PDA

View Full Version : The Really Big Dance?



airowe
12-07-2009, 03:16 PM
But the potential expansion of the NCAA tournament has support in collegiate circles, particularly from college basketball coaches. The idea talked about with TV networks would likely take it from its current field of 65 teams to 96 teams and add another week to the competition, with the top 32 teams receiving byes. The move has been characterized as folding the NIT into the NCAA tournament.

The NCAA clearly expects that the added week of games would significantly increase the tournament’s rights fee. A larger field would mean more content, more scheduling opportunities and theoretically more revenue for the broadcaster and the NCAA, which derives more than 90 percent of its total annual revenue from the tournament’s media deal. Nearly all of that revenue passes through the NCAA and is distributed to its member institutions.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/64263

mgtr
12-07-2009, 03:23 PM
Why bother with small changes, why not just increase the field size to the total number of Division I teams (300+)? In fact, why not just eliminate the regular season and replace it with the tournament?
The NCAA is getting too greedy by far.

Indoor66
12-07-2009, 03:43 PM
Why not make it like the NBA and have a best of 7 series as well? We could stretch the season to July 1. I think this is a stupid idea.

weezie
12-07-2009, 04:32 PM
Yeah, who cares about Augusta anyway?

Bluedog
12-07-2009, 04:41 PM
The Onion's thoughts:

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

Edit: woo hoo! Mike Gminski!

YourLandlord
12-07-2009, 04:52 PM
http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/64263

Is that right? 90% of its total annual revenue from the tournament's media deal? Is that total annual basketball revenue?

sagegrouse
12-07-2009, 05:01 PM
Is that right? 90% of its total annual revenue from the tournament's media deal? Is that total annual basketball revenue?

No, it's 90% of TOTAL revenue. The NCAA gets very little from college football because the post-season money is wrapped up in the bowl games.

A football playoff system would probably benefit the NCAA, not to mention TCU and Boise State fans.:):)

sagegrouse

BlueintheFace
12-07-2009, 09:21 PM
God, I hope this doesn't happen. It is so good right now.

YourLandlord
12-07-2009, 10:01 PM
God, I hope this doesn't happen. It is so good right now.

You do realize it used to be 32...and people like it better now...

Duvall
12-07-2009, 10:13 PM
Let's be honest, there are already more spots in the tournament than there are deserving teams. 64 is the perfect number for a balanced tournament - get rid of the play-in game and leave it alone.

Johnboy
12-07-2009, 10:28 PM
Is that right? 90% of its total annual revenue from the tournament's media deal? Is that total annual basketball revenue?

You may be able to find it here (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/budget+and+finances), if you do a little web-mining. (My connection here at home is godawful slow and I'm just not patient enough).

roywhite
12-07-2009, 10:29 PM
Let's be honest, there are already more spots in the tournament than there are deserving teams. 64 is the perfect number for a balanced tournament - get rid of the play-in game and leave it alone.

Agree; and conference tournaments give nearly every team a chance to play their way into the tournament. A team can have a mediocre or even poor season and still have a shot at making the NCAA field by getting hot during the conference tourny.

Think of those celebrations we see when an upstart wins their tournament to get to the "Big Dance". That, among other things, would likely be a casualty of an expanded NCAA field.

Don't mess with the current format.

BlueintheFace
12-07-2009, 10:34 PM
You do realize it used to be 32...and people like it better now...

hahahahah... yah, I do. Thanks.

You do realize that many of the teams that would not have been included in a tournament of 32 have made it to the final four in the current field size? You do realize that none of the teams included in the expanded field would have a shot at that same accomplishment right?

Jarhead
12-07-2009, 11:03 PM
Golly, I can't wait for the inaugural Toilet Bowl game, but that won't happen until we get 256 teams involved, just like in basketball. The Onion is a little over board on the 4KB tourney, but we may have to go there to keep the coaches happy.

