Agree with all of this — except Sankey’s sanctimony. It’s my impression that expansion of the field beyond 64/68 is a scheme to expand at-large bids for power conference programs. I’m not philosophically opposed to expanding the field — hell, you could convince me the field should include EVERYONE and eliminate the insipid conference tournaments that ESPN invented to generate $.
Agree with all of this — except Sankey’s sanctimony. It’s my impression that expansion of the field beyond 64/68 is a scheme to expand at-large bids for power conference programs. I’m not philosophically opposed to expanding the field — hell, you could convince me the field should include EVERYONE and eliminate the insipid conference tournaments that ESPN invented to generate $.
And I can’t blame them. It’s their disingenuousness that bugs me. Always has. I attended USF, during the Bill Cartwright era, when the Dons were pretty good. I still maintain a soft spot for schools that are screwed by metrics that reward power conference programs for playing 18 games against each other while the rest swim in the kiddie pool from January thru March.
Agree with all of this — except Sankey’s sanctimony. It’s my impression that expansion of the field beyond 64/68 is a scheme to expand at-large bids for power conference programs. I’m not philosophically opposed to expanding the field — hell, you could convince me the field should include EVERYONE and eliminate the insipid conference tournaments that ESPN invented to generate $.
You're probably right. The p5's want more $$.
And I can’t blame them. It’s their disingenuousness that bugs me. Always has. I attended USF, during the Bill Cartwright era, when the Dons were pretty good. I still maintain a soft spot for schools that are screwed by metrics that reward power conference programs for playing 18 games against each other while the rest swim in the kiddie pool from January thru March.
(Sorry for the lecture.)