PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Tournament to Expand???



KoryMac5
12-11-2009, 12:13 PM
There have been several media reports (bloggers) speculating that the NCAA tournament could expand to 96 teams. A few in the mainstream media researched this with some sources stating that the NCAA will expand however it will be to 68 teams not 96. It is my understanding that you will have more play in games and the winners of those will go on to play the #1 seeds when the tournament begins. Sources state that this could happen as early as next year.

Also it is being speculated that the NCAA will end its affiliation with CBS and opt to put more games on a direct TV package. The NCAA is upset with not being able to show more early round games.

DTCromer
12-11-2009, 12:23 PM
If anything, it should be reduced.

Slyder
12-11-2009, 12:56 PM
expand it any further and you become the NBA Playoffs... way too many teams... way too long.

You see debate over 60-70 and thats good for basketball keeps it in the news. Can you find even 80 teams that wouldnt be glorified 16 seeds that be just warm up games for over half the other teams.

It aint broke so don't try and fix it.

GIDP
12-11-2009, 12:57 PM
The last thing they need is to bring in more teams who arent very good. Do we really need to see Kentucky blow a 18 seed out by 60?

SunDeck
12-11-2009, 01:07 PM
No way they should expand the tournament, it barely fits on an 8.5X11 sheet as it is.

gonelong
12-11-2009, 01:17 PM
Drop the seeding. Randomly draw the brackets. 1st round match-up of top 10 teams? Sweet.

Cinderellas going to the final 4. Sweet.

Would make filling out your bracket much more entertaining.

GL

top6
12-11-2009, 01:32 PM
Excellent idea. Let's take something that everyone loves and that is basically perfect and change it.

dabvu2498
12-11-2009, 01:37 PM
Excellent idea. Let's take something that everyone loves and that is basically perfect and change it.

Agreed. What's wrong with CBS's coverage? Nothing!!! Except directv might pay the $1 more. Sucks.

Chip R
12-11-2009, 01:55 PM
Agreed. What's wrong with CBS's coverage? Nothing!!! Except directv might pay the $1 more. Sucks.


I think what they are looking for is to show all the current games that are going on. I have DirecTv and what they do for the Masters or the U.S. Open (Golf and Tennis) is they show several matches, or holes in golf, at once. What they would do for the NCAA tournament is show one game on one channel, another game on another one up to about 5-6 at a time. They would have a schedule channel and some kind of studio channel. You could hit a button and get statistics. It's pretty good coverage. CBS can only show one game at a time.

dabvu2498
12-11-2009, 02:00 PM
I think what they are looking for is to show all the current games that are going on. I have DirecTv and what they do for the Masters or the U.S. Open (Golf and Tennis) is they show several matches, or holes in golf, at once. What they would do for the NCAA tournament is show one game on one channel, another game on another one up to about 5-6 at a time. They would have a schedule channel and some kind of studio channel. You could hit a button and get statistics. It's pretty good coverage. CBS can only show one game at a time.

What percentage of the country has directv? Part of the point of moving the 1st weekend from ESPN is so more people would have access to games. Now...

Chip R
12-11-2009, 02:05 PM
What percentage of the country has directv? Part of the point of moving the 1st weekend from ESPN is so more people would have access to games. Now...


That's the point. If this happens, they are going to get a lot of people switching to DirecTv for this.

cumberlandreds
12-11-2009, 02:46 PM
No way they should expand the tournament, it barely fits on an 8.5X11 sheet as it is.

Do it in landscape. :)

Hoosier Red
12-11-2009, 02:49 PM
I think what they are looking for is to show all the current games that are going on. I have DirecTv and what they do for the Masters or the U.S. Open (Golf and Tennis) is they show several matches, or holes in golf, at once. What they would do for the NCAA tournament is show one game on one channel, another game on another one up to about 5-6 at a time. They would have a schedule channel and some kind of studio channel. You could hit a button and get statistics. It's pretty good coverage. CBS can only show one game at a time.

Doesn't CBS already allow March Madness on Demand though, and all four games to be shown at once on DirectTV

cumberlandreds
12-11-2009, 02:53 PM
It's perfect the way it is now but I think it inevitable that it will be expanded. One thing I've read is that the NCAA would fold the NIT into the NCAA tournament. Basically you would be inviting those NIT teams to the NCAA and do away with the NIT altogether. This is the most likely scenario to happen.
As for the TV coverage. I would like to see ESPN get a piece of the NCAA tournament pie. They cover college basketball better than anyone. They used to cover the first round a long time ago. They along with NBC brought about the switching around to different venues to show the last second finishes that make the NCAA tourney what it is.
I can see them going the pay tv route too. It would bring in big bucks. IMO most sports will be pay per view in the not too distant future.

texasdave
12-11-2009, 03:00 PM
I can see them going the pay tv route too. It would bring in big bucks. IMO most sports will be pay per view in the not too distant future.

I agree that more and more sports will probably be pay-per-view. However, this does not HAVE to be the case. If they put events on PPV and noone ordered the event that would stop in a hurry. I hear a lot of complaints about fights, etc being on PPV (all the while the people complaining are probably on hold waiting to order the event). The people really do have the power. If they do not order and money isn't being made on PPV, voila, the events will magically begin to appear on free tv again(in most cases). Yes, you might have to miss an event or two. But if the PPV option is taken away where else are they gonna go? Free TV.

Eric_the_Red
12-11-2009, 03:08 PM
Make the regular season even more meaningless....sweet. :rolleyes:

Chip R
12-11-2009, 03:14 PM
Doesn't CBS already allow March Madness on Demand though, and all four games to be shown at once on DirectTV


You might be right and if this happens, it would probably be exactly as they do it now but DirecTV subscribers won't have to pay for it like they do now.

As I said before, I have DirecTv and I'm not trying to shill for them. I have the hi-def package, no pay channels, I don't have Extra Innings or the NFL Ticket or any of that other stuff. Sometimes I get the Sports Pack in the fall that shows all the Fox Sports channels so I can see my alma mater, Northern Iowa, play football and basketball but then I cancel it in the spring. I don't get many PPV movies or events and I pay around $90 a month for it. I won't pay $50 or whatever it is to watch the first round. But that's just me. Joe Schmoe who has cable or the Dish Network might not switch to DirecTv just to watch March Madness if he has to pay an extra $50 a year to do so. He might switch and pay his $90 a month - which probably compares well to Cable or the Dish - if he can get that March Madness for free just like he would the first couple rounds of a major golf or tennis tournament.

I don't have too many problems with CBS' coverage except they tend to stick to a blowout game too long. ESPN had the tournament before I had cable and from what I understand they would switch games at a moment's notice. I think people would like to see more of that. They don't want to see Texas beating Quinnipac by 40 with 8 minutes to go in the 2nd half. They want to see Cal giving UConn all they can handle. But if you aren't in California or New England, you pretty much have to watch the blowout till it's over.

