NCAA Tourny expanding to 96 teams??

[ccbird]

Another thing that makes the 64 format so great is the potential upset on the first weekend, particularly the first two days. You expand to 96 and that goes away. The 1-4 seeds in a tourney are most likely going to be playing the mediocre- poor power conference teams. There is no cinderella story when a 15 seed NC State knocks off the 2 seed Kansas.

[Dr. FLK]

How could anyone be against this?!

I mean, you guys are pretty much all MD fans...This means you should actually make the tourney!

In all seriousness, i don't see this as a bad thing at all. More NCAA tourney action? And I am supposed to NOT like that? Really?

And hey...Dook might even make it past the 2nd round.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Right, because the best way of doing things is to make them more like football.

BTerp: misinterpreting people's arguments since....2003?

The only way this is even remotely like football is the idea that teams ranked X through Y are given the opportunity. But to compare two teams to 64 is just silly. If you can't get in the top 64 of the RPI, you probably don't deserve a shot at winning the National Championship.

[YardBirds13]

BTerp: misinterpreting people's arguments since....2003?

The only way this is even remotely like football is the idea that teams ranked X through Y are given the opportunity. But to compare two teams to 64 is just silly. If you can't get in the top 64 of the RPI, you probably don't deserve a shot at winning the National Championship.

Yeah, eliminating like 200 teams before teams before the season starts is a great idea!!!

The thing that makes college basketball great is that every single team in the nation has a chance to compete for the national championship. Every single one. I know we have had this debate before. But it boggles my mind that you think the teams that win their conferences don't deserve a chance to play in the tournament with the big boys. THAT is what makes college basketball special, is the chance for everyone to get a shot.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Yeah, eliminating like 200 teams before teams before the season starts is a great idea!!!

The thing that makes college basketball great is that every single team in the nation has a chance to compete for the national championship. Every single one. I know we have had this debate before. But it boggles my mind that you think the teams that win their conferences don't deserve a chance to play in the tournament with the big boys. THAT is what makes college basketball special, is the chance for everyone to get a shot.

This is such utter nonsense. I'm sorry, but there's no way anyone can justify to me putting a team like McNeese State in every year over a team from a power conference that is right on the bubble. If those two teams played on a neutral court, the power conference team would win 9/10 times and in most cases by double digits. The NCAA Tournament, in my opinion, is supposed to be a tournament featuring the best the NCAA Tournament has to offer.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Yeah, eliminating like 200 teams before teams before the season starts is a great idea!!!

The thing that makes college basketball great is that every single team in the nation has a chance to compete for the national championship. Every single one. I know we have had this debate before. But it boggles my mind that you think the teams that win their conferences don't deserve a chance to play in the tournament with the big boys. THAT is what makes college basketball special, is the chance for everyone to get a shot.

That's an argument mid-major fans make. To me, the best thing about college basketball is the competitiveness of the tournament -- how so many games are close. People only remember the close games featuring the mid-majors (like Valpo) because those are the "feel-good" stories. I guarantee you if the tournament was the top 64 RPI teams, we'd see more upsets and more buzzer-beaters. Plus, Kansas wouldn't have the luxury of waxing Southwest Idaho Tech in the first round every year. You want every game to matter? To truly matter? Let Kansas play a team like Virginia in the first round on a neutral floor.

[YardBirds13]

This is such utter nonsense. I'm sorry, but there's no way anyone can justify to me putting a team like McNeese State in every year over a team from a power conference that is right on the bubble. If those two teams played on a neutral court, the power conference team would win 9/10 times and in most cases by double digits. The NCAA Tournament, in my opinion, is supposed to be a tournament featuring the best the NCAA Tournament has to offer.

Well that is why we disagree right there. That's not what it is. The tournament is the champions from every conference in the country, and then the 34 best teams that didn't win their conference.

And I'm sorry, I think what you said is utter nonsense. A bubble team in a power conference has like 100 chances to prove they are worthy of 34 (34!!!) spots in the tournament. A team like McNeese State (or whoever) from a small conference, has to win their league. That's it. They aren't taking a spot from one of your all-mighty BCS teams. They are taking a spot from Stephen F. Austin or Louisiana-Monroe or whoever else is in that conference with them.

To think you aren't making this more like football is ridiculous. Of course you are. Sure, instead of 2 teams you are making it 64. But my big problem with football (the biggest) is that the teams from the non-BCS conferences have a .000001% chance of their season being relevant. Ever. In basketball, every single team has a chance to be a part of the biggest event in sports. Win your conference, and you are in. That is the beauty of college basketball.

