Teague's stance on Tourney Expansion

Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Posts
709
Likes
0
Tonight ended the NIT for 2009-2010, and very may well have ended it indefinitely. It appears expansion of the NCAA field to 96 is almost certain.

Norwood Teague was on Mac McDonald's radio show about a week ago and elaborated on why he was in favor of it and how he would vote for expansion if given the opportunity. He recently said on "The March and the Madness" something to the effect of "It really upsets me to hear people opposed to expansion say this is all about greed" (I'm paraphrasing). My response: there's an old expression- don't pee on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

Financial greed has every bit to do with this, and it risks ruining perhaps the most perfect postseason tournament in sports. As a VCU fan, I'll be embarrassed if our Athletic Director votes for expansion. To me, this says "look, rather than work hard to make the tournament as often as we can...give us a handout and make it easier for us". That's akin to an able bodied person collecting disability or unemployment not out of necessity...but because it's easier than going to work. It's funny how the NCAA claims that they oppose a D-1A college football playoff format because it will take away classroom time from the student athlete (lie: they really want the financial rewards of bowl sponsorships), but they'll vote for an additional round of basketball in a season that's already a very long one (because an extra round of tournament= more money and more proceeds from TV deals) .

VCU can make the tournament and make it frequently without expansion. We have the resources. Teams that begin suddenly racking up NCAA bids over the next several years will have less to brag about than they would have without expansion. I'd be much more proud to see VCU make the tournament 3 or 4 times a decade than make it 8 times a decade in the new format. I'd opine that one of the worst things about the NBA is that seemingly almost everybody goes to postseason. With expansion, you'll soon have .500 teams complaining that they were left off the bubble.

VCU and our athletic director should be better than this. I certainly know why he'd vote for it...more money for the school and for the league with appearances, resume building for our coach in being able to claim NCAA tournament appearances, and ultimately resume building for Teague himself in being able to claim he oversaw it all. But we (and other strong mid major programs) should be better than that. If you want to make the tournament, field a better team; don't vote to allow an additional 31 teams in the field because it's easier.

That's my opinion.
 
He's gonna vote for it as will almost anyone in college athletics. More spots and more money to work with. The league gets money for each bid. The CAA could have gotten 4 this year in the expanded format. We get money for every win, that's potentially a lot of dough for the league and our team. Plus more NCAA tourney bids is nice obviously.

The whole prestige of making the tournament is obviously less for understandable reasons...and very average BCS teams will make it, but then so will average mids like VCU was this year as well.
 
districtballer said:
He's gonna vote for it as will almost anyone in college athletics. More spots and more money to work with. The league gets money for each bid. The CAA could have gotten 4 this year in the expanded format. We get money for every win, that's potentially a lot of dough for the league and our team. Plus more NCAA tourney bids is nice obviously.

The whole prestige of making the tournament is obviously less for understandable reasons...and very average BCS teams will make it, but then so will average mids like VCU was this year as well.

District: I realize everyone else is going to vote for it, but that doesnt make it right. They're all doing it for the same reasons: financial greed and the ability to enhance their own resumes. That he claimed otherwise is just silly. When VCU(or any other school) goes to 9 straight NCAA tourneys under this new format, Teague (or any other AD at any other school for example) can boast "look at this grand accomplishment of consecutive NCAA bids that I oversaw". But when very average teams are making the tournament in the new format, how great of an accomplishment was it?

I'm resigned to the fact that I will occur, and I'm by no means saying that Teague is out of the norm by encouraging it. Rather I'm of the opinion that I wish he were of the exception, and opposed it. I'm just disappointed that those in power in the NCAA and those representing the Universities see money and power and the easy way out before they see the good of the game and appreciate that the easier path is not always the most prestigious one.
 
I don't know that Teague would really be able to boast when several other average mids will be getting NCAA bids as well. The standard for success in the NCAA will be raised as making the field is won't be as impressive as before. Norwood saying 'look at my 9 straight NCAA tournaments' won't hold as much weight as many mid-major AD's would be able to make the same claim.

Of course we all would like those in administration to stick to our ideals...just like we would have liked Grant or Capel before him to be 'loyal' to the school, but they left for the almighty dollar. Same deal here...money is the train that drives NCAA athletics. Our ideals take a backseat to that.
 
This is not about right or wrong
or welfare
it a post season basketball tournament that pays big bucks
It about either getting paid 2-3 times a decade or 10 times a decade.
the purists who don't want change said the same hysterical things when the tourney first went to 64
you will get over it as time passes and 96 will be perfect when they want to go to 128 :roll:
 
I am somewhat ambivalent about expansion. I think the current size of the tournament is pretty arbitrary and has become irrationally fetishised. I think a lot of what people think of as the tourny being the right size now is really just their own familiarity with it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it should be changed either.... an arbitrary change doesn't make any more sense than an arbitrary status-quo. I can see rational reasons for a modest expansion, or even a modest contraction... I just don't give much credence to the argument that it's somehow perfect as it is now... maybe it's good enough, and I do tend to think that 96 is pushing well into watered-down territory, but I don't believe that 4 sets of 16 teams is somehow the perfect be-all end-all magic number.
 
Average teams already get at-large bids. That's nothing new.