Eric_the_Red
12-11-2009, 03:21 PM
As I said before, I have DirecTv and I'm not trying to shill for them. I have the hi-def package, no pay channels, I don't have Extra Innings or the NFL Ticket or any of that other stuff. Sometimes I get the Sports Pack in the fall that shows all the Fox Sports channels so I can see my alma mater, Northern Iowa, play football and basketball but then I cancel it in the spring. I don't get many PPV movies or events and I pay around $90 a month for it.

$90 with no movie channels? :eek:

I just called my cable company and got my high speed internet and cable, with 1 HD-DVR, down to about $86/month together.

Chip R
12-11-2009, 05:34 PM
$90 with no movie channels? :eek:

I just called my cable company and got my high speed internet and cable, with 1 HD-DVR, down to about $86/month together.


Yes, but I have all the Lifetime channels. ;)

Danny Serafini
12-11-2009, 11:26 PM
ESPN really wants it, and they've got the perfect platform already. Put a game each on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and ESPN Classic, and let ESPN News be the studio channel. Now all the games have a lot wider availability, which makes the NCAA happy.

Danny Serafini
12-11-2009, 11:29 PM
The last thing they need is to bring in more teams who arent very good. Do we really need to see Kentucky blow a 18 seed out by 60?

It really wouldn't work like that. The additional 32 teams would be NIT quality teams, and slot above the current bottom seeds, not be teams that are worse. Your average 16 seed would wind up being a blah big conference team, a Seton Hall or Northwestern type, and they would put up more of a fight than the champion of the MEAC or SWAC would. It would actually make it a little bit harder for the top teams because they wouldn't have the first round gimme.

All that said, I think it's a terrible idea, and hope it doesn't come to pass.

macro
12-12-2009, 12:21 AM
One thing's for sure: If they expand to 96 teams, those bubble teams at 97, 98, 99, and 100 that don't get in are going to be very upset. :rolleyes:

Seriously, it should have been left at 64. The play-in game is the most ridiculous thing they've come up with. Further expansion would be even more ridiculous. If all of us can see this, why can't the powers that be?

paintmered
12-12-2009, 01:58 AM
I guess I'd be okay with 68 teams since nobody really considers the play-in game to be part of the tournament. There's no real good reason to expand beyond that.

Brainstorming for the sake of brainstorming: something more radical might be to switch to more of a soccer cup style tournament with group play followed by a single elimination playoff. Create 16 groups of 5 teams and play round robin. The top two teams in each group advance to a 32-team single elimination tournament. Play the round-robin games over a two week period at the schools NIT style. Add the first round of the playoff at the regional level, play a Monday/Wednesday/Friday or Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday schedule and leave the final four as is. Fill the groups with a World Cup style draw with the top 32 teams seeded

Caveat Emperor
12-12-2009, 02:23 AM
They should just admit that they want the system rigged to include more big-name schools and eliminate automatic qualifiers for conference tournament winners.

TeamSelig
12-12-2009, 03:43 AM
I'd be cool with each 16 seed having to "play in"... this only adds 3 more teams. I could handle seeing the 15th seeds having to play in as well. Seems a little pointless, though.

GIDP
12-12-2009, 03:46 AM
I just dont want them to mess up with my 5 v. 12 games. Its fun every year to see whos gonna be teh 5 seed that gets knocked out.

Sea Ray
12-14-2009, 05:35 PM
Doesn't sound like a drastic change to me. All they're really doing is making every #16 seed earn it with a play in game. Thus we'd have 4 play in games rather than 1. This wouldn't effect brackets. In most brackets that play in game on Tuesday night in Dayton isn't even figured in.

The added teams would be at large teams; likely about #12 seeds which would then push the Miss Valley States towards the play ins. They're not going to add more directional schools. They'll add the big conference bubble teams like UC or South Carolina.

Sea Ray
12-14-2009, 05:37 PM
How long 'till the CBS contract expires?

macro
12-14-2009, 09:08 PM
Doesn't sound like a drastic change to me. All they're really doing is making every #16 seed earn it with a play in game. Thus we'd have 4 play in games rather than 1. This wouldn't effect brackets. In most brackets that play in game on Tuesday night in Dayton isn't even figured in.

The added teams would be at large teams; likely about #12 seeds which would then push the Miss Valley States towards the play ins. They're not going to add more directional schools. They'll add the big conference bubble teams like UC or South Carolina.

CBS contract expires after the upcoming Final Four.

I could live with 68, but 96 would be a huge mistake, and the discussion still includes the 96-team option. Do we really need to see those 14-win teams in the tournament?

And who would want to fill out a bracket pool sheet that's two pages long? How would people even transfer their winners over from one sheet to the next? For better or worse, it's office pools that get and keep a significant portion of the nation interested in the tournament. Take those away, and you take away several thousand viewers away from the telecast. The effects of office pools on the popularity of the tournament should not be discounted, and making the printed bracket a pain in butt might cause some to say the heck with it. I say all of this only half-kiddingly.

GIDP
12-14-2009, 10:10 PM
68 teams is fine but adding another bracket probably not so much

WVRed
02-01-2010, 04:23 PM
Please dear God, do not let this be true.

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-march-madness-with-96-teams-done-deal-27742


Sources at ESPN and inside the administration at a powerhouse NCAA basketball school told me today that the NCAA basketball tournament going to 96 teams is a “done deal.”

(More rounds? There goes dude’s clavicle)

An ESPN source said, “It’s a done deal with the expansion of the tournament. Depending on how soon a (TV) deal is done, the added teams could start next year. The NCAA confirmed that bidders would be interested in 96 teams, so they’re going with it.”

Another ESPN source confirmed to me that the network was in the formative stages of pondering a bid for the expanded tournament.

John Ourand and Michael Smith of SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL reported this morning that if the NCAA opts out of its current broadcast rights deal with CBS, the governing body will consider, “expanding from a 65-team tournament to either 68 or 96 teams.”

The NCAA-CBS broadcast rights contract has three years and $2.131 billion remaining. SBJ reports, “the NCAA has until Aug. 31 to exercise its right, though it hopes to conclude the process much earlier.”

A 68-team field would add three games to the current 65-team format, and a 96-team field would add 31 games to the tourney.

SBJ also notes that ESPN, Fox and a Turner-CBS collaboration may vie for broadcast rights of the tournament.

The broadcasters are basing their bids on an expanded tournament field, according to a request for proposal issued by the NCAA to potential bidders late last year.


The NCAA reportedly wants a new, 14-year deal with its network partner(s) with an early opt-out only available to the NCAA. (Overplaying its cards?)

As my sources indicate, the NCAA is already dead-set on expanding to a 96-team hoops tournament, so what affect will that have on interest in March Madness and the regular season?

I’m one of those guys who lightly follows the regular season but loves the postseason tournament. Going to 96 teams will render the regular season even more meaningless and I’m not so sure that March Madness will be as fervently embraced with the dilution of the field and added number of games. Like my bracket isn’t big enough already?

If they’re going to go to 96 teams, why not just make the whole season a double elimination tournament?

And if the NCAA is going to drag out the hoops tournament even more, causing players to miss more class, how can it continue to justify not having a college football playoff?

Someone needs to check the water in Indianapolis. Might wanna consider a boil warning.

