Expand the NCAA tournament

[arcadian]

The NCAA switch on automatic qualifiers and resulting new participants in play-in games may create squabbles between and amongst the mid-majors in several conferences, but the switch leads me to advocate for a larger tournament.

With 11 conferences (and a 12th perhaps starting up) automatic bids to 6 makes the tournament feel too elitist. Elitism is a trait lacrosse has to eliminate if is to continue its growth.

This is a low-revenue sport for the NCAA. Growth in numbers for the tournament has to be balanced against costs.

Start simple NCAA, maybe make the play-in games a first round of the tournament (18 teams) and build from there. It will be easier to get to 24 teams or perhaps 32 that way. Maybe the first round could match teams ranked in the lowest 1/3.

[novaglax]

Start simple NCAA, maybe make the play-in games a first round of the tournament (18 teams) and build from there. It will be easier to get to 24 teams or perhaps 32 that way. Maybe the first round could match teams ranked in the lowest 1/3.


I would go for a 32 team playoff system. NCAA can handle the cost of the expansion. We just need to get some forward thinking representatives at that level advocating expansion in such a dynamic sport instead of playing the "same old, same old" tune. I also could not agree more regarding your comment about elitism......maybe some day those "top 25" teams will allow the "top 25-50" to play them so they can get establish themselves in the lacrosse world instead of being looked down upon. Lacrosse is looking like the BCS these days...... Nope sorry, Lacrosse doesn't allow a Boise State type team in their tournament.

[WLAXUSA]

Just to be clear, is it being suggested that thirty-two of the eighty-eight Division I teams make the tournament each year?

Is there any data to support the following statement?
"With 11 conferences (and a 12th perhaps starting up) automatic bids to 6 makes the tournament feel too elitist. Elitism is a trait lacrosse has to eliminate if is to continue its growth."

HISTORICAL QUESTION: When was the last time that a team not affiliated with the ALC, the ACC, the Big East, or the Ivy League made it to the NCAA quarter finals?

[lionwatcher]

Just to be clear, is it being suggested that thirty-two of the eighty-eight Division I teams make the tournament each year?

Is there any data to support the following statement?
"With 11 conferences (and a 12th perhaps starting up) automatic bids to 6 makes the tournament feel too elitist. Elitism is a trait lacrosse has to eliminate if is to continue its growth."

HISTORICAL QUESTION: When was the last time that a team not affiliated with the ALC, the ACC, the Big East, or the Ivy League made it to the NCAA quarter finals?

JMU 2006 and 2004 and BU 2008 and 2005

[WLAXUSA]

JMU 2006 and 2004 and BU 2008 and 2005

Thanks for the quarter finals information! I knew Loyola played in the Championship in 1997 and that Temple won it in 1988.

[arcadian]

It seems to me that the tournament is not exclusively for those that are perceived as having a high likelihood of winning the championship. I believe that the perceivers of “a high likelihood of winning” might create a tournament with five or six teams certainly not 16, 24 or 32.

I acknowledge the argument that says something like “the fourth best team in the Ivy, ACC, etc is better than the first team in the MAAC, Patriot, etc” and diminish that argument until conference winners deservedly and first make the tournament.

[WLAXUSA]

As I understand it, each year the NCAA Tournament determines which is the best team in each division. Concerning Division I, is it being proposed that some team was out there that could have given Northwestern a better game if that team had only been given the opportunity to play in the tournament?

I think the tournament is great as is. Making the tournament means something. The teams playing in the tournament represent the very best teams playing each year and/or the very best team from each participating conference. The decision this year to make the automatic qualifier team from the A10 a "play in" team when the number of AQs increased, was perfect. In brief, if more conferences equates to more "play in" games, good.

[ncram65]

As I understand it, each year the NCAA Tournament determines which is the best team in each division. Concerning Division I, is it being proposed that some team was out there that could have given Northwestern a better game if that team had only been given the opportunity to play in the tournament?

I think the tournament is great as is. Making the tournament means something. The teams playing in the tournament represent the very best teams playing each year and/or the very best team from each participating conference. The decision this year to make the automatic qualifier team from the A10 a "play in" team when the number of AQs increased, was perfect. In brief, if more conferences equates to more "play in" games, good.

I agree. Unless someone can show me an excluded team that had a legit chance to win the tournament I think the size of the tournament is fine.