Seriously, folks. Let's look at this. If expanding the tourney is good, then let's go to 160 teams. In the first week, the bottom 128 teams would play on Thursday and Friday, cutting that part of the field to 64 teams. On Saturday and Sunday, those 64 teams play to cut it to 32. Those 32 would then face the 32 higher ranked teams, and the tourney would continue just as it does now. Oh, yeah, before we do that we have to have a selection Sunday to seed the entire field of 160 teams. That will probably take at least a week to accomplish, so we have to add a week to do that. That puts us beyond the middle of April.

However, when the broadcasters get the list of the 128 lower ranked teams they will need at least another week to package the programming, and now we are going until late April. We are still sitting at the Ides of March. The coaches had already complained that some conferences will be sending all of their teams, so they are arguing to get more of the top 32 seeds for their conferences. The NCAA saw this coming so they decide to allocate the number of teams from each conference, so the conferences would have to decide who goes.

The only fair way to do that would be to have a double elimination tourney for each conference. This would put championship week into May. By then, all basketball watching would be preempted by nice weather, and baseball. Nobody's watching college basketball. Oh, yeah, who would be watching the 128 worst teams in week one when the tourney starts? How did we get in this fix? Let's cut it back a little bit. How about leaving it like it is?

YourLandlord
12-07-2009, 11:11 PM
hahahahah... yah, I do. Thanks.

You do realize that many of the teams that would not have been included in a tournament of 32 have made it to the final four in the current field size? You do realize that none of the teams included in the expanded field would have a shot at that same accomplishment right?

Well this just isn't true. The bottom 32 teams are seeded 9-16.

"many" of the teams that would not have been included have made it to the final four? really? exactly how "many" 9-16 seeds have made the final four?

certainly not "many"

gep
12-07-2009, 11:26 PM
Why not make it like the NBA and have a best of 7 series as well? We could stretch the season to July 1. I think this is a stupid idea.

Well... if the NCAA wants to change something, I'd go for a best of 3 or best of 5. This "sudden death" "single elimination" "survive and advance" doesn't get the "best" teams into the championship :rolleyes:

BlueintheFace
12-07-2009, 11:28 PM
Well this just isn't true. The bottom 32 teams are seeded 9-16.

"many" of the teams that would not have been included have made it to the final four? really? exactly how "many" 9-16 seeds have made the final four?

certainly not "many"

1979: Penn (in the first year after expansion)

1986: LSU

2006: George Mason

Many.... Few ..... One. You can call it whatever you want. The point remains.

Duvall
12-07-2009, 11:30 PM
Well this just isn't true. The bottom 32 teams are seeded 9-16.

"many" of the teams that would not have been included have made it to the final four? really? exactly how "many" 9-16 seeds have made the final four?

certainly not "many"

Yes, but many of the bottom seeds come from leagues that received automatic bids during the 32-team era. So it's not just a matter of looking at the 9-16 seeds - many of the 6-8 seeds that have reached the Final Four also would not have made it.

BlueintheFace
12-07-2009, 11:32 PM
Yes, but many of the bottom seeds come from leagues that received automatic bids during the 32-team era. So it's not just a matter of looking at the 9-16 seeds - many of the 6-8 seeds that have reached the Final Four also would not have made it.

...and there have been "many" 6-8 seeds that have made it to the Final Four.

pfrduke
12-07-2009, 11:38 PM
Well this just isn't true. The bottom 32 teams are seeded 9-16.

"many" of the teams that would not have been included have made it to the final four? really? exactly how "many" 9-16 seeds have made the final four?

certainly not "many"

That's not entirely true. The real difference is in the number of at large teams. In 1978, when there was a field of 32, there were 16 at large teams. In 2009, there were 34. So the question is how many of the at-large teams that wouldn't have made it in a field of 32 would have made the final four.

Even assuming that several automatic qualifiers take up top seeds, the "excluded" at large teams can start checking in as early as 6, and certainly by 7. There have been 8 seeds recently in the FF - UNC & Wisconsin come to mind (although I'm sure none of us have problems with a system that takes away a UNC FF spot).

Indoor66
12-08-2009, 08:00 AM
You do realize it used to be 32...and people like it better now...