NJReds
02-01-2010, 04:37 PM
And if the NCAA is going to drag out the hoops tournament even more, causing players to miss more class, how can it continue to justify not having a college football playoff?

Especially considering the football tournament would be played mostly during the winter break after finals.

SeeinRed
02-01-2010, 04:41 PM
I think this would be an absolutely terrible idea. My guess is you would see the end of conference tournaments, but who knows. Maybe they would have a shorter regular season instead. I don't know, but that is just my opinion.

Redlegs212
02-01-2010, 04:51 PM
Horrible, absolutely horrible idea IMO. Sure there wouldn't really be any more talk of bubble teams or snubs, but that just means more teams that obviously wouldn't deserve to be there

KoryMac5
02-01-2010, 05:03 PM
Discussed this a few months back in this thread. The rumor of 96 teams was started by the bloggers and ultimately shot down by the NCAA and CBS. Looks like the tournament will expand after this season to 68 teams though.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79612

Reds Fanatic
02-01-2010, 05:27 PM
It is an absolutely horrible idea. The tournament is the perfect size right now but I am not surprised with the TV contract up for bid that they would come up with this idea as a way to make more revenue.

68 teams could be done by just expanding that opening round game to 4 opening round games each year. That could be done fairly easily and would really not mess with the existing tournament setup too much but 96 teams is a mess. A lot of the drama of the matchups of the cinderella teams facing the bigger schools would be gone as the additional early round matchups would eliminate many of those teams even earlier.

Yachtzee
02-01-2010, 06:31 PM
It is an absolutely horrible idea. The tournament is the perfect size right now but I am not surprised with the TV contract up for bid that they would come up with this idea as a way to make more revenue.

68 teams could be done by just expanding that opening round game to 4 opening round games each year. That could be done fairly easily and would really not mess with the existing tournament setup too much but 96 teams is a mess. A lot of the drama of the matchups of the cinderella teams facing the bigger schools would be gone as the additional early round matchups would eliminate many of those teams even earlier.

Yeah. To me it sounds like the NCAA giving in to the interests of the major conferences. I suspect they might set it up as a large number of play-ins with higher-ranked teams getting byes. I could see it ending up geared toward having the mid-majors fighting each other to advance while weaker major conference teams get byes and a shot at a mid-major that has been softened up by the play-in game.

Sea Ray
02-01-2010, 06:37 PM
I wouldn't get too excited over this yet. At this point it's all based on some dude's sources.

Roy Tucker
02-01-2010, 06:41 PM
Yeah. To me it sounds like the NCAA giving in to the interests of the major conferences.

No! Never! I can't imagine the NCAA doing that!

;)

hebroncougar
02-01-2010, 06:43 PM
Cracks me up..........we can't have an 8 or 16 team in football because of the burden it places on the athletes and travel, etc., but we can have an almost 70 team basketball tourney?

joshnky
02-01-2010, 07:10 PM
Cracks me up..........we can't have an 8 or 16 team in football because of the burden it places on the athletes and travel, etc., but we can have an almost 70 team basketball tourney?

While I totally agree with your point, it should be pointed out that it is a lot easier and cheaper to transport 10 basketball players and support staff than it is to transport 60-80 football players and support staff. Also, due to the size discrepancy, an extra basketball game effects relatively few athletes at a school compared to a football playoff.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Joseph
02-01-2010, 08:41 PM
Hey now Louisville can make the tourney.

;)

Totally just busting your chops Josh.

joshnky
02-01-2010, 09:13 PM
Hey now Louisville can make the tourney.

;)

Totally just busting your chops Josh.

I heard the same thing on the radio coming home today. Unfortunately, this has an air of truth to it in that any team in a major conference outside of the cellar dwellers will now make the tourney.

Joseph
02-01-2010, 09:35 PM
I heard the same thing on the radio coming home today. Unfortunately, this has an air of truth to it in that any team in a major conference outside of the cellar dwellers will now make the tourney.

You know that is a good point. This will end up with more teams who are 19-11 from the SEC, Big East, Pac-10 etc making it than it will a 'mid-major' school at 28-2 making it.

durl
02-02-2010, 01:01 PM
Is Bud Selig running the NCAA now?

Seriously, expanding it to 96 teams is just ridiculous on so many levels.

BRM
02-02-2010, 01:14 PM
They just add 3 more opening round "play-in" games if they expand to 68, right? Seems rather pointless but I guess they see a little additional revenue by doing it.

Roy Tucker
02-02-2010, 01:35 PM
Maybe they could replace the NIT with a loser's bracket from the NCAAs.

Reds4Life
02-02-2010, 01:50 PM
Expanding to 96 teams is worthless. It makes the entire regular season, conference tournaments and titles, more or less for nothing.

The most I could see would be 68, then you give each #1 seed a play-in game winner. If it's 96, you'll have the #1 and #2 seeds playing teams with .500 (or worse) records in the first round. Why bother?

Sea Ray
02-02-2010, 03:56 PM
I assume with 96 teams you'd give a bye to the top 32 teams and essentially the other 64 teams would have to "play in" to the cast of 64. In other words the 1 to 8 seeds would all get byes and they'd have to play those 32 play in games earlier in the week. That would give us less time to fill out our brackets

macro
02-02-2010, 05:00 PM
This is just the first step toward a 4,096-team field. Just wait and see.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ncaa_expands_march_madness_to

improbus
02-02-2010, 06:54 PM
This is just the first step toward a 4,096-team field. Just wait and see.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ncaa_expands_march_madness_to

The funny thing is that every college hoops team (outside of the Ivy League) does have a shot of winning it all in March through the conference tournament system. Here's what a giant tournament would do:
-Kill the purpose of conferences
-Give ESPN more power, because they are the only network that could really handle a larger tourney. This scare me to death.
-It would ruin a number of rivalry games that conference tournaments create.

TeamSelig
02-02-2010, 06:57 PM
I wouldn't mind more play in games. I also wouldn't mind creating small "tournaments" to see who gets the play in game.

For example

Team A v. Team B
Team C v. Team D

winners face each other...

Team E v. Team F
Team G v. Team H

winners face each other...

Both winners face off in the play in game.

This would add about 16 teams I believe

Sea Ray
02-02-2010, 07:22 PM
I wouldn't mind more play in games. I also wouldn't mind creating small "tournaments" to see who gets the play in game.

For example

Team A v. Team B
Team C v. Team D

winners face each other...

Team E v. Team F
Team G v. Team H

winners face each other...

Both winners face off in the play in game.

This would add about 16 teams I believe

Let me see if I'm gettin' this. You're saying some teams would need to win 3 play in games in order to make the field of 64?

dabvu2498
02-02-2010, 10:30 PM
Let me see if I'm gettin' this. You're saying some teams would need to win 3 play in games in order to make the field of 64? They do that already. It is called a conference tournament.

OSUredsFAN
02-02-2010, 10:53 PM
Expanding to 96 teams is worthless. It makes the entire regular season, conference tournaments and titles, more or less for nothing.

