Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tournament Expansion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tournament Expansion

    With all the talk of expanding the mens basketball tournament to 96 teams. What are everyones thoughts on expanding the hockey to say 20 teams. Making a play in game in all 4 regions 4 v 5 winner versus the 1 seed. Depending on when that region would start it would either be thursday-saturday or friday-sunday? Just wondering thoughts.

  • #2
    Re: Tournament Expansion

    Originally posted by kcphotovideo View Post
    With all the talk of expanding the mens basketball tournament to 96 teams. What are everyones thoughts on expanding the hockey to say 20 teams. Making a play in game in all 4 regions 4 v 5 winner versus the 1 seed. Depending on when that region would start it would either be thursday-saturday or friday-sunday? Just wondering thoughts.
    It has been discussed here many times, including many times the last few weeks.

    The NCAA guideline is for 25% of the Div-I teams to get into the tournament. At 16 teams, hockey is over that threshold. It is more likely hockey goes back to 12 teams then go up to 20 teams. Basketball is under the threshold, hence the discussion (misguided IMO) to go up to 96 teams.

    20 is too many, it dilutes the talent. Who wants to see a possibly .500 get an at large bid?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tournament Expansion

      I think its fine with 16.... not to mention they have enough problems with attendance for the games they already have, let alone if they started having mid week games.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tournament Expansion

        Originally posted by ericredaxe View Post
        I think its fine with 16.... not to mention they have enough problems with attendance for the games they already have, let alone if they started having mid week games.
        I think we should keep it at 16, but go back to 2 regionals.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tournament Expansion

          Originally posted by Brian Gentry View Post
          It has been discussed here many times, including many times the last few weeks.

          The NCAA guideline is for 25% of the Div-I teams to get into the tournament. At 16 teams, hockey is over that threshold. It is more likely hockey goes back to 12 teams then go up to 20 teams. Basketball is under the threshold, hence the discussion (misguided IMO) to go up to 96 teams.

          20 is too many, it dilutes the talent. Who wants to see a possibly .500 get an at large bid?
          There is no hard-and-fast guideline, just a "recommendation" and general "preference."

          That said, it makes no sense to expand the tournament for a sport that has dropped some seven programs over the last 10 years. If anything, you will see the tournament contract to 12 teams before you ever see it expand.

          And if Division I ever has the guts to revoke the play-up, there will be no more Division I ice hockey.
          UAH - The Cleveland Browns of COLLEGE HOCKEY

          Mike Anderson
          2006 Time Person of the Year
          Finger far off the pulse of college hockey, thanks to Mack Portera.
          It was fun for a whole lot of seasons.

          "Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more." Proverbs 31:6-7 (NIV)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tournament Expansion

            I agree that Div 1 hockey NCAA post-season should be cut back to 12 teams, in two regionals, with top four teams (two per regional) getting byes, like the olden days. But, all five conference tourney winners still get an autoseed to keep things interesting.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tournament Expansion

              Originally posted by Brian Gentry View Post
              20 is too many, it dilutes the talent. Who wants to see a possibly .500 get an at large bid?
              I agree but Wisconsin got in a few years ago as an at large with an UNDER .500 record. So it can happen even in the 16 team tournament. (Yes I know they made a rule saying you have to be over .500 now to make it as an at large)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tournament Expansion

                Originally posted by Brian Gentry View Post
                Who wants to see a possibly .500 get an at large bid?
                gopher fans.


                a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tournament Expansion

                  No tournament expansion (or reduction) until there are more teams playing D-1 hockey.

                  College hockey growth is moving along at a good pace. The main event is a sell out no matter who's playing (and if Detroit does well - it'll also be no matter where its held). Give the 4 regionals some time and the attendence will follow. In particular they need to work out where those are held (Ft. Wayne?). However, things are looking good with one exception. With little or no openings in existing conferences, I do wonder how easy it'll be for a new program to get up and running.

                  Really, really against cutting the tournament back. Every year some team is going to make it that maybe shouldn't have, but that's not a major problem. I like the no first round byes so every team has to win 4 games for the title. Also with a 12 team tournament if there's a couple of upsets in conference championships (think ECAC and Atlantic Hockey) a really good team on the cusp of the top 10 gets royally screwed. I don't think the sport benefits from that happening.
                  Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                  Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                  "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tournament Expansion

                    16 is fine for now. We are already at 27.5% of the teams getting in.