It started in 1939 as 8 teams and then expanded to 16 teams. There were only 16 teams until 1973 when it expanded to 32 teams. UCLA's run of championships took place when there were only 16 teams and they were grouped by geographic region - East, SE, Mid-West and West. It was a much easier road to the championship then. The Tourney history is here (http://www.articlesbase.com/basketball-articles/the-history-of-the-ncaa-basketball-tournament-17924.html).

sagegrouse
12-08-2009, 08:44 AM
It started in 1939 as 8 teams and then expanded to 16 teams. There were only 16 teams until 1973 when it expanded to 32 teams. UCLA's run of championships took place when there were only 16 teams and they were grouped by geographic region - East, SE, Mid-West and West. It was a much easier road to the championship then. The Tourney history is here (http://www.articlesbase.com/basketball-articles/the-history-of-the-ncaa-basketball-tournament-17924.html).

Actually, there were 22 teams for a number of years, including -- I believe -- all of the 1960's. So there were mid-week "first round" games leading into the regionals. Conferences got byes in the first round based on results in prior NCAA tournaments. For example, as ACC champion, Duke played a first-round game in 1960 but not in 1963, 1964, and 1966.

The expansion you mentioned, which took place in 1975, I believe, not 1973, allowed conferences to have more than one representative. Maryland, who took eventual national champion NC State to double OT in the 1974 ACC final, did not make the tournament field.

sagegrouse

NYDukie
12-08-2009, 11:47 AM
don't fix it! I know many coaches and some fans and commentators say it should be expanded to give others that just miss, have a shot. But let's be serious here, don't you think that the conference tournaments give the middlings and bottom feeders a shot to be included already? IMO, these teams have a shot. Win your conference tourney and you move on. At that point, let's forget the charade and eliminate the conference tourneys, name a regular season champ and go right into the tourney. Expanding the tourney will then mean the death of the conference tourneys IMO.

sagegrouse
12-08-2009, 12:07 PM
don't fix it! I know many coaches and some fans and commentators say it should be expanded to give others that just miss, have a shot. But let's be serious here, don't you think that the conference tournaments give the middlings and bottom feeders a shot to be included already? IMO, these teams have a shot. Win your conference tourney and you move on. At that point, let's forget the charade and eliminate the conference tourneys, name a regular season champ and go right into the tourney. Expanding the tourney will then mean the death of the conference tourneys IMO.

I would expand the field by a number of teams (fewer than ten). Then I would have play-in games early in the week (like 1st round games in 50s and 60s). But... BUT ... BUT... THIS WOULD BE FOR AT-LARGE TEAMS ONLY. Essentially, a repechage heat (merci, Professeur Cherpack) for teams not making the field of 64.

Conference champs would go automatically (not like today) to the round of 64. The logic is that it gives bubble teams a way to win the NCAA but does not further disadvantage the smaller conferences. Basically, it shuts them up. Therefore, Gary Williams or Seth Greenberg get into the tournament but have a long, hard row to hoe.

Now, I would accept the critique that there will always be bubble teams, no matter the cutoff. Well, at some point you run out of teams with good W-L records or even respectable conference records. And, having a two-tier at-large system makes entry to the tournament a little less attractive.

sagegrouse

crimsonandblue
12-08-2009, 12:43 PM
I would expand the field by a number of teams (fewer than ten). Then I would have play-in games early in the week (like 1st round games in 50s and 60s). But... BUT ... BUT... THIS WOULD BE FOR AT-LARGE TEAMS ONLY. Essentially, a repechage heat (merci, Professeur Cherpack) for teams not making the field of 64.

Conference champs would go automatically (not like today) to the round of 64. The logic is that it gives bubble teams a way to win the NCAA but does not further disadvantage the smaller conferences. Basically, it shuts them up. Therefore, Gary Williams or Seth Greenberg get into the tournament but have a long, hard row to hoe.

Now, I would accept the critique that there will always be bubble teams, no matter the cutoff. Well, at some point you run out of teams with good W-L records or even respectable conference records. And, having a two-tier at-large system makes entry to the tournament a little less attractive.

sagegrouse

The logistics of your proposal are going to be pretty tough and it's going to quell interest as bracket challenges won't be as easy to run or as compelling.