The most I could see would be 68, then you give each #1 seed a play-in game winner. If it's 96, you'll have the #1 and #2 seeds playing teams with .500 (or worse) records in the first round. Why bother?

I don't the big deal, and it won't make the season any less meaningful.

Sea Ray
02-02-2010, 11:10 PM
They do that already. It is called a conference tournament.

How do you figure? A lot of teams make the field of 64 without having to win their conference tournament. And the play-in teams, like Alcorn State and Winthrop will have to win their conference tourney just to make the play in.

gonelong
02-03-2010, 10:10 AM
They do that already. It is called a conference tournament.

Winning your conference tournament won't give you the recruiting exposure that simply participating in an NCAA tournament game will, IMO.

IMO they should just cap each league with 5 teams in the big dance. If you have not been able to prove yourself as one of the top 5 teams in your conference, that is on you. Your team has had access to the teams that make the tournament and you have failed to impress. I don't care to watch those types of teams in the big tournament, give me a mid-major or a small school instead.

It sucks for a mid-major to go 27-5 or so, then lose to one of their arch-rival in the conference tournament and have to sit at home. I'd like to see a few more of these types of teams in the tournament.

However, I doubt any of that is going to happen. Coaches at the big schools get fired when they fail to make the NCAA tourney, that is the reason for the talk of expansion IMO.

GL

Chip R
02-03-2010, 11:47 AM
Winning your conference tournament won't give you the recruiting exposure that simply participating in an NCAA tournament game will, IMO.

Perhaps. But even the lowliest conference's tournament championship game is on ESPN. Everyone who gets cable or a dish gets ESPN. When they get into the tournament, unless it's the play-in game there's no guarantee everyone will see it since the games are somewhat regionalized. If Coppin St. is playing Kansas at the same time other games are going on, the whole game will only be shown in the Baltimore and the Big XII region. Some areas of the country might see snippets of the game - particularly if it's close - but it's not necessarily national exposure.


IMO they should just cap each league with 5 teams in the big dance. If you have not been able to prove yourself as one of the top 5 teams in your conference, that is on you. Your team has had access to the teams that make the tournament and you have failed to impress. I don't care to watch those types of teams in the big tournament, give me a mid-major or a small school instead.

It sucks for a mid-major to go 27-5 or so, then lose to one of their arch-rival in the conference tournament and have to sit at home. I'd like to see a few more of these types of teams in the tournament.

However, I doubt any of that is going to happen. Coaches at the big schools get fired when they fail to make the NCAA tourney, that is the reason for the talk of expansion IMO.

GL

I might say that you have to finish at least at .500 in the conference to go to the tournament but capping it at 5 is a good idea too. Everything else I agree with wholeheartedly.

TeamSelig
02-03-2010, 03:36 PM
Let me see if I'm gettin' this. You're saying some teams would need to win 3 play in games in order to make the field of 64?

I just think it is a better alternative to expanding the tournament by a million teams

cumberlandreds
02-03-2010, 03:53 PM
Perhaps. But even the lowliest conference's tournament championship game is on ESPN. Everyone who gets cable or a dish gets ESPN. When they get into the tournament, unless it's the play-in game there's no guarantee everyone will see it since the games are somewhat regionalized. If Coppin St. is playing Kansas at the same time other games are going on, the whole game will only be shown in the Baltimore and the Big XII region. Some areas of the country might see snippets of the game - particularly if it's close - but it's not necessarily national exposure.



Way back when,ESPN used to show all the 1st round games. I think it was the mid to late 80's. The ones they didn't show live were on playback in the overnight hours. Of course if your game is being replayed at 3 am the recruiting effect is very minimal.

Reds4Life
02-03-2010, 04:03 PM
I don't the big deal, and it won't make the season any less meaningful.

Sure will. If you are adding that many teams, they are going to be teams with close to .500 records, or below.

At that point, why play a good OOC schedule? Won't have to anymore.

OSUredsFAN
02-03-2010, 09:17 PM
Sure will. If you are adding that many teams, they are going to be teams with close to .500 records, or below.

At that point, why play a good OOC schedule? Won't have to anymore.

I didn't really think so, last years NIT field had only 2 teams that were less than 2 games over .500

beside, i find this interesting:
Percentage of teams making the postseason
NCAA football: 68 of 119 play in bowl games, 57%
NBA: 16 of 30, 53.3%
NFL: 12 of 32, 37.5%
MLB: 8 of 30, 26.6%
NHL: 16 of 30, 53.3%
NCAA basketball: 65 of 347, 18.7%
NCAA basketball (if expanded to 96): 96 of 347, 27.6%

paintmered
02-03-2010, 09:38 PM
They just add 3 more opening round "play-in" games if they expand to 68, right? Seems rather pointless but I guess they see a little additional revenue by doing it.

Awesome! Now instead of getting to see Winthrop and Alcorn St. in Dayton, we get to see Binghampton, Deleware State, Belmont, Texas Southern, South Dakota and Monmouth too!

Sarcasm aside, four play-in games actually improves the quality of the tournament without disrupting the current schedule. That's four fewer low-major teams who might not have won their conference to get in the way of the rest of the field. Suddenly, the 14 seeds become 15 seeds, the 15s become 16s and so on since the additional three at-large teams will slot in as ~12 seeds.

Sea Ray
02-03-2010, 10:58 PM
I didn't really think so, last years NIT field had only 2 teams that were less than 2 games over .500

beside, i find this interesting:
Percentage of teams making the postseason
NCAA football: 68 of 119 play in bowl games, 57%
NCAA basketball (if expanded to 96): 96 of 347, 27.6%

False comparison. The teams in Bowl games do not have a shot at the national title. A more apt comparison would be to compare teams in Bowl games with those making post season basketball tourneys such as the NCAA, the NIT, College Basketball Invitational, and the collegeinsider.com tourney

OSUredsFAN
02-03-2010, 11:38 PM
False comparison. The teams in Bowl games do not have a shot at the national title. A more apt comparison would be to compare teams in Bowl games with those making post season basketball tourneys such as the NCAA, the NIT, College Basketball Invitational, and the collegeinsider.com tourney

Wasn't really comparing NCAA hoops and football. but here you go:

NCAA hoops postseason: 129 of 347, 37.1%
NCAA football: 68 of 119 play in bowl games, 57%

Sea Ray
02-04-2010, 11:18 AM
Wasn't really comparing NCAA hoops and football. but here you go:

NCAA hoops postseason: 129 of 347, 37.1%
NCAA football: 68 of 119 play in bowl games, 57%

Personally I don't care if they want to add more worthless tournaments but don't add any more teams to the NCAA Tourney.

Whoever wrote this sure seemed to be comparing NCAA Hoops and Football:


Percentage of teams making the postseason
NCAA football: 68 of 119 play in bowl games, 57%
NCAA basketball (if expanded to 96): 96 of 347, 27.6%

What else is that comparing?

It sounds to me like the NCAA is just floating this 96 team idea as a trial balloon. I don't think it's a done deal as some sources have reported. Seeing as the reaction has been very negative I doubt we'll see this 96 team tourney anytime soon.