Haven't you ever watched Championship Week? Can't you see what it means to those little schools just to MAKE the tournament? It means everything!! As a JMU fan in the CAA, just MAKING the tournament one year would be such a thrill I can't even describe it. And for people to just want to boot all the joy of Championship Week so 30 more bubble teams who couldn't take care of business in any of their 50 chances can make the tournament (to which it means 100 times less than any of the schools that make it qualifying by winning their league) is patently insane to me.

[YardBirds13]

That's an argument mid-major fans make. To me, the best thing about college basketball is the competitiveness of the tournament -- how so many games are close. People only remember the close games featuring the mid-majors (like Valpo) because those are the "feel-good" stories. I guarantee you if the tournament was the top 64 RPI teams, we'd see more upsets and more buzzer-beaters. Plus, Kansas wouldn't have the luxury of waxing Southwest Idaho Tech in the first round every year. You want every game to matter? To truly matter? Let Kansas play a team like Virginia in the first round on a neutral floor.

Because mid-major teams matter too!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus, just casting every team not in a BCS conference aside (thus making like 80% of the NCAA teams totally irrelevant) is insane!

Every game does matter! Sure, a large majority of the time those teams get blown out. But that isn't the point. You are just taking a large majority of the NCAA completely out of the picture. Basically, you are saying like 200 basketball programs should just shut down and quit playing.

And ask Kansas how much their first round game doesn't matter the next time they play Bucknell.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Well that is why we disagree right there. That's not what it is. The tournament is the champions from every conference in the country, and then the 34 best teams that didn't win their conference.

And I'm sorry, I think what you said is utter nonsense. A bubble team in a power conference has like 100 chances to prove they are worthy of 34 (34!!!) spots in the tournament. A team like McNeese State (or whoever) from a small conference, has to win their league. That's it. They aren't taking a spot from one of your all-mighty BCS teams. They are taking a spot from Stephen F. Austin or Louisiana-Monroe or whoever else is in that conference with them.

To think you aren't making this more like football is ridiculous. Of course you are. Sure, instead of 2 teams you are making it 64. But my big problem with football (the biggest) is that the teams from the non-BCS conferences have a .000001% chance of their season being relevant. Ever. In basketball, every single team has a chance to be a part of the biggest event in sports. Win your conference, and you are in. That is the beauty of college basketball.

Haven't you ever watched Championship Week? Can't you see what it means to those little schools just to MAKE the tournament? It means everything!! As a JMU fan in the CAA, just MAKING the tournament one year would be such a thrill I can't even describe it. And for people to just want to boot all the joy of Championship Week so 30 more bubble teams who couldn't take care of business in any of their 50 chances can make the tournament (to which it means 100 times less than any of the schools that make it qualifying by winning their league) is patently insane to me.

Great! There's tons of joy in Mudville. Who cares? I certainly don't. It makes me sick to see some crap school get its ass kicked by Kentucky when I know that Maryland could have made it a much better game. And yes, I'm biased about this because of how MD has finished the last few years, just like you're biased being a JMU fan.

Part of the reason it annoys me is that, while you argue that 34 spots are available I argue that almost 1/2 of the overall 64 spots go to teams that win their conference. Putting aside the power conference winners and that's too many schools that get an auto-bid. There are too many crap conferences out there that automatically get to send a school to the big dance. Maybe if we limited it to like 15 or something. Take all the crap conference winners and the top 15 RPI of those winners make it. You can't possibly say, then, that NOBODY has a shot because there would be 15 spots reserved for the winners of those conferences. That frees up 17 more spots for at-large teams.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Because mid-major teams matter too!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus, just casting every team not in a BCS conference aside (thus making like 80% of the NCAA teams totally irrelevant) is insane!

Every game does matter! Sure, a large majority of the time those teams get blown out. But that isn't the point. You are just taking a large majority of the NCAA completely out of the picture. Basically, you are saying like 200 basketball programs should just shut down and quit playing.

And ask Kansas how much their first round game doesn't matter the next time they play Bucknell.

First off, there is a lot to be said for those teams that win their conference. On a big-picture level it matters little but since these schools are just filled with excitement and whatnot, it should be worth it to play just so they can say they won their conference.

Using an isolated example for Kansas is a terrible argument, but obviously you have to reach here. Sure big teams lose to the weenie schools but the ratio of it happening is such that it's pretty clear the weenies more often than not do not stand a chance.

And no, mid-major teams do not matter to me. All they do is lessen the fun of the tournament. The tourney would be so so so much better if it was the top 64 RPI. But we will never find out because Southwest Akron HAS to play Kentucky in a 1-16 and get outscored by John Wall single-handedly! Yesss! Break out the popcorn for that one!!