[IAAMfan]

There are several good reasons to NOT expand the D1 Tournament:

1.) Expanding the field would mean shortening the regular season for everybody, once the Tournament got underway. Given that pushing the Tournament beyond Memorial Day weekend is a non-starter, it means that a handful of teams would be making everybody else wait until the additional round(s) were played.

2.) Many of the AQs and play-in games teams are, frankly not that strong. Just look at the first round games between, say, the top 4-5 ranked teams and the 12-16 bottom rankers. Lots of blowouts, and to what avail?

This is a National Championship Tournament, after all, and not a feel-good opportunity for lesser teams to claim a "victory" for just getting in.

[LarryGamLax]

There are several good reasons to NOT expand the D1 Tournament:

1.) Expanding the field would mean shortening the regular season for everybody, once the Tournament got underway. Given that pushing the Tournament beyond Memorial Day weekend is a non-starter, it means that a handful of teams would be making everybody else wait until the additional round(s) were played.

2.) Many of the AQs and play-in games teams are, frankly not that strong. Just look at the first round games between, say, the top 4-5 ranked teams and the 12-16 bottom rankers. Lots of blowouts, and to what avail?

This is a National Championship Tournament, after all, and not a feel-good opportunity for lesser teams to claim a "victory" for just getting in.

WOW...That came off as real snooty and elitist. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, was it? Was it?.......Did you hear me? My goodness...I'm suddenly talking to myself.

Booming voice in the background......LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IAAMfAN HAS JUST LEFT THE BUILDING!!!

[IAAMfan]

Larry...

Ya gotta calm down.

If being "snooty and elitist" means recognizing the facts for what they are, then I stand condemned. If you truly want all D1 teams to be treated equally, then you should abolish the money element to level the playing field. Or begin the Tournament in March and give everybody a place.

[novaglax]

IAAMFan
There are several good reasons to NOT expand the D1 Tournament:

1.) Expanding the field would mean shortening the regular season for everybody, once the Tournament got underway. Given that pushing the Tournament beyond Memorial Day weekend is a non-starter, it means that a handful of teams would be making everybody else wait until the additional round(s) were played.

2.) Many of the AQs and play-in games teams are, frankly not that strong. Just look at the first round games between, say, the top 4-5 ranked teams and the 12-16 bottom rankers. Lots of blowouts, and to what avail?

This is a National Championship Tournament, after all, and not a feel-good opportunity for lesser teams to claim a "victory" for just getting in.

First of all putting in another round of games would not shorten the regular season. If so play a Friday/ Sunday weekend at a pre-determined regional site. Secondly, have you looked at the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Do you really think a 64 seed will beat any of the #1 ranked regional teams. Look at the big picture of women's lacrosse and not the traditional myopic view. Again, same old, same old....Will it ever end.

[IAAMfan]

I would expect that one of the NCAA's responses to Tournament expansion would run something like this:

1.) D1 basketball--a recognized cash cow--has 344 teams, of which 64 get into the Tournament. Put another way, that's about 19% of all teams.

2.) Women's D1 lacrosse--a non-revenue sport paid for (in part) from basketball revenues--has 88 teams, of which 16 get into the Tournament. That's about 18% of all teams.

So what's the beef? Not much difference between the two.

Why is getting into the Tournament such a big deal when there are several other worthwhile goals a lax team can aspire to, like beating traditional rivals or winning a league championship. Seems to me the NCAA has bent over backwards to accommodate more teams through the AQ and play-in games arrangements it already has in place--hardly a "myopic" approach. Human nature being what it is, there will always be complaints that such-and-such team should have gotten an at-large bid over an AQ from a weaker division. Live with it.

[WLAXUSA]

WOW...That came off as real snooty and elitist. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, was it? Was it?.......Did you hear me?

LGL, How about you look up the definition of "elitist"? In the meantime, I will provide you with a definition I found for "bullying."

bullying, noun, An act of intimidating a person to do something, especially through repeated coercion.

[WLAXUSA]

The NCAA switch on automatic qualifiers and resulting new participants in play-in games may create squabbles between and amongst the mid-majors in several conferences, but the switch leads me to advocate for a larger tournament.

With 11 conferences (and a 12th perhaps starting up) automatic bids to 6 makes the tournament feel too elitist. Elitism is a trait lacrosse has to eliminate if is to continue its growth.

This is a low-revenue sport for the NCAA. Growth in numbers for the tournament has to be balanced against costs.

Start simple NCAA, maybe make the play-in games a first round of the tournament (18 teams) and build from there. It will be easier to get to 24 teams or perhaps 32 that way. Maybe the first round could match teams ranked in the lowest 1/3.

I took a look at the teams ranked in the "Top 32" last year. I picked one, James Madison, because it is not only in that group but also was ranked #24 by Laxpower.

First, the Dukes are a good team and they have had some very good years. I am sure they have many more ahead of them.

However, including JMU in the NCAA Tournament last year would have meant including a team with a 5-11 record. Last year the Dukes played two higher ranked ACC teams (Maryland and Virginia), two higher ranked Big East teams (Loyola and Notre Dame), and one higher ranked Ivy League team (Princeton). It is to JMU's credit that it schedules better teams to play. Unfortunately, last year they lost all five of these games. In addition, it was not one of their better years within their own conference.

If it is being suggested that the JMU team should have had a spot in the NCAA Tournament because tehy were ranked at #24 (or as a member of the Top 32), I disagree. If JMU had beaten three of the five teams listed ( ... and maybe a few more of the teams in their own conference), I suspect that they would have had a spot in the tournament last year. As it was, I see no tragedy that the Dukes were not included last year. The "up side" to this is that when JMU does make the tournament, it will be because they are qualified to be there.

Any talk of "elitism" is absolutely ridiculous. What next? Will points be awarded to some teams before games to "level the playing field"?

Simply put, more teams from certain conferences make the NCAA Tournament because they have proven on the playing field that they are the better teams and deserve a spot at the tournament.

[LarryGamLax]

Larry...

Ya gotta calm down.

If being "snooty and elitist" means recognizing the facts for what they are, then I stand condemned. If you truly want all D1 teams to be treated equally, then you should abolish the money element to level the playing field. Or begin the Tournament in March and give everybody a place.

First and foremost...I don't gotta calm down. I didn't realize that I was overly excited! I did not state that the tourney should be expanded, so therefore I agree with your general reasoning. My reason for making the comment that I did was my feeling that your way of stating your point came off as elitist. Maybe you didn't mean for it to sound like that, however, that's how it came off to me.
For clarification, I know that all the teams are not equal for various reasons. I, however, want to believe that ALL teams have a chance from Central Connecticut to Marist to Northwestern. I look at Boise State University in D1 Football and I love what they do, knowing however that there is no way that the BCS is ever going to let them play for the "National Championship".
Despite my rantings in this Forum, I want the sport of Lacrosse to succeed. That's what this is all about I hope and that's what I work towards as much as I can.

BTW...Did anyone ever notice that it's harder for a team not in the top 20 to get games with teams in the top 20? Fairfield was ranked #19 last year, but only played two teams in the top 20 all season(including the NCAA tournament). I wonder how many teams ranked above Fairfield will be clamaring to play them now? Maybe I'm wrong.

[WLAXUSA]

I didn't realize that I was overly excited!

Larry, You need to realize that you are overly excited.

[lionwatcher]

I didn't realize that I was overly excited!

Larry, You need to realize that you are overly excited.

I thought that Larry thought that he was overly exciting

[lionwatcher]

BTW...Did anyone ever notice that it's harder for a team not in the top 20 to get games with teams in the top 20? Fairfield was ranked #19 last year, but only played two teams in the top 20 all season(including the NCAA tournament). I wonder how many teams ranked above Fairfield will be clamaring to play them now? Maybe I'm wrong.

Of course it is when tournament invites are based upon RPI which rewards play against higher ranked teams. Does it hurt the non-top 20? Sure it does. That being said Top Dog has 5 non-top 20 teams on its schedule and only 2 of them are in conference. Moral to that story (in light of 2 of the other 3 being played on the Left Coast) good to be in warm weather locale.

[antilaxforum]

The DI bracket is fine. If you look across all of the NCAA Championships the average ratio is 1 in 5 teams make the NCAA Championships. (Not a perfect science...)

Lets break it down...

Division I
There are 90 teams in Division I and a 16 team bracket. That means 1 in 5.625 teams make the NCAA tournament. "No Bracket Expansion Needed Yet!"

Division II
There are 52 teams in Division II and a 6 team bracket. That means 1 in 8.667 teams make the NCAA tournament. "Bracket Expansion Needed"

Division III
There are 197 teams in Division III and a 28 team bracket. That means 1 in 7.035 teams make the NCAA tournament. "Bracket Expansion Needed"


I hate to say it but if you expand the NCAA Bracket, it needs to go the Division II first followed by Division III then Division I last. Just my two cents...