Revering4Blue
02-07-2010, 12:26 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=katz_andy&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fname%3dkatz_andy


The talk of the tournament imminently expanding to 96 teams needs to chill. There is no immediate movement on this subject.

The NCAA has a right to explore the marketplace within its CBS contract. The CBS deal has three years remaining on it, and the NCAA can opt out after this season. But it hasn't yet. This is far from done. What the NCAA did was ask potential television partners -- NBC/Comcast, Fox, CBS (possibly with Turner) and ESPN -- how, if at all, they would change the format if they got the tournament. There is no set number of additional teams. A television partner could propose 65, 68, 72, 96 or 128. Everything is on the table.

And even then, there is a process -- a long, exhaustive process like everything in the NCAA legislative structure, which usually moves at a glacial pace. The NCAA, led by vice president Greg Shaheen, has to get opinions from the NCAA tournament selection committee, the conference commissioners (notably the power six) and the board of directors. The conference commissioners are likely to lean toward the status quo, get the bloated back-end money from the CBS deal because it's a sure thing, and see whether the market changes in two years. The NCAA would like to get a long-term deal, but that's a gamble, too, since the price tag could be less now than it might be in two years if the market were to improve.

Still, I'm convinced through my various conversations with those who have direct knowledge of the subject that no deal has been struck with CBS-Turner or ESPN to change the tournament or its television partner. This is a process that will evolve in the spring and summer and isn't being decided in the dead of winter.

And for those who care, it is no coincidence that the NIT contract expires this season. It would make a clean break to get rid of the postseason NIT with a new contract. But if the timing isn't right, the postseason NIT can survive for another few years in a short deal until a final decision is made on the JV field.

macro
02-07-2010, 02:28 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=katz_andy&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fname%3dkatz_andy


The talk of the tournament imminently expanding to 96 teams needs to chill. There is no immediate movement on this subject.

The NCAA has a right to explore the marketplace within its CBS contract. The CBS deal has three years remaining on it, and the NCAA can opt out after this season. But it hasn't yet. This is far from done. What the NCAA did was ask potential television partners -- NBC/Comcast, Fox, CBS (possibly with Turner) and ESPN -- how, if at all, they would change the format if they got the tournament. There is no set number of additional teams. A television partner could propose 65, 68, 72, 96 or 128. Everything is on the table.

And even then, there is a process -- a long, exhaustive process like everything in the NCAA legislative structure, which usually moves at a glacial pace. The NCAA, led by vice president Greg Shaheen, has to get opinions from the NCAA tournament selection committee, the conference commissioners (notably the power six) and the board of directors. The conference commissioners are likely to lean toward the status quo, get the bloated back-end money from the CBS deal because it's a sure thing, and see whether the market changes in two years. The NCAA would like to get a long-term deal, but that's a gamble, too, since the price tag could be less now than it might be in two years if the market were to improve.

Still, I'm convinced through my various conversations with those who have direct knowledge of the subject that no deal has been struck with CBS-Turner or ESPN to change the tournament or its television partner. This is a process that will evolve in the spring and summer and isn't being decided in the dead of winter.

And for those who care, it is no coincidence that the NIT contract expires this season. It would make a clean break to get rid of the postseason NIT with a new contract. But if the timing isn't right, the postseason NIT can survive for another few years in a short deal until a final decision is made on the JV field.

So, does that mean that this year's tournament will have 96 teams?






(kidding)

Caveat Emperor
02-09-2010, 01:56 PM
Sure will. If you are adding that many teams, they are going to be teams with close to .500 records, or below.

At that point, why play a good OOC schedule? Won't have to anymore.

RPI. Seeding matters in the NCAA Tournament, and RPI factors heavily into where a team gets seeded.

As an aside, I would absolutely be in favor of a "tournament eligibility" cut-off. Football has a 6-win requirement, I'd like to see hoops put in a similar requirement for wins to even be eligible. If you don't have the requisite number of wins, better win your conference tourney.

Sea Ray
02-09-2010, 07:42 PM
RPI. Seeding matters in the NCAA Tournament, and RPI factors heavily into where a team gets seeded.

As an aside, I would absolutely be in favor of a "tournament eligibility" cut-off. Football has a 6-win requirement, I'd like to see hoops put in a similar requirement for wins to even be eligible. If you don't have the requisite number of wins, better win your conference tourney.

So the tournament eligibility cutoff would be waived if you win your conference tourney?

Caveat Emperor
02-10-2010, 01:54 AM
So the tournament eligibility cutoff would be waived if you win your conference tourney?

Sure -- I like the idea that a conference championship means something.

I'm also not opposed to opening the tournament up to more teams, but I would include the "eligibility cut-off" to prevent the tournament from turning into an excuse to invite every team, regardless of record, out there from the power conferences.

Sea Ray
02-10-2010, 11:38 AM
Sure -- I like the idea that a conference championship means something.

I'm also not opposed to opening the tournament up to more teams, but I would include the "eligibility cut-off" to prevent the tournament from turning into an excuse to invite every team, regardless of record, out there from the power conferences.

Well if that's the case then you are going to end up with some sub .500 teams. It's the team that gets hot in the conference championships and earns an automatic bid that tends to have a sub par record. I don't think there's much of a problem with the at large bids

BRM
03-03-2010, 03:19 PM
Jay Wright is in favor of expanding the tournament. He was on the Dan Patrick radio show.


Villanova head coach Jay Wright joined the show to talk about expanding the NCAA Tournament field and more.

"I don't think there's anything in college basketball that's more important than expanding that field," Wright said.

Wright said about 18 percent of the teams get in the Big Dance, but more than that have a good season. He thinks several more teams belong in the Tournament.

"I would start at 96 with the idea that we would even go beyond that," Wright said.

Wright said that he's not worried the regular season games would lose their juice. He said that conference games are still very exciting.

For fun, Dan asked Wright to name his four toughest head coaches to put in the Octagon. Wright went with West Virginia's Bob Huggins, Florida's Billy Donovan, Mississippi's Andy Kennedy and he had to put Coach K in there.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/100161/index.html?eref=sihp

RichRed
03-03-2010, 03:41 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that half the D-I teams in the country will finish below .500 and are therefore not tourney-worthy. That leaves - what? - about 175 teams with winning records. Now you select 96 of those teams to participate in the NCAA tournament, which is over HALF of all teams with winning records. Talk about dilution.

So Jay Wright's beef that only 18% of the teams get in just rings hollow.

Boston Red
03-03-2010, 03:52 PM
All but about 100 of those teams are in one-bid leagues anyway. If you assume there are 120 teams in 10 multiple-bid leagues (leagues are about 12 members on average now), that means you have 21 one-bid leagues that take 21 spots, leaving 44 spots for everyone else. If 44 of the 120 make the Tournament, that's 36.7%. And that includes some programs like Fordham, LaSalle, Northwestern, Rutgers, South Florida, SMU, Oregon State, Rice and Louisiana Tech that essentially never go to the Tournament.

Chip R
03-03-2010, 04:08 PM
Villanova head coach Jay Wright joined the show to talk about expanding the NCAA Tournament field and more.