[YardBirds13]

Great! There's tons of joy in Mudville. Who cares? I certainly don't. It makes me sick to see some crap school get its ass kicked by Kentucky when I know that Maryland could have made it a much better game. And yes, I'm biased about this because of how MD has finished the last few years, just like you're biased being a JMU fan.

Part of the reason it annoys me is that, while you argue that 34 spots are available I argue that almost 1/2 of those spots go to teams that win their conference. Putting aside the power conference winners and that's too many schools that get an auto-bid. There are too many crap conferences out there that automatically get to send a school to the big dance. Maybe if we limited it to like 15 or something. Take all the crap conference winners and the top 15 RPI of those winners make it. You can't possibly say, then, that NOBODY has a shot because there would be 15 spots reserved for the winners of those conferences. That frees up 17 more spots for at-large teams.

Dude, there are only 31 conferences. Obviously you have the 6 BCS conference winners (although the Pac-10 is a sham this season), and whe nyou count conferences that usually have a shot at multiple bids (Mountain West, Atlantic 10, Conference USA) thats is 9 right there. That means you have 22 conferences that are taking up your precious bubbles teams spots.

And yes, I am a JMU fan, but I am also a huge UVA fan. And your system would surely get UVA into the tournament more often, because lord knows we haven't made it very often in the current system. But I just can't believe people think those teams don't deserve a chance.

Just do me a favor and watch Championship Week. Then tell me all the fans of those teams shouldn't get a chance to see their teams on the big stage.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Dude, there are only 31 conferences. Obviously you have the 6 BCS conference winners (although the Pac-10 is a sham this season), and whe nyou count conferences that usually have a shot at multiple bids (Mountain West, Atlantic 10, Conference USA) thats is 9 right there. That means you have 22 conferences that are taking up your precious bubbles teams spots.

And yes, I am a JMU fan, but I am also a huge UVA fan. And your system would surely get UVA into the tournament more often, because lord knows we haven't made it very often in the current system. But I just can't believe people think those teams don't deserve a chance.

Just do me a favor and watch Championship Week. Then tell me all the fans of those teams shouldn't get a chance to see their teams on the big stage.

Oh I've watched championship week plenty of times, but that doesn't mean that I think those teams deserve to be there any more than the 6th best team in a power conference. And if the PAC-10 is so bad this year, maybe they only get one team using my formula. At least in that case, the 9 teams that don't get in can ONLY blame themselves.

[JamesI]

I'm imagining the Bubble Watch and Bracketology stuff at ESPN with a 96 team tournament.

I'd prefer to see the tournament stay the same, in fact I'd like to get rid of the play in game.

[square634]

I concur very much with YardBirds. The storylines are much more compelling this way, and it is a guarantee that any team, at the beginning of the season, can play for the championship (see: TCU and Boise State in football). I am not, however, sold on conference tournaments. The Ivy League is the only conference that doesn't have one, and despite whining by some of the perennial doormats, that is the way it should be to make sure the lone representative from the Ivies represents as well as possible. The conference tournament makes more sense in the multiple-bid conferences as a "last chance" kind of thing, but in the Ivy League, for example, if anyone other than Cornell makes the tournament based on one game in a conference tournament, it would be a sham.

[YardBirds13]

Oh I've watched championship week plenty of times, but that doesn't mean that I think those teams deserve to be there any more than the 6th best team in a power conference. And if the PAC-10 is so bad this year, maybe they only get one team using my formula. At least in that case, the 9 teams that don't get in can ONLY blame themselves.

I agree about the PAC-10 statement. Those teams have themselves to blame.

However, in your system, the teams from the lower tier and mid-major conferences would basically have their seasons end in December. Nothing to play for in January-March. Might as well just not play.

Look, we have had this argument before. You think the 64 best teams in the country should make the tournament. That's fine that you think that would be best. You're certainly entitled to that opinion.

I think the current system that gives every conference a representative in the tournament (and still overwhlemingly favors teams from BCS conferences) is the way to go.

We aren't ever going to agree on this, so it's kind of silly to argue about (although I love college hoops talk more than just about anything, so I don't mind an argument destined to go nowhere )

We just have different mind sets on what the tournament is supposed to be. I think it is inclusive and gives every team in the country a fighting hope (albeit a small one for many) a chance to play in the big lights of the tournament. Sure, it provides some blowouts in the first round, but I just can't describe to you what it means to see your team in the tournament, playing on a national stage when you never really get to see them mentioned throughout the season. There are still countless fantastic games and to me it's the best championship tournament there is.

You think it should just be the 64 best teams. That's fine. But again, no chance we will ever agree.

I really would rather talk about actual hoops....like how UVA kicked the living $H#$ out of Carolina in Chapel Hill two days ago!