violation of this would be a team technical and possible loss of possession....some games take 20-30 minutes to play the last 2-3 minutes off the clock....
That is insanely long. In high school the rule is 20 seconds and when I coached in Illinois (and my dad in Indiana) coaches would use it as an extra timeout, and it was like a well understood and expected move, especially late in a close game.

In Texas refs don’t let you do it all and when I tried to do it earlier this season the ref was mad I knew what was in the rule book.

My point is, if high school coaches can get what they want out of a 0-20 second window for that situation, college coaches certainly don’t need a minute.
 
#22
Me too. Just like the HS tournament here in Illinois. Early games are seeded with the higher seeded team getting the game on home court.
Since when? There's still regionals/sectionals in Illinois. Regionals are held at a certain school. The highest seeded team doesn't always host. Matter of fact, I'd guess the majority of the time the host school is not the highest seeded team in the actual regional or sub-sectional. Last year: 1A) 8-32 regionals were hosted by highest seed. 2A 3A & 4A) 6-32 were hosted by the highest seed.
 
Last edited:
#23
Since when? There's still regionals/sectionals in Illinois. Regionals are held at a certain school. The highest seeded team doesn't always host. Matter of fact, I'd guess the majority of the time the host school is not the highest seeded team in the actual regional or sub-sectional. Last year: 1A) 8-32 regionals were hosted by highest seed. 2A 3A & 4A) 6-32 were hosted by the highest seed.
No, I was talking about the way to set up the NCAA tournament with everyone in. I know how the Illinois tournament works.
Seed the NCAA's geographically with higher seeds getting home games. At some point, reseed so that good teams from one geographic region don't end up knocking each other out.
 
#24
Great, so the 14th place ACC team will get to !!!!! about how they only got a 17th seed. Don't like Power 5 or 6 conferences sending 2/3 of their schools into the tourney and then leaving out the MVC 2nd place team because no one would schedule them.

Keep it at 68.
This.

Also weird how the ACC proposes 72 (ie. all 16-seeds are play-in games) immediately after the pasting UMBC laid on Virginia.
 
#25
In the land of the Nittany Lion
That's where I am. No matter where you draw the line, people will say that these 3 or 4 teams got hosed. Since that is inevitable, draw the line at the right bracket number, which is 64.
I think that's called the do-the-math option.