"I don't think there's anything in college basketball that's more important than expanding that field," Wright said.


Anything?

BRM
03-03-2010, 04:27 PM
Anything?

Yeah, that statement seemed a bit over the top to me as well.

Reds Fanatic
04-01-2010, 07:12 PM
It sounds like tournament expansion is coming in the near future. The NCAA announced today if they expand after looking at different models it most likely be to a 96 team field. How they would do that is to give seeds 1 through 8 in each region a first round bye. This is an absolutely horrible idea. It makes the regular season not as meaningful and destroys a great part of what made the first round so great the upsets of some of the smaller schools going up against the bigger schools. Now the top 32 teams would not even play Thursday or Friday under their new plan. It amazes me the NCAA can't come up with a simple football playoff and at the same time they are going to mess up the one thing they actually had setup perfectly.

dsmith421
04-01-2010, 09:51 PM
As an aside, I would absolutely be in favor of a "tournament eligibility" cut-off. Football has a 6-win requirement, I'd like to see hoops put in a similar requirement for wins to even be eligible. If you don't have the requisite number of wins, better win your conference tourney.

I'd prefer to make it a conference record cutoff. If you put it at 18 wins total, it just means the Seton Halls of the world would play 13 home non-conference games against MEAC teams. It seems to me that if you can't win half your conference games (including conference tournament), you ought to be ineligible from making the tournament.*

* Which then adds an additional set of problems for those leagues that play unbalanced schedules (i.e., almost all of them).

Or they could just not expand and leave well enough alone.

Chip R
04-01-2010, 10:58 PM
I'd rather see it stay the same but if they did increase to 96 teams, I'd like to see all regular season conference winners automatically make the tournament. Then they wouldn't have to play the conference tournament and the rest of the eligible conference teams can fight it out for the other spot.

WVRed
04-01-2010, 11:49 PM
It sounds like tournament expansion is coming in the near future. The NCAA announced today if they expand after looking at different models it most likely be to a 96 team field. How they would do that is to give seeds 1 through 8 in each region a first round bye. This is an absolutely horrible idea. It makes the regular season not as meaningful and destroys a great part of what made the first round so great the upsets of some of the smaller schools going up against the bigger schools. Now the top 32 teams would not even play Thursday or Friday under their new plan. It amazes me the NCAA can't come up with a simple football playoff and at the same time they are going to mess up the one thing they actually had setup perfectly.

It's not broke, so don't fix it.

But since we are going to tear it down anyways, how does this sound?

Take sixteen conferences and place the conference winners in a tournament that is aligned by seeding.

Big East-West Virginia
Big 12-Kansas
ACC-Duke
Big Ten-Ohio St
Mountain West-New Mexico
Atlantic Ten-Richmond
SEC-Kentucky
C-USA-Houston
Pac-10-Washington
WAC-New Mexico State
West Coast-St Mary's
Ohio Valley-Murray State
Missouri Valley-Northern Iowa
Ivy-Cornell
Atlantic Sun-East Tennessee State
American East-Vermont

This could be expanded to include other conferences and include play-in games, but for this reference, we will assign seedings as the following:

1.Kansas
16.Vermont

2.Kentucky
15.East Tennessee St

3.Duke
14.Murray State

4.West Virginia
13.New Mexico State

5.Ohio State
12.St Mary's

6.New Mexico
11.Washington

7.Northern Iowa
10.Cornell

8.Houston
9.Richmond

Basically, it keeps the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, and Final Four intact, but puts a lot more pressure on the conference tournaments. You have to win your own conference to be able to play for the national championship.

Plus Plus
04-02-2010, 12:38 AM
I don't see an expansion to 96 teams doing anything other than allowing more teams with 12-15 losses into the tournament as at-large bids. Frankly, I feel very similarly to this as I do towards the inane amount of bowls that happen in college football. If you are mediocre, you don't deserve a chance to play in the post-season: plain and simple.

Captain Hook
04-02-2010, 12:38 AM
I will never understand why playing 64 post season basketball games to determine a National Champion is not enough when the same establishment claims that it is impossible to play any kind of tournament what so ever in football to decide that sports Champion.The NCAA is just brilliant.

Reds Fanatic
04-02-2010, 12:46 AM
This article contains a good exchange that happened at the press conference between John Feinstein and the moron the NCAA tried to have sell this idea:

http://beyondthearc.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/01/2255151.aspx

One of the main arguments the NCAA has used against a football playoff is the athletes would miss too much class but they see no problem with this proposed schedule for the tournament:

First round: Thursday and Friday
Secod round: Saturday and Sunday
Third round: Tuesday and Wednesday
Regionals: Thursday and Friday
Regional Finals: Saturday and Sunday

guttle11
04-02-2010, 12:51 AM
So essentially they're taking the players from teams in the third round out of one or two extra days of classes at a time where pretty much no school in the country is taking finals. The idea behind the academic excuse with football is that most schools are taking finals in mid-December, when the playoff would take place.

The comparison just doesn't hold water.

Donder
04-02-2010, 04:26 AM
I'm being a pessimist (or more accurately, a realist), but are we really going to believe that players on teams in the tournament are really attending class and learning something while the tournament is going on as it is now? I'm sure the boys from Butler, for example, aren't missing any class this week and spending loads of time studying and working on homework.

I'm not in favor of expansion, but this seems to be a case where the media is blowing this one point out of proportion just to stir the pot. Shocking, I know.

Playadlc
04-02-2010, 04:48 AM
This article contains a good exchange that happened at the press conference between John Feinstein and the moron the NCAA tried to have sell this idea:

http://beyondthearc.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/01/2255151.aspx

One of the main arguments the NCAA has used against a football playoff is the athletes would miss too much class but they see no problem with this proposed schedule for the tournament:

First round: Thursday and Friday
Secod round: Saturday and Sunday
Third round: Tuesday and Wednesday
Regionals: Thursday and Friday
Regional Finals: Saturday and Sunday

This entire exchange is comical. It speaks volumes about why we have trouble understanding what the heck the NCAA is up to (or not) at any particular time. Shaheen is either speaking in tongues....or he's priming for a run for Congress.

reds1869
04-02-2010, 07:39 AM
Basically, it keeps the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, and Final Four intact, but puts a lot more pressure on the conference tournaments. You have to win your own conference to be able to play for the national championship.

I would have less of a problem if you were taking the regulaa season conference champs instead of the tournament champs. Giving the bid to the tournament champion rewards a team that got hot at the right time, not the long hall champion. That is why baseball has the best system. The most consistent team in each division makes the playoffs, then one worthy team from the rest of the league gets in. That is the type of system I like.

