NCAA Tourny expanding to 96 teams??

[YardBirds13]

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.

This is actually a very fair argument. Personally, I love the tournaments because it's more basketball and still gives a last ditch shot for every team in the league to gel at the right time of year and make a run.

However, I can completely understand the argument that the regular season champ gets the bid. I wouldn't want the CAA (or others) to switch back to that, but I can see that side of the argument.

BTW....Cornell is really good. They could be looking at a 6 or 7 seed.

[Mackus]

What if they expanded to 32 conferences, and then the winners of those conferences each get a bye. You can divide them up how you want, but you're really looking at your 16 1-4 seeds and your 16 12-16 seeds (now your 21-24 seeds).

The first weekend, on Thursday you have 16 games and Friday you have 16 games between those 64 teams whittling it down to 32 teams for Sat/Sun against the 32 teams with byes, after the first weekend, there have been 64 games and you have 32 teams left.

The next weekend, with 8 teams left in each of the four brackets, you have the "Round of 32" on Thur/Fri and the "Sweet 16" on Sat/Sun.

The 3rd weekend, instead of the Final 4 on Sat and the Championship on Mon, you have the "Elite 8" on Thursday, Final 4 on Saturday, and Championship on Monday. Or you could do Fri, Sun, Tues.

So one of the four brackets would work like this (if chalk holds):

1					 1			24				8			  1		8				17						 8			9					9				16								   1	5					5				20						 5			12					12				13			  4		4					 4			21								    16				19						 6			11					11				14			  3		3					 3			22							   2	7					7				18						 7			10					10				15			  2		2					 2			23				

There would be some tough choices, especially in deciding the diving line between the 15th and 16th best conference winning from the 17th and 18th best conference winner, but something like this could work. It allows for both the mid-majors and ~.500 teams from power conferences to get seeds in that 5-20 range, the elite teams will be your top 16 teams with byes and your really week conferences will still get a chance to knock them off. I don't really like the idea of giving teams byes, but I also don't love the idea of expanding all the way to 128, either, but at the same time, I like the idea of expansion in general.

Just a thought. Sorry if that formatting sucks.

[Dr. FLK]

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.

It probably makes a lot of "Crap schools" mad when they see MD get their butt kicked by Memphis, when they think they could have better. The thing is, we don't *know* how the "crap schools" will do against the big boys because they rarely get the chance. The bubble teams that you want to see in have all season long to prove they belong...and in most cases, they spend all season long proving they don't. I'd rather see a "crap school" finally get the chance than see a bubble team prove to me for the 18th time it doesn't belong in the dance.

[YardBirds13]

Certainly an interesting thought Mack.

I think the problem that would get brought up is, what if, say, Georgia does what it did a couple years ago and wins the SEC Tournament? They now become one of the 32 teams with a bye? And Kentucky now has to play in the first round?

I guess it would give some added incentive to those teams that are already locked into the tournament to win their conference tournaments.

Definitely an idea I'd be willing to consider. I'm not really against an expansion as long as it is done right, and the conference tournament winners aren't taken out.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd actually really like going to 68 and having four play-in games on Tuesday of Tournament Week, featuring the last 8 at-large teams. Winners become 12 seeds.

Then, you wouldn't have the totally irrelevant play-in game between two smaller schools on Tuesday (and they would rightfully get a chance to be part of the tournament experience on a real tournament day), and you would have four games between teams that think they deserve to be in the tournament. An ultimate chance to prove themselves. Anyone who thinks those four games on a Tuesday (featuring a good amount of teams from BCS conferences and probably a couple mid-majors) wouldn't get insane ratings is crazy. It'd be like adding an extra day to the tournament.

[Mackus]

Certainly an interesting thought Mack.

I think the problem that would get brought up is, what if, say, Georgia does what it did a couple years ago and wins the SEC Tournament? They now become one of the 32 teams with a bye? And Kentucky now has to play in the first round?

I guess it would give some added incentive to those teams that are already locked into the tournament to win their conference tournaments.

Definitely an idea I'd be willing to consider. I'm not really against an expansion as long as it is done right, and the conference tournament winners aren't taken out.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd actually really like going to 68 and having four play-in games on Tuesday of Tournament Week, featuring the last 8 at-large teams. Winners become 12 seeds.

