Jim Delany says tournament expansion is "probable"

[Sports Guy]

I am not in favor of a 96 team tourney but I do think those thinking it will be armageddon are wrong.

First of all, the "first round" will be played in 2 days during the normal week of the tourney...So, its not like its going to push things back.

Secondly, it is more of the tourney and I don't see how that is a bad thing.

Now, what will happen is this...The Ohio/GTown stories will be fewer and far between...Selection Sunday will be no big deal...The discussions will not matter anymore. if you can't make a 96 team field, then you suck and have no business complaining.

But I will say this...Their shouldn't be a situation where the #1 seeds have to play a UCONN in their first game.

Now, I know in theory that the first game is really the second round and they could be playing the equal of an 8/9 game, as they would in the first round but still, it should be an "easier" game for those higher seeds.

[Dr. FLK]

Was it diluted when they went from 32 to 64? Why is 64 the magic number but 96 can't be? You do know that 96 teams represents a smaller percentage of all D1 teams now than 64 teams did when they last expanded, right?

I do, and I don't really care. I don't see this as a "XX % of teams deserve to be in the tournament because XX% of teams play in bowls. To me, that's pretty much irrelevant. I just don't feel that any teams who were left out of the tournament this year really got hosed. There's not one team that I wish had gotten a chance to play or that I felt had any chance to win it.

I'm neither for or against expansion, but I guarantee one thing: If they expand it, the tournament will still be just as great in every aspect. People will get all righteously indignant the first year and be against just because they are stubborn, but it will be every bit as exciting, and by year two or three, it will seem like it was always 96 teams, just like it now seems like it was always 64 teams.

I'm not getting righteously indignant. I just see no reason to do it. I don't see letting more mediocre teams improving it. Sometimes things are fine just as they are...I just feel that the NCAA is great at cheapening things for the sake of money...and sooner or later you end up with the Eagle Bank Bowl.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I am not in favor of a 96 team tourney but I do think those thinking it will be armageddon are wrong.

First of all, the "first round" will be played in 2 days during the normal week of the tourney...So, its not like its going to push things back.

They would have to move things back. The first time an ACC or Big East or Big 12 or Big Ten team has to play three/four games in three/four days and then play right away on Tuesday or even Monday, someone will be getting fired at NCAA headquarters.

Secondly, it is more of the tourney and I don't see how that is a bad thing.

Now, what will happen is this...The Ohio/GTown stories will be fewer and far between...Selection Sunday will be no big deal...The discussions will not matter anymore. if you can't make a 96 team field, then you suck and have no business complaining.

I'm sure people said the same things about the 64-team field. The last team or teams left out are always going to b****.

[Dr. FLK]

They should just use pre-season rankings, draw up a 256 team tournament, start it in December, and that's that.

[Mackus]

I do, and I don't really care. I don't see this as a "XX % of teams deserve to be in the tournament because XX% of teams play in bowls. To me, that's pretty much irrelevant. I just don't feel that any teams who were left out of the tournament this year really got hosed. There's not one team that I wish had gotten a chance to play or that I felt had any chance to win it.

If only teams that "have any chance to win it" deserve to play then it should be about a 16-team tournament. Probably even less.

The NCAA tourney is great because it both allows the very best teams to get into a smaller tournament for the championship fairly easily (almost all the 1 and 2 seeds make the sweet 16, usually about 1 a year doesn't make it, maybe 2) and it also is incredibly entertaining watching the underdogs and smaller schools have a chance to get into that Sweet 16 round or in complete miracle years maybe even the Final 4.

I don't think expansion would make it any more difficult for the top 8 to 12 seeds to advance to the sweet 16. I think any elite team that is peaking and playing well should still be able to cruise to the Sweet 16. I do think that expansion would make it more likely that some underdogs advance a couple of rounds, and that will always be exciting, whether that underdog is Murray St or one of the "new 32" like William & Mary or someone.

[mweb]

I'm very surprised people aren't in favor of this..We LOVE the tournament. Why wouldn't we want one more weekend of it.

I love it the way it is. I don't want a lot more mediocre teams in the tourney and the regular season and championship week to mean a lot less. I think this is an awful idea.

Also I happen to love how the title game falls on opening day of baseball; wonderful timing!

Edited April 1, 2010 by mweb08

[PrivateO]

Another point that an ESPn analyst (Gottleib?) mentioned is the effect on coaches who do not lead their teams to the Tournament.

Basically, if you can't crack the top 96, you should be fired. Hello revolving coaches.

[PrivateO]

Mike Krzyzewski:

"The regular season would mean something," he said. "There would still be bubble teams and all that, but we would reward those teams accordingly. And I would still like the conference tournament champions. They make a lot of money and celebrate each conference. I think it's a way of each conference celebrating their conference, which is a good thing."

Could this be a way to continue the importance of regular season/conference tournaments?

32 NCAA conferences -->

max. 64 automatic bids (conference tounrmanent and regular season winners)

min. 32 at-large bids

[square634]

Mike Krzyzewski:

Could this be a way to continue the importance of regular season/conference tournaments?

32 NCAA conferences -->

max. 64 automatic bids (conference tounrmanent and regular season winners)

min. 32 at-large bids

This would be a bad idea, IMO. For a lot of conferences, the financial incentive to have the regular season champion tank in the conference tournament would be unbelievable. Each game played is close to $300,000 in revenues to the conference, which then distributes it appropriately. By making it to the Sweet 16, Cornell got the Ivy League nearly $900,000, or more than $100,000 per school (Cornell will probably get a bigger share, but the Ivy League shares it with everyone). That's a big deal for low-budget athletic programs. If the Ivy League had a conference tournament, in a year with no dominant team, there would be a big incentive to let a second-place team win the tournament.

[ChrisAF79]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It's as simple as that.

The tournament is perfect the way it is.

[mweb]

Was it diluted when they went from 32 to 64? Why is 64 the magic number but 96 can't be? You do know that 96 teams represents a smaller percentage of all D1 teams now than 64 teams did when they last expanded, right?

Yeah, but most of those extra teams aren't any good.

It would kind of BE like if MLB took on a bunch of minor league teams with greatly inferior talent, finances, stadiums, and markets. Then someone says well we now have 48 teams, so we should have 12 playoff teams.

Edited April 22, 2010 by mweb08

[mweb]

Looks like they're only going to 68 teams.

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

[ccbird]

Wow. The NCAA doesn't completely butcher the tournament. I'm shocked but very happy.

[Sports Guy]

Wow. The NCAA doesn't completely butcher the tournament. I'm shocked but very happy.

Doesn't mean they won't do it down the road.

[The Epic]

I'd still like the first four games to be 12-seed tourneys, but hey...take what you can get, I guess.