I agree with the start of your post, though: it ain't broke, so don't fix it!

improbus
04-02-2010, 09:15 AM
Here is what the NCAA doesn't understand. The beauty/strength of the tournament isn't the upset or the Final Four. It is in the tournaments ability to bring in non-basketball fans (like my wife) to watch. The Bracket-Mania hits everyone, even people who don't know who Evan Turner or John Wall are. And this is why the tournament makes so much money. It is the best sporthing event (other than the SB) at bringing in non-fans. So, why complicate it for those fans? Is my wife going to take the time worrying about bye's, and trying to dissect a 22-15 seed matchup? No. She probably won't pay any attention because it won't be worth the hassle. The hardcore's will complain but they will still watch. However, the casual fans might be turned off, and that is a worst case scenario for the NCAA.

bucksfan2
04-02-2010, 09:50 AM
I think this is a bad idea driven by dollar bills. I don't think average or poor big conference teams don't belong in the NCAA tournament. Just off the top of my head UC and Dayton had a chance to play themselves into the NCAA tournament but they all fell shot. Nothing wrong with that, they just weren't good enough. No sense in rewarding mediocrity.

As for the academics I wish the NCAA would make sure that all player are eligible at the midterm point in order to play in the NCAA tournament. Bob Knight has long talked about the student issues associated with the NCAA. He basically says that if a player is looking to go pro after his freshman year can enroll in the fall, take one semester, register for classes in the 2nd semester, and then not go to class because the semester ends after the NCAA tourney ends.

BRM
04-02-2010, 09:53 AM
Here is what the NCAA doesn't understand. The beauty/strength of the tournament isn't the upset or the Final Four. It is in the tournaments ability to bring in non-basketball fans (like my wife) to watch. The Bracket-Mania hits everyone, even people who don't know who Evan Turner or John Wall are. And this is why the tournament makes so much money. It is the best sporthing event (other than the SB) at bringing in non-fans. So, why complicate it for those fans? Is my wife going to take the time worrying about bye's, and trying to dissect a 22-15 seed matchup? No. She probably won't pay any attention because it won't be worth the hassle. The hardcore's will complain but they will still watch. However, the casual fans might be turned off, and that is a worst case scenario for the NCAA.

Excellent point. I can see how a lot of people would be much less likely to fill out brackets under this scenario. It would probably be too complicated for casual fans.

improbus
04-02-2010, 01:39 PM
Well, if they are going to do the 96 team format, they can format the tournament so it ends up in the familiar 64 team format. So, have a "play-in" round to decide who ends up in the field of 64. Here are some rules for this format.
1) Every conference champion is guaranteed a spot in the field of 64 and gets seeded higher and a bye. This would provide a HUGE incentive for winning the conference and would actually add to the regular season and not take away from it. There are 31 total conference champions. So, we might need to manufacture a conference bid, but this has happened before.
2) Seed the remaining teams 1-64 (nice symmetry, huh). Have 1 play 64, 2 play 63, etc... These teams will play each other for the bid to the tournament. This game would be played on a home court, either the higher seeds home court, or (even more fun) a home floor choosen by a coin flip. Imagine Syracuse having to go to Vermont to get into the tournament.
3) Finally, take the remaining teams and set them into the existing structure to create a 64 team bracket which mimics what we have now. This will set up some strange matchups, but the beauty of the current format is that it almost never creates the expected matchups anyway.

Hoosier Red
04-02-2010, 04:59 PM
I'm being a pessimist (or more accurately, a realist), but are we really going to believe that players on teams in the tournament are really attending class and learning something while the tournament is going on as it is now? I'm sure the boys from Butler, for example, aren't missing any class this week and spending loads of time studying and working on homework.

I'm not in favor of expansion, but this seems to be a case where the media is blowing this one point out of proportion just to stir the pot. Shocking, I know.

Actually they were bussed back and forth for classes yesterday and today. Now a cynic could say that was for show, but still.
My guess is the majority of college basketball players go to class and take their studies seriously. If I had to put a percentage of players who eventually get a degree I'd guess about 60%

improbus
04-03-2010, 08:55 PM
Everyone's complaint about the NCAA is that they make every decision based on money. Well...why is this a bad thing? They are a non-profit organization whose money overwhelmingly goes back to the students and schools (over $533 million dollars this year). The NCAA tournament is the NCAA's cash-cow that helps to significantly fund many of the non-revenue generating sports. So, when the NCAA adds 1 round to the tournament, they are getting 100-200 million more dollars for kids. How is this a bad thing? Is it worth messing with the 64 team format? From the NCAA's perspective, YES! Go NCAA! Get your money and hopefully there will be a scholarship for my daughter in 16 years....

Chip R
04-03-2010, 09:36 PM
It looks like if they do this, they are going to cram the whole expanded tournament into the same 3 week period. So, teams could eventually start playing on Thursday/Friday then Saturday/Sunday them Tuesday/Wednesday and the round of 16 begins Thursday/Friday. Looks like John Feinstein thinks a lot of class time is going to be missed by a lot of players but the NCAA doesn't acknowledge that.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/John-Feinstein-exposes-the-hypocrisy-of-NCAA-tou?urn=ncaab,231722

KronoRed
04-04-2010, 12:55 AM
Really all this does is swallow the NIT into the NCAA tourney, big whoop, the thing has expanded a bunch of times.

Revering4Blue
04-04-2010, 01:38 AM
Really all this does is swallow the NIT into the NCAA tourney, big whoop, the thing has expanded a bunch of times.

Exactly.

Then the CBI and CIT become the NIT.

Hoosier Red
04-07-2010, 10:13 PM
I've heard coaches support this because more teams in the tournament will apparantly mean more job security as more coaches will make the tournament.

But making the tournament now doesn't guarantee job security(ask Dino Gaudio) so why would it guarantee job security for a more watered down tournament?

macro
04-08-2010, 03:41 AM
I've heard coaches support this because more teams in the tournament will apparantly mean more job security as more coaches will make the tournament.

But making the tournament now doesn't guarantee job security(ask Dino Gaudio) so why would it guarantee job security for a more watered down tournament?


It seems to be a completely self-serving attitude that they're taking. If they'd just step back and forget about self for a moment, they'd admit that it's not a good idea for college basketball. But if they can go 17-14 and make the tournament, then more power to them, I guess. I hope they don't sprain their arms patting themselves on the back for the "accomplishment".

:rolleyes:

IslandRed
04-08-2010, 10:51 AM
As for the academics I wish the NCAA would make sure that all player are eligible at the midterm point in order to play in the NCAA tournament. Bob Knight has long talked about the student issues associated with the NCAA. He basically says that if a player is looking to go pro after his freshman year can enroll in the fall, take one semester, register for classes in the 2nd semester, and then not go to class because the semester ends after the NCAA tourney ends.

That's absolutely true, but I'm not sure what they can do about it. Remember that the NCAA, ultimately, is comprised of the schools. The vast majority of those schools don't trade in one-and-dones and want no part of having extra tracking and certification requirements to verify their players aren't flunking their courses as of the NCAA Tournament. And that's assuming the academic calendar and the course syllabus are even compatible with such a thing. What if they haven't taken midterms yet? I had a class in college where we were presented four grading options. One of them was, "take the final and that's your grade." I did that. So, in early March, was I passing or failing?

Besides, how many one-and-dones are there, really? It would be a very big solution to a relatively small problem. And then the whole thing would probably be blown away at the first legal challenge by a player banned from playing in the NCAAs for flunking a course he hadn't flunked yet.