                    For reference basketball is at 18.4% for D1 right now. Expansion to 96 would put them at 27.6%.
                    PSNetwork / XBOX GamerTag: xJeris
                    Steam Profile

                    Sports Allegiance
                    NFL: CHI; MLB: MN, NYM; NHL: MN, MTL; NCAAB: MN, UNLV; NCAAF: MN, MIA; NCAAH: MN; Soccer: USA, Blackburn

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tournament Expansion

                      Originally posted by Rover View Post
                      No tournament expansion (or reduction) until there are more teams playing D-1 hockey.

                      College hockey growth is moving along at a good pace. The main event is a sell out no matter who's playing (and if Detroit does well - it'll also be no matter where its held). Give the 4 regionals some time and the attendence will follow. In particular they need to work out where those are held (Ft. Wayne?). However, things are looking good with one exception. With little or no openings in existing conferences, I do wonder how easy it'll be for a new program to get up and running.

                      Really, really against cutting the tournament back. Every year some team is going to make it that maybe shouldn't have, but that's not a major problem. I like the no first round byes so every team has to win 4 games for the title. Also with a 12 team tournament if there's a couple of upsets in conference championships (think ECAC and Atlantic Hockey) a really good team on the cusp of the top 10 gets royally screwed. I don't think the sport benefits from that happening.
                      Fort Wayne has a nice enough arena, very modern. But they did seem to be a bit understaffed in some places. Another thing with Fort Wayne is that it was a Saturday Sunday regional, with the championship game starting at 8pm. If the game had been earlier, say at 4pm, there would have been a lot more fans there because there was a lot of people who couldn't get Monday off. I would have ventured to say that Miami seemed to keep most of the crowd that they had Saturday with them, mostly because they had a pretty good idea in advance that they were going to be in there in Fort Wayne. Michigan, well, they just got in by the skin of their teeth. Michigan fans had less time to be able to get off of work or for some, school.
                      bueller: Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good? Why does Positrack work? Why does Ferris lose on the road and play dead at home?

                      It just happens.


                      nmupiccdiva: I'm sorry I missed you this weekend! I thought I saw you at the football game, but I didn't want to go up to a complete stranger and ask "are you Monster?" and have it not be you!

                      leswp1: you need the Monster to fix you

                      Life is active, find Balance!massage therapy Ann Arbor

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tournament Expansion

                        Originally posted by ericredaxe View Post
                        I think its fine with 16.... not to mention they have enough problems with attendance for the games they already have, let alone if they started having mid week games.
                        Also, I think having to secure a venue for an extra day would probably lead to another increase in ticket prices, which could also hurt attendance.
                        Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion. You must first set yourself on fire.
                        -Fred Shero

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tournament Expansion

                          Count me as really against cutting back to 12. Esp. with the AHA autobid. How many times have we seen a team seeded from 10-14 get to the Frozen Four? No need to leave them out of the tournament.

                          Maine Hockey: I want to believe
                          43-21-4 (.662) in games I attended over 4 years as a student
                          104-47-14 (.669) in that time
                          3x FROZEN FOUR

                          11-20-2 in games I've attended since. (2-2-1 under Red)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tournament Expansion

                            Originally posted by JF_Gophers View Post
                            For reference basketball is at 18.4% for D1 right now. Expansion to 96 would put them at 27.6%.
                            For the NCAA Tournament, yes. Any time bouncyball likes to compare itself to the bowl system, kindly remind them of the 32-team NIT, the 16-team CBI and the 16-team Collegeinsider.com tournament.
                            UAH - The Cleveland Browns of COLLEGE HOCKEY

                            Mike Anderson
                            2006 Time Person of the Year
                            Finger far off the pulse of college hockey, thanks to Mack Portera.
                            It was fun for a whole lot of seasons.

                            "Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more." Proverbs 31:6-7 (NIV)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tournament Expansion

                              I'm for keeping the tourney as is with 16 teams although I would favor the idea of doing to regionals, east v. west style.

                              Keep the east teams playing in the east and the west teams playing in the west, top four duke it out.
                              Originally posted by Hokydad
                              Maine will be better this year relative to rankings than BC will be this year

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X