apparently there are discussions about expanding the tournament

I don't like adding a completely new round, but I can see adding 4 more teams in the play in round to make the brackets symmetrical again


https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/34833687/baylor-scott-drew-128-teams-ncaa-tournament

Finally Fox can make the Big Dance again ... maybe.

This just further devalues the regular season.

Jeff82 said:

---

This just further devalues the regular season.

---

In our case, that's a plus.

Another plus is we'll have a good chance to play the top seed!

What's the point of expanding access when nil is consolidating talent?

eastcoastcal said:

---

Just one more doubling to 256 and we're in!!

---

I think when you look up the word "optimist" in the dictionary your photo is there.

stu said:

---

Another plus is we'll have a good chance to play the top seed!

---

Bring on the Dookies!

eastcoastcal said:

---

Just one more doubling to 256 and we're in!!

---

There was some serious discussion of this when they added the play-in games. The plan was seed the first 32 teams, but the next 32 would be from regional 4-6 team pods that would play the beginning of that first week. The next 32 teams would be the favored seed in each pod and host the mini-regionals.

For example, if the Bay Area had a year where St Mary's was a 6 seed and Cal was a 9 seed (and let's say Villanova was an 8 seed playing in the Philadelphia regional), St Mary's could book their ticket to play an incoming 11 seed somewhere. Cal would host a couple games at Haas:

Stanford vs USF Sunday at 5pm. Santa Clara vs San Jose St at 8pm. The winners would play each other Monday and the winner of that game would lose to Cal on Tuesday- who would then fly to Philadelphia as a 9 seed to play Villanova (probably on Thursday - why not).

Basically make it like an FA cup where every team had a chance to advance, but the top 32 were in and the next 32 were heavily favored to get in. I would have voted for it when airfares were cheap.

Maybe this means the CBI takes a 12-20, 11th place Cal?

calumnus said:

---

Maybe this means the CBI takes a 12-20, 11th place Cal?

---

Dare to dream the Bears can match last season's win total!

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Maybe this means the CBI takes a 12-20, 11th place Cal?

---

Dare to dream the Bears can match last season's win total!

---

I don't think we will be as "good" as last year's team, but last year we had OOC losses to UC San Diego, @UNLV, Florida, and Seton Hall. We don't have anyone as tough as the last three on the schedule and assuming we can beat UC San Diego on the road, it would not be a great accomplishment to match last year's W/L especially since we only play UCLA once and we skip playing ASU on the road.

dimitrig said:

---

I think 64 teams is plenty.

I never felt that there was a team left out of the tournament that was actually a contender to win it.

---

VCU and I think Ucla made it to the Final Four after reaching the play-in game. That said, I believe a 7 seed is the lowest to win it all.

Yes, UCLA is a good example

I hear the argument all the time that no future champ has ever been left out

And how do we know that?

UCLA almost did as a play-in team, and there have been low-seed teams to make the Elite Eight or higher. Butler was one half-court shot that rimmed out from winning the championship

Also, should winning the championship be the only criterion? Reaching the Final Four or even the Sweet Sixteen would be a dream come true for many players and teams

I'd like to see at least 4 trams added to increase from 68 to 72 and make each of the four region brackets symmetrical and adjust for the much higher number of D1 teams since 64 was started

Civil Bear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I think 64 teams is plenty.

I never felt that there was a team left out of the tournament that was actually a contender to win it.

---

VCU and I think Ucla made it to the Final Four after reaching the play-in game. That said, I believe a 7 seed is the lowest to win it all.

---

HearstMining said:

---

As a Cal fan, until they expand the tournament to about 300, I don't think I have a horse in this race.

---

Definitely an "off topic" thread.

Civil Bear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I think 64 teams is plenty.

I never felt that there was a team left out of the tournament that was actually a contender to win it.

---

VCU and I think Ucla made it to the Final Four after reaching the play-in game. That said, I believe a 7 seed is the lowest to win it all.

---

8-seeds have won the NCAA tournament twice, though not recently. Villanova in 1985, Kansas in 1988.

HoopDreams said:

---

Yes, UCLA is a good example

I hear the argument all the time that no future champ has ever been left out

And how do we know that. UCLA almost did as a play in team, and there have been low seed teams to make the Elite Eight or higher. Butler was one half court shot that printed out from winning the championship

Also, should win the championship be the only criteria? Reaching the Final Four or even the Sweet Sixteen would be a dream come true for many players and teams

I'd like to at least see 4 trams added to increase from 68 to 72 and make each of the four region brackets symmetrical and to adjust for the much higher number of D1 teams since 64 was started

Civil Bear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I think 64 teams is plenty.

I never felt that there was a team left out of the tournament that was actually a contender to win it.

---

VCU and I think Ucla made it to the Final Four after reaching the play-in game. That said, I believe a 7 seed is the lowest to win it all.

---

---

The point of the tournament is to crown a champion.

If you are worried about some small statistical chance of a team missing out on a chance at that then the only solution is to invite all the teams. Otherwise, there will always be some cutoff.

I think 64 has proven to be a fine cutoff.