Then, you wouldn't have the totally irrelevant play-in game between two smaller schools on Tuesday (and they would rightfully get a chance to be part of the tournament experience on a real tournament day), and you would have four games between teams that think they deserve to be in the tournament. An ultimate chance to prove themselves. Anyone who thinks those four games on a Tuesday (featuring a good amount of teams from BCS conferences and probably a couple mid-majors) wouldn't get insane ratings is crazy. It'd be like adding an extra day to the tournament.

The Goergia team definitely would be a quirk in this thing. But that's why you'd then rank the teams that get automatic bids from 1-32, my guess is they'd be in the bottom half and have to play one of the top 16 teams in the 2nd round after their bye. They got a 14 seed after they won it in '08, so that would mean they were ranked between 53-56 in the committee's eyes that year.

Actually, I'm growing more and more on this idea, since the bye teams play each other in the 2nd round, so #1 plays #32, which it usually would anyway, since the worst seed is usually the worst conference champion.

Even if its a toss up between who is 16 and who is 17 (essentially 4 seeds), it doesn't really matter, since they'd play each other in the 2nd round and then the winner would play the #5 seed.

The problem, is that your 5-8 seeds are probably going to be teams that are stronger than some of the 3 and 4 seeds, since the champion of a conference like the A-10 or Conference USA might not be as good of a team as the 2nd or 3rd best team from the ACC or Big East. But then they have to win an extra game because they didn't win their tournament.

I like your idea as well, but could even take it further, maybe going to 72 or 76 teams and having seeds 11-13 decided by play-in games. I like the idea of extra early games, but that might make pools and such hard to get completed by Tuesday, and the NCAA won't admit it, but that's a big factor because it really affects the popularity of the tournament.

[YardBirds13]

The Goergia team definitely would be a quirk in this thing. But that's why you'd then rank the teams that get automatic bids from 1-32, my guess is they'd be in the bottom half and have to play one of the top 16 teams in the 2nd round after their bye. They got a 14 seed after they won it in '08, so that would mean they were ranked between 53-56 in the committee's eyes that year.

Actually, I'm growing more and more on this idea, since the bye teams play each other in the 2nd round, so #1 plays #32, which it usually would anyway, since the worst seed is usually the worst conference champion.

Even if its a toss up between who is 16 and who is 17 (essentially 4 seeds), it doesn't really matter, since they'd play each other in the 2nd round and then the winner would play the #5 seed.

The problem, is that your 5-8 seeds are probably going to be teams that are stronger than some of the 3 and 4 seeds, since the champion of a conference like the A-10 or Conference USA might not be as good of a team as the 2nd or 3rd best team from the ACC or Big East. But then they have to win an extra game because they didn't win their tournament.

I like your idea as well, but could even take it further, maybe going to 72 or 76 teams and having seeds 11-13 decided by play-in games. I like the idea of extra early games, but that might make pools and such hard to get completed by Tuesday, and the NCAA won't admit it, but that's a big factor because it really affects the popularity of the tournament.

I agree with everything you wrote, and think it is certainly an interesting debate. I wouldn't mind more play-in games either (72 or 76 as you mentioned) as long is it is at-large teams playing for spots in the tournament, and not AQ teams. It's a sham that these teams finally get a chance to go to the Big Dance and have to be relegated to a half empty gym in Dayton on a Tuesday night where no one is watching.

As for your point about the pools, you would still have all day Monday at work to do that stuff. People would get on it if they knew there were games that mattered on Tuesday. I mean, people know just ignore the play-in game and start a pool on Wednesday or Thursday morning.

Even if it's just the 3 extra teams I mentioned (maybe a good starting point before a bigger expansion?), how sick would it be to see these games on a Tuesday, with the winners getting the 12 seeds in the tournament (basing this on Lunardi's latest bracket)

Cincinnati vs. Wichita State

Marquette vs. Illinois

Old Dominion vs. Louisville

Seton Hall vs. North Carolina

Or something of that nature. Basically, these 4 games can't include a team that won their conference tournament. They are the last 8 teams to garner at-large consideration. Win, and you go to the tournament as a 12 seed. Lose, and you are done. Tell me that wouldn't garner some unbelievable ratings on a Tuesday. Have it be an all-day thing in Dayton or where ever, if CBS gets the rights then fine, or if ESPN keeps it like they do with the play-in game now, whatever. But people complain about bubble teams not making the tournament? Well, this would be great way to prove you belong. It gets three more at-larges a chance, and gets rid of the play-in game between two teams that shouldn't have to play in it.