As for the 96-team debacle, I mean, at the end of the day, this isn't an attempt to make the tournament more inclusive, it's just an attempt to expand the NCAA's one cash cow. And you don't do that by gutting casual fan interest and rotating games to cable.

I know the NCAA is stupid, but they can't be this dumb, can they? I mean, adding the play-in game was ridiculous enough (can't possibly take away that last bubble team's hopes and dreams as a 12 seed, so let's craft a fake game to screw two otherwise real participants). Going to 96 and an extra week means top teams and their fans sitting for the better part of two weeks. And what of the "plight" of the athletes dragged out of the all-important classroom for yet another week?

There's so much fail in these various expansion plans that it's unbelievable.

wva_iron_duke
12-08-2009, 01:13 PM
Perhaps expand tourney to 72 teams and and have the last 4 seeds in each region play each other earlier in the week to get into the field of 64 as the 15th and 16th seeds. Perhaps on Wednesday and Thursday.

sagegrouse
12-08-2009, 01:27 PM
The logistics of your proposal are going to be pretty tough and it's going to quell interest as bracket challenges won't be as easy to run or as compelling.



I think any expansion that does not include another week (take your pick CBS -- Masters or NCAA) will hurt the national pastime of NCAA brackets.

This is clearly an issue of significance in any revised plan.:):D:D

sagegrouse

crimsonandblue
12-08-2009, 01:48 PM
I think any expansion that does not include another week (take your pick CBS -- Masters or NCAA) will hurt the national pastime of NCAA brackets.

This is clearly an issue of significance in any revised plan.:):D:D

sagegrouse

Well, I'm sure the NCAA will be prudes and say it's unimportant. But it really is a key way to draw casual fans into the game and hopefully then keep them there with compelling matchups.

Or, we can completely foul up the system, generate a bunch of, in effect, play-in games that no one cares about, ruin brackets that draw in casual fans, and end up with a disjointed mess of a tournament.

sagegrouse
12-08-2009, 01:52 PM
Or, we can completely foul up the system, generate a bunch of, in effect, play-in games that no one cares about, ruin brackets that draw in casual fans, and end up with a disjointed mess of a tournament.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. This is clearly the solution.

sagegrouse

BlueintheFace
12-08-2009, 01:53 PM
All division 1 players are equal. They should all be in the tournament and get participation trophies.

SupaDave
12-08-2009, 02:04 PM
If you take into account that some conference tourneys are already in essence "play-in" games then you already have the first weekend of the NCAAs happening right NOW.

Azdukefan
12-08-2009, 02:26 PM
How about we throw out the old sloppy format where the winner is crowned on the court and use the system for NCAA football. This system works so well. We could have a bunch highly sought after bowls (i.e., Carquest, Hertz Alomo, etc) and the national championship game can be Duke v. Carolina in Cameron every year. Sounds pretty good to me.

hurleyfor3
12-08-2009, 02:42 PM
One of the points in the original article is being missed -- that of rolling the Nit, now owned by the NCAA, into the NCAA Tournament. As it is now, the postseason Nit loses money. Generally the programs that want to keep it are mid-majors and schools from major conferences that don't make the NCAAs that often (such as Northwestern). Programs which aspire to make the NCAAs every year, but aren't in the eschelon of actually doing so (think Maryland), tend not to exert much effort when playing in the Nit, so won't be bothered if it goes away.

Broadening the NCAA field seems to be the most obvious compromise. I don't like the idea either, but it could be couched in the pursuit of letting more mid-majors in, especially if some rule is instituted where only the top X teams in any given conference can make it. We might see the field expanded very gradually, say from 65 to 68 to 72 over ten years.

The other idea may be to reduce the size of the Nit (say to 16-24 teams) and severely limit participation my major-conference schools.

A-Tex Devil
12-08-2009, 11:45 PM
I think any expansion that does not include another week (take your pick CBS -- Masters or NCAA) will hurt the national pastime of NCAA brackets.