Revering4Blue
04-08-2010, 10:03 PM
Butler makes case for significantly expanded tourney

http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/index.ssf/2010/04/midmajors_are_a_good_reason_fo.html


While speculation continues as to just how big your NCAA Tournament bracket might look in the future, there is a case to be made for significant expansion. Consider this group of schools: Notre Dame, Georgetown, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Villanova, Pittsburgh and Wisconsin. Then this group: Old Dominion, Ohio, Northern Iowa, Murray State, St. Mary's, Cornell and Xavier. All the ratings and experts would say the first group of schools should be superior to the second group when they meet on the court. But that second collection of midmajors knocked off those high-rated big names. That all happened in this tournament. It also makes a strong case that the NCAA not only should expand the field, but also widen its vision. It's not about adding more teams from the top conferences, but selecting the best teams, period.

TeamSelig
04-09-2010, 10:55 AM
The 16th seed has never beaten a 1 seed.
The 15th seed has beaten the 2nd seed 4 times.

I don't think the tournament needs expanded at all.

Chip R
04-09-2010, 11:04 AM
It also makes a strong case that the NCAA not only should expand the field, but also widen its vision. It's not about adding more teams from the top conferences, but selecting the best teams, period.

That would be nice if that were the outcome of an expansion but we all know it's going to lead to mediocre teams from major conferences getting the nod over better teams from mid-major conferences. The last time several mid-majors did this well, they clamped down on the number of mid-major teams getting into the tournament the following year.

Reds Fanatic
04-09-2010, 01:34 PM
http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/index.ssf/2010/04/midmajors_are_a_good_reason_fo.html


While speculation continues as to just how big your NCAA Tournament bracket might look in the future, there is a case to be made for significant expansion. Consider this group of schools: Notre Dame, Georgetown, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Villanova, Pittsburgh and Wisconsin. Then this group: Old Dominion, Ohio, Northern Iowa, Murray State, St. Mary's, Cornell and Xavier. All the ratings and experts would say the first group of schools should be superior to the second group when they meet on the court. But that second collection of midmajors knocked off those high-rated big names. That all happened in this tournament. It also makes a strong case that the NCAA not only should expand the field, but also widen its vision. It's not about adding more teams from the top conferences, but selecting the best teams, period.

What this writer does not get is that the way they are going to expand the tourament is going to make it much harder for the smaller schools to suceed in the future. If you take this year's Northern Iowa over Kansas upset for example which happened in the 2nd round. That is going to be less likely in the future when in the new schedule they are proposing in that round Kansas would now be on just their 2nd game in a 4 day period and Northern Iowa would already be on their 3rd game.

Hoosier Red
04-09-2010, 01:37 PM
The 16th seed has never beaten a 1 seed.
The 15th seed has beaten the 2nd seed 4 times.

I don't think the tournament needs expanded at all.

Exactly. One of the big problems I see with expanding the tournament is that it won't add teams that would be the "17th seed" in this year's tournament, it will in fact add 32 teams, all of which is better than the 15th seed this year.

With that the advantage of being a #1 or #2 seed is gone. And so you'll see teams like Kansas and Duke and Kentucky take a Colts approach to the end of the season and the conference tournament.

Danny Serafini
04-22-2010, 01:30 PM
Good news, it looks like the 96 team tournament is dead!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5125307

68 looks to be the number they'll go with, and a combination of CBS and Turner will air every game live on four networks, instead of only getting one local game.

BRM
04-22-2010, 01:36 PM
68 looks to be the number they'll go with, and a combination of CBS and Turner will air every game live on four networks, instead of only getting one local game.

The end of the ridiculous March Madness PPV package. Good.

Reds Fanatic
04-22-2010, 01:38 PM
That is very good news. They must have finally figured out the 96 teams was in many ways going to mess up what is really a perfect tournament. 68 teams just means there will be 4 opening round games instead of 1 and the rest of the schedule remains as is.

Edd Roush
04-22-2010, 02:21 PM
I like 68 teams. It will allow for three more bubble teams and will likely keep the tournament equally competitive.

KoryMac5
04-22-2010, 05:48 PM
Good news, it looks like the 96 team tournament is dead!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5125307

68 looks to be the number they'll go with, and a combination of CBS and Turner will air every game live on four networks, instead of only getting one local game.

68 is the start, eventually you will see the tournament go to a larger pool of teams close to the 96. Give it a few years.

gilpdawg
04-23-2010, 08:20 AM
Good news, it looks like the 96 team tournament is dead!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5125307

68 looks to be the number they'll go with, and a combination of CBS and Turner will air every game live on four networks, instead of only getting one local game.

This is awesome. All the games! Not "why won't CBS switch my blowout to this close game" BS anymore.

macro
04-23-2010, 10:29 AM
This will be great for fans whose favorite team is in another part of the U.S.

cumberlandreds
04-23-2010, 10:38 AM
This will be great for fans whose favorite team is in another part of the U.S.

Like me. :D I live in the DC area and it seems that we never get the UK NCAA games. And if we did they would always switch away from it. I never had DirecTV but I guess this means the end to March Mega Madness.

Hoosier Red
04-26-2010, 12:52 PM
I like 68 teams. It will allow for three more bubble teams and will likely keep the tournament equally competitive.

I think the "play in games" will be really interesting. A friend of mine said it would be good to have a doubleheader in Dayton and maybe Louisville every year as that would allow the teams to be in the middle of the country and able to fly whereever they needed. I wonder if they'll make sure all the #1 seeds play on Friday now.

macro
04-26-2010, 01:33 PM
I wonder if they'll make sure all the #1 seeds play on Friday now.

They really should.

Boston Red
04-26-2010, 02:07 PM
Unless BYU is a #1, of course.

Sea Ray
04-27-2010, 04:28 PM
I don't know that we'll see much difference. I'm imagining 4 play in games consisting of Miss Valley St vs LeHigh. I doubt we'll see a play in of UC vs East Carolina. Who's going to watch those play ins? I don't see what the NCAA gains here

macro
04-27-2010, 04:41 PM
I don't know that we'll see much difference. I'm imagining 4 play in games consisting of Miss Valley St vs LeHigh. I doubt we'll see a play in of UC vs East Carolina. Who's going to watch those play ins? I don't see what the NCAA gains here

I think the only winners will be the three teams that now get in that would not have otherwise. I'm like you, I don't see what's in this for the NCAA or the TV people.

I do like this move for the symmetrical reasons, if nothing else, though. I have never figured out why they didn't leave it at the perfect 64.

Boston Red
04-27-2010, 05:11 PM
I don't know that we'll see much difference. I'm imagining 4 play in games consisting of Miss Valley St vs LeHigh. I doubt we'll see a play in of UC vs East Carolina. Who's going to watch those play ins? I don't see what the NCAA gains here

You're just adding three additional at-large teams. I guess one bonus is that you knock out the "true" 16 seeds in the play-in games. The 1 vs. 16 will now be closer to 1 vs. 15, 2 vs. 15 will be closer to 2 vs. 14, etc. So some of those first rounds games could be a bit more competitive (especially the 3 vs. 14 games).