As has been widely reported, the NCAA is expanding the tournament from 68 to 76 teams and will thus go from having 4 games in the opening round to 12 games in the opening round. Of course, however, the NCAA has once again taken the opportunity to screw teams from non-major conferences a bit more. Half of the opening round games will be from the lowest seeded automatic conference winners, which also pushes down the seeding for mid-major conference winners by roughly 1 1/2 seeds. Further, this system is very unlikely to reward strong mid-major teams who did not win their conference tournament, but instead is likely to reward teams like this year's Auburn who are 1 or 2 games over .500.
The days of mid majors making the sweet 16 being a crowning achievement are over.
The new "crowning achievement" mid majors are shooting for is.... making the tournament
In the last tournament, they were describing a 10 seed Texas as a Cinderella team. Texas, with it s overwhelming access to endless cash, is a Cinderella. Wow, times has changed, and early upsets were non-existent. So much for March Madness being mad.
IMO, the NCAA mens tournament is popular nationwide to a high extent because it provide a great gambling medium. The joy of the game or product quality has tanked in several ways.
Other than familiar mid majors I no longer watch any of it. I now view filling out the brackets as a total waste of time. I threw in the towel on watching professional sports many years ago and that now includes "most" of college basketball.In the last tournament, they were describing a 10 seed Texas as a Cinderella team. Texas, with it s overwhelming access to endless cash, is a Cinderella. Wow, times has changed, and early upsets were non-existent. So much for March Madness being mad.
IMO, the NCAA mens tournament is popular nationwide to a high extent because it provide a great gambling medium. The joy of the game or product quality has tanked in several ways.
Welcome to Charlie Baker's NCAA. Not surprised by the expansion actually deals a shorter hand to mid-majors.
Just thinking out loud...if we have indeed reached the point where the best a mid-major can realistically hope for is to make the tournament, then maybe the mid-majors have reached the point of needing their own sub-division, like D1 football, with their own tournament. And maybe the NIT becomes that tournament.
Charlie Baker and the NCAA are worthless and weak and bow down to the man.
Dear Charlie Baker and the NCAA,
When considering your horrendous decision to disadvantage mid-majors in the NCAA basketball tournament, I encourage you to look at something going on in the US right now. While there are many negative things that can rightfully be ascribed to FIFA, their tournament format - in which qualifying teams from nations of all sizes have a fair opportunity - incrementally adds to the quality and excitement of the World Cup. While having no negative effect on fan interest of great players (Messi, MBappe, etc.), highly popular high quality teams (England, France, Spain, etc.), and local teams (US, Mexico, and Canada), they gain additional excitement from teams from very small countries not being treated as second class (or lower) participants.
Look at the World Cup so far:
-Cape Verde has not lost and tied top-tiered Spain.
-Curacao tied Ecuador.
-Congo tied top-ten side Portugal
-Scotland has a chance to advance out of the group stage.
Matches with these teams have been among the most exciting. Teams whose players' overall professional salaries are less than their opponent's top player are giving everything. A goalie made an incredible 15 saves in a match. Players crying after their match because they accomplished something no one thought a team from their small country possibly could.
This is all because FIFA expanded their tournament from 32 to 48 teams without just emphasizing getting more teams from Europe and South America. Perhaps rethinking your horrid decision to expand the tournament and 'reward' the 13th place team in the SEC or Big Ten by lowering the seeding of mid-majors could enhance interest in the NCAA tournament. And while you are at it, maybe you need to penalize (via tournament selection and seeding) major conference teams who intentionally avoid scheduling better mid-major teams.
Sincerely,
A concerned fan