Almost perfect post-season tournament? Hardly. I think the NCAA Tournament has been going downhill for 20 years.
 
artRAMinMN said:
I am somewhat ambivalent about expansion. I think the current size of the tournament is pretty arbitrary and has become irrationally fetishised. I think a lot of what people think of as the tourny being the right size now is really just their own familiarity with it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it should be changed either.... an arbitrary change doesn't make any more sense than an arbitrary status-quo. I can see rational reasons for a modest expansion, or even a modest contraction... I just don't give much credence to the argument that it's somehow perfect as it is now... maybe it's good enough, and I do tend to think that 96 is pushing well into watered-down territory, but I don't believe that 4 sets of 16 teams is somehow the perfect be-all end-all magic number.
Great post art! Let's say you're in charge. What is your perfect tournament set-up? Just wonderin.
 
I'm for it. Combining the NIT & NCAA fields make sense to me. It would be a whole lot more exiting for those now dispatched to the NIT. I do not see it watering down the interest at all and it is not increasing the number of teams playing in postseason. During the season; "who will earn that first round bye" will be additional topic for discussion. Hope ESPN get the TV rights and farms out games to other networks. Less switching between games. More games on at the same time. Bring it on.
 
Here is what I think NCAA tournament expansion does, kill conference tournaments. The ACC and Big East tourneys this year were very dull. In comparison the CAA tournament was tremendously exciting and perhaps better attended. I am sure the ACC sold tickets but I am not sure those ticket holders showed up. If you know half the league is going to the NCAA, why go to the ACC, save your money and vacation time for the big dance.
The point that the NCAA does not profit from conference tournaments I do not find coincidental. While I know the smaller conferences will continue to have tournaments, the bigger confernces may opt out of them, because instead of the ACC sending 6 to 64 they will be sinding 9 to 96 so what is the point of a conference tournament for them only the team that is dead last is being left out.
I would hate for the CAA tournament to lose that 'edge' of all or nothing. But this is all about the money and whatever the behemouth money machine known as the NCAA wants it will get. And they call themselves a non profit organization. If the NCAA was just considered a business it would be in the fortune 100.
 
A lot of teams that make the NCAA shouldn't be in the NIT instead and a lot of teams that make the NIT should be in the NCAA. It'll work itself out.

Just one thing, a team like this years UNC can't make the field. You HAVE to finish above .500, period to be considered. As long as teams that deserve bids get them, I'm fine with it. Time will tell.
 
vcubanana said:
artRAMinMN said:
I am somewhat ambivalent about expansion. I think the current size of the tournament is pretty arbitrary and has become irrationally fetishised. I think a lot of what people think of as the tourny being the right size now is really just their own familiarity with it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it should be changed either.... an arbitrary change doesn't make any more sense than an arbitrary status-quo. I can see rational reasons for a modest expansion, or even a modest contraction... I just don't give much credence to the argument that it's somehow perfect as it is now... maybe it's good enough, and I do tend to think that 96 is pushing well into watered-down territory, but I don't believe that 4 sets of 16 teams is somehow the perfect be-all end-all magic number.
Great post art! Let's say you're in charge. What is your perfect tournament set-up? Just wonderin.

I certainly don't know for sure...

on one side I like the idea of rewarding conference tourny and reg. season champs with byes and making the at-larges go through a play-in round. I figure the big conference teams already get huge advantages from their affiliations so I don't think the big tourny should pretend to ignore those advantages....

on the other hand, the simplicity of strait-up seeding is nice just for the clean lines of it all

as far as numbers of teams, I think keeping it somewhere in the 20% to 25% range of total eligible teams (D1) feels right ...which would basically cover the range between where it is now to 96... personally I'd lean toward the low end, but I don't see how 72 or 80 would really hurt all that much ...I like 64, I just don't think it's necessarily a holy grail
 
85ChemRam said:

Here is what I think NCAA tournament expansion does, kill conference tournaments. The ACC and Big East tourneys this year were very dull. In comparison the CAA tournament was tremendously exciting and perhaps better attended. I am sure the ACC sold tickets but I am not sure those ticket holders showed up. If you know half the league is going to the NCAA, why go to the ACC, save your money and vacation time for the big dance.
The point that the NCAA does not profit from conference tournaments I do not find coincidental. While I know the smaller conferences will continue to have tournaments, the bigger confernces may opt out of them, because instead of the ACC sending 6 to 64 they will be sinding 9 to 96 so what is the point of a conference tournament for them only the team that is dead last is being left out.
I would hate for the CAA tournament to lose that 'edge' of all or nothing. But this is all about the money and whatever the behemouth money machine known as the NCAA wants it will get. And they call themselves a non profit organization. If the NCAA was just considered a business it would be in the fortune 100.

I am old enough to remember when they expanded the tournament from 16 and then from 32. They were saying then that the conference tournaments would die off quickly. 30 years later they are still going. The only thing that has changed is maybe the intensity of the games in the BCS level tournaments. The only way the conference tournaments would be killed if they let all 345 D1 teams in.
 
I think 96 is too many just in terms of the potential dilution of the quality of the field and because I dont buy the argument that it automatically means more "mid-majors" get in because you could say that 12 Big East teams easily make the top 96 and if anything is to be shown by the NIT this year it isnt about best teams. Yes, more mid majors will get in than get in now, but im not sure the proportion really helps. Also i think this idea of giving the top 8 seeds in every region a bye is giving way too much credit to a lot of those teams. I agree that expansion is probably inevitable but a move to 80 strikes me a lot better because you arent going nearly as far into the mediocre "bubble" teams, allows for mid-majors to get in and only rewards the top 4 seeds in each bracket with a bye.
 
mwalvlior said:
I think 96 is too many just in terms of the potential dilution of the quality of the field and because I dont buy the argument that it automatically means more "mid-majors" get in because you could say that 12 Big East teams easily make the top 96

Precisely.

We'd be talking about Virginia and Northwestern instead of Wichita State and UAB.
 
Back
Top