This is clearly an issue of significance in any revised plan.:):D:D

sagegrouse

Part of this is linked to the NCAA breaking its contract with CBS and going back to ESPN.

Also, if the Comcast/NBC deal goes through, look for that conglomerate to try to create a network to challenge ESPN. ESPN wants to make sure it can lock down the NCAA when it has its chance before the new challenger comes along.

Also -- I'll say one thing -- having a 96 team tourney would make my annual march madness Vegas trip a bit longer!! And more degenerate-y!! Woo hoo!

BlueintheFace
12-16-2009, 04:28 PM
K says he might be okay with it:

http://sports.chronicleblogs.com/2009/12/16/coach-k-on-ncaa-tourney-expansion/

rasputin
12-16-2009, 05:02 PM
K says he might be okay with it:

http://sports.chronicleblogs.com/2009/12/16/coach-k-on-ncaa-tourney-expansion/

Yeech.

Indoor66
12-16-2009, 05:55 PM
I don't have much problem with 96 teams is you have 32 byes and then a 64 team tourney. It means 32 playin games. Actually this does not add much additional time to the tourney. We already have one playin game, why not 32?

flyingdutchdevil
12-16-2009, 05:59 PM
Nooooooooooooooooooooo..........

Indoor66
12-16-2009, 06:23 PM
Nooooooooooooooooooooo..........

Why? What is sacrosanct about 65 teams? It has been 12, 16, and so forth up to 65. Why not follow K's thinking and go to 96 with a 64 team playin round? Why would that be such a significant change?

rasputin
12-16-2009, 06:44 PM
Why? What is sacrosanct about 65 teams? It has been 12, 16, and so forth up to 65. Why not follow K's thinking and go to 96 with a 64 team playin round? Why would that be such a significant change?

Because 64 was perfect.

Acymetric
12-16-2009, 06:49 PM
Why? What is sacrosanct about 65 teams? It has been 12, 16, and so forth up to 65. Why not follow K's thinking and go to 96 with a 64 team playin round? Why would that be such a significant change?

Because why add those teams? Until a 16 seed beats a 1 seed, there is no reason to expand. I can see some justification in expanding and folding the NIT into the NCAA tournament...but I'm just not sure I like it.

Indoor66
12-16-2009, 06:50 PM
Because 64 was perfect.

But it is 65 right now!

mgtr
12-16-2009, 06:51 PM
Why? What is sacrosanct about 65 teams? It has been 12, 16, and so forth up to 65. Why not follow K's thinking and go to 96 with a 64 team playin round? Why would that be such a significant change?

Nothing sacrosanct about 65 teams, or 96 for that matter. Why not just throw out the conference championships (who cares about the championship of the Atlantic Sun?) and just use top 64 ranked teams, seeded as such. We don't have to mess around with selection committees, either. Of course the small conferences will scream, but how much do they add to the NCAAs anyway? It eliminates to a large extent the Cinderella teams, but how often do they really get to the final four?

BlueintheFace
12-16-2009, 07:00 PM
I get what K is trying to do, making the ACC championship matter more, but I still don't like the idea. Until the really lower ranked teams can show that they have a shot to advance... just no need. It is so great right now. NO fans of the tournament complain, the only complaints each year are who was left out, but that will happen no matter how big.

mgtr
12-16-2009, 09:18 PM
NO fans of the tournament complain, the only complaints each year are who was left out, but that will happen no matter how big.


Unless, of course, you go to the logical extreme I suggested a number of posts ago, and just let all 300+ Division 1 teams in the tournament. Then nobody needs to feel excluded! Would be typical of the NCAA approach.

dukelifer
12-16-2009, 11:00 PM
Unless, of course, you go to the logical extreme I suggested a number of posts ago, and just let all 300+ Division 1 teams in the tournament. Then nobody needs to feel excluded! Would be typical of the NCAA approach.
Unless you are talking about the NCAA'a approach to football.

flyingdutchdevil
12-17-2009, 04:50 AM
Why? What is sacrosanct about 65 teams? It has been 12, 16, and so forth up to 65. Why not follow K's thinking and go to 96 with a 64 team playin round? Why would that be such a significant change?

I think 64 (fine, 65...) is a great number. Going to the Big Dance is a reward, and 65 allows for the best teams with the best records (yes, 1 or 2 teams get shafted, but not enough to justify expansion) to play in the best yearly tournament.

PaIronDuke
12-17-2009, 08:49 AM
but I emphatically disagree with him on this- from Duke, ACC, or NCAA standpoints.

Regardless of increasing income modestly, "....if it ain't broke,......."

gep
12-18-2009, 11:05 PM
I thought Coach K was actually trying to have the regular season mean more. For a mid-major conference, who usually only get 1 team in, the regular season "winner" may not always win the conference championship... with the single elimination format. So, if both the conference champion and regular season "winner" gets in, that's 2 from mid-majors. If it ends up being the same team, then the "second place" regular season team gets in... after all, if this is to value the regular season...:rolleyes:

sagegrouse
12-18-2009, 11:30 PM
Unless you are talking about the NCAA'a approach to football.

FWIW the NCAA organization hates the bowl system. They are completely cut out of a share of the pot, and it is the only sport that doesn't have a playoff system.

As a result, the NCAA supports pretty much the entire organization out of proceeds from the hoops championship, which, among other things, screws the basketball schools.

sagegrouse
'It shouldn't take a genius to design a playoff and bowl system that makes 50% more than the current ragtag assemblage of ordinary bowl games and BCS artifices'

SoCalDukeFan
03-31-2010, 05:08 PM
I saw on ESPN News that the Big 10 Commissioner expects that the tournament will be expanded, I guess to 96 teams.

Not sure how this will work. Will there be 32 play in games and the 1-8 seeds get byes, then the 64 team tournament really starts? I know K supports this but I don't like it at all.

It is amazing how television and the NCAA would mess with a jewel. The NCAA Tournament is the best thing in sports. Every team that earned a shot at the National Championship gets in. Millions fill out brackets and follow the tournament even when there favorite team is out as they follow their bracket. So lets add 31 games, none which involve the top 32 teams, and try to mess it up.

SoCal

dukeblue225
03-31-2010, 06:17 PM
96 team tournament probable? What are the thoughts on this?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5043254

Welcome2DaSlopes
03-31-2010, 06:19 PM
This sucks, the tournament is great the way it is. If it aint broke don't fix it.

ReformedAggie
03-31-2010, 07:12 PM
relax and enjoy
http://www.theonion.com/video/kentucky-violated-ncaa-rules-while-recruiting-bask,17041/

Mabdul Doobakus
03-31-2010, 07:39 PM
To me, this is basically the equivalent of moving Leno to 10 PM. It's such a radically bad idea, that it's astounding to me that the people doing it can't see how bad it is. All they're doing is basically taking the NIT and squeezing it into the NCAA Tournament. And I guess the big positive for the NCAA is making more money, but I don't know how much more the networks are going to be willing to pay for these extra 32 games. Will anyone be tuning in at that point? I won't. Not unless Duke is stuck in that round somehow. Nor will I want to fill out a 95 game bracket. I hope bracket pools around the country don't make us go through the trial of filling out that first round of pointless games.

This is terrible for the regular season in the major conferences because now only the worst of the worst won't make the tourney. Remember how important it used to be to go .500 in the ACC? Screw that. Just win 6 games and you'll probably sneak in.

This is terrible for the weakest conferences. Those 13-16 seeded teams that got in with the automatic bid and occasionally make a little noise by pulling off a huge upset? Those teams will be banished to the play-in games, and maybe they'll win some of those, but no one will care, and so, fewer of those teams will be around when people actually tune in. There may be more upsets in the Round of 64 because, frankly, better teams will be playing at that point. You'll be looking at teams like NC State (or whatever), who may be seeded 15 or 16, playing those 1 and 2 seeds. NC State could conceivably beat Duke. You will see a #1 seed fall in the next decade. You will see more of the top seeds fall, period. But it won't be as exciting because it will be major conference teams pulling off these upsets, rather than your Coppin State's, or Ohio's, or whatever.