[beaner]

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!

Woo Hoo!!

Loving the 96 team possibility more and more as I think about it.

[mweb]

I would keep it the same, every team that really deserves a shot gets in imo. The expansion does lessen the importance of the regular season games.

However, I disagree with whoever said that would make it like the NBA. It's already like the NBA in that regard. The really good teams are playing for seeding and teams like Maryland (at least recently) are fighting for a tourney spot just like NBA teams fight for a 7 or 8 seed in the playoffs. And even if a team had a poor regular season, hey, they get another shot in the conference tourneys. That makes the regular season in small conference's almost worthless unless a team played well enough to get a bid without winning their conference tourney.

96 teams would make the regular season much less important than the NBA imo. The edge college basketball has in this regard is much fewer games, more important rivalries, and more enthusiasm generally from both players and fans. Not the regular season mattering more regarding making the playoffs.

[Sports Guy]

I think 96 teams will mean more mid majors in the tourney.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I would keep it the same, every team that really deserves a shot gets in imo. The expansion does lessen the importance of the regular season games.

However, I disagree with whoever said that would make it like the NBA. It's already like the NBA in that regard. The really good teams are playing for seeding and teams like Maryland (at least recently) are fighting for a tourney spot just like NBA teams fight for a 7 or 8 seed in the playoffs. And even if a team had a poor regular season, hey, they get another shot in the conference tourneys. That makes the regular season in small conference's almost worthless unless a team played well enough to get a bid without winning their conference tourney.

96 teams would make the regular season much less important than the NBA imo. The edge college basketball has in this regard is much fewer games, more important rivalries, and more enthusiasm generally from both players and fans. Not the regular season mattering more regarding making the playoffs.

In terms of general fairness in finding out who the "best" team is, the NBA playoff system is the much better route, although much less exciting.

[YardBirds13]

In terms of general fairness in finding out who the "best" team is, the NBA playoff system is the much better route, although much less exciting.

No question about that. A 7 game series is a much more efficient way to prove who the better team is.

I could get behind an expansion to 96. I still think 68 would be great.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Btw, Yardbirds, in response to your earlier post, I do agree to disagree with you and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find it exciting when a mid-major beats a big dog (Weber St. over UNC comes to mind - sorry beaner).

Maybe the expansion will provide the best of both worlds, a greater amount of at large bids (including some to slighted mid-majors) while allowing every conference winner to play in the Big Dance. Either way, more college basketball never hurt anyone.

[YardBirds13]

Btw, Yardbirds, in response to your earlier post, I do agree to disagree with you and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find it exciting when a mid-major beats a big dog (Weber St. over UNC comes to mind - sorry beaner).

Maybe the expansion will provide the best of both worlds, a greater amount of at large bids (including some to slighted mid-majors) while allowing every conference winner to play in the Big Dance. Either way, more college basketball never hurt anyone.

That is something everyone can agree on.

[beaner]

Btw, Yardbirds, in response to your earlier post, I do agree to disagree with you and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find it exciting when a mid-major beats a big dog (Weber St. over UNC comes to mind - sorry beaner).

Maybe the expansion will provide the best of both worlds, a greater amount of at large bids (including some to slighted mid-majors) while allowing every conference winner to play in the Big Dance. Either way, more college basketball never hurt anyone.

Hey, did you hear Virginia beat the ^&*&*%^#@$%^%*(( out of Carolina the other night?

For the record, I love that too, your example being a rare exception of course.

[Mackus]

I think adding more of the games that are pretty much statistically a coin toss in the 1st round would be a great thing for the tournament.

Seeds 5 through 12 pretty much are a toss up in the 1st round. If you can add more of those types of games, and I think expanding the number of at large teams by as few as 4 or even as many as 32 can accomplish that, the tournament just becomes that much more unpredictable. And its the unpredictable-ness that makes it exciting. The at large teams are usually those teams, most conference winners are either top 4 seed or bottom 4 seeds, depending on what conference they are from. Only a few conferences usually get their champions a seed in the 5-12 range, either a fairly good but not quite power conference (A-10 for example) or a really good team from a small conference some years.

As long as the games you are adding are going to be close ones, I really don't think you'd be worsening the tournament by expanding it. If you add so many that the first round becomes mostly blowouts, then it could have some negative impact.