The little guys will be squeezed out to the periphery of the tournament, and the regular season in the major conferences will lose much of its importance.

How is this a good thing?

And not one of these extra teams will have a legitimate shot at winning a championship.

stals
03-31-2010, 07:43 PM
96 team tournament probable? What are the thoughts on this?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5043254
The NCAA wants the additional games for more TV revenue. It can also kill the NIT at the same time. The NIT is a money losing distraction to the big dance for the NCAA and this gives teams that are now NIT competitors a ticket to the dance. Of course, the real losers are the regular season ticket holders becasue this means the big conferences will get at least half of their teams in the tourney. The current Cinderallas (seeds 13-16) will be fodder in the play-in round against the middle teams of the big conferences who will be numbers 33-64 in the new seedings.

Cameron
03-31-2010, 07:50 PM
K is an awesome, awesome man and I have been absolute fortunate to have met and chatted with him on multiple occasions while working the Duke Basketball Camp, but part of me can't forgive him for wanting this.

The decision-makers here (not K, but the NCAA) are money-driven dolts, those sons of ________. I am angry beyond belief over this, and, if it does go through at the end of April, part of my love for college basketball will have died. I'll still watch obviously (anyone who says he or she won't is only lying to themselves), but a great, great thing, a perfect thing, will have been tainted. Hey, Seth Greenberg and the like, you don't deserve in the Tournament if you don't get in. End of story.

And the "Hey, stupid, the Tournament used to be 32 and looked how the that expansion turned out" people, please save it. That was a logical move. Teams 66 through 96 have not a shot in hell of winning the NCAA and most of them don't deserve to play in the post-season at all, let alone the Big Dance. Go home or stop losing.

What a joke.

devildownunder
03-31-2010, 07:52 PM
But it is 65 right now!

Technically speaking, yes, but that's only because of a deal the ncaa had to make with the small conferences. The public at large doesn't care about the play-in game and I doubt they'd care about a bunch of low-major and second-division high-major teams playing in an opening round, either. The thrill of the first weekend -- for the average "college hoops for me starts the 2nd week of March" fan -- is seeing upsets and potential upsets. It's all people talk about. Never mind the quality of the games, never mind the players in them. They want to see dark jerseys from schools they've never heard of beat light jerseys from schools they can love to hate. That's what it's about. An opening round with a bunch of fair to middlin' schools doesn't provide that. And as someone has already said, from a competition standpoint, this expansion is completely unnecessary because No 16 has ever defeated a 1, so expanding beyond the current number is strictly for money and I don't think the product that would result would bring them the revenue they're dreaming of. I also think they'd greatly risk killing some interest in the round of 64 that would follow, because it would no longer be the beginning of the tournament. They'd start with a whimper, instead of a bang.

Bad idea.

sagegrouse
03-31-2010, 07:52 PM
Coaches: "The NCAA now owns the NIT and paid good money for it." [This was to settle a lawsuit.]

"Why should there be a 65-team tournament and a separate, second-class tournament?" [Third class, now that UNC is in the finals?] "They should be cobined into a single larger tournament, say 96 teams."

"You would have the same number of teams in a more meaningful format."

The Coaches may well get their way, and ESPN/ABC/Disney, with a huge number of channels, may well walk off with the tournament. My homeboy, Verne Lundquist, will not be pleased

sagegrouse

Cameron
03-31-2010, 07:59 PM
To me, this is basically the equivalent of moving Leno to 10 PM. It's such a radically bad idea, that it's astounding to me that the people doing it can't see how bad it is. All they're doing is basically taking the NIT and squeezing it into the NCAA Tournament

It really is amazing. Part of me hopes that they are so, so blinded by the scent of green that they really can't see how asinine a move it is they are about to take.

Because, if they do see it, and are still refusing to do what's right for the game -- it is the game, after all, that's most important here, right? -- they are not stupid, they are just ____ holes.

[And, yes, I am aware that it is money, not the game, that is most important here. But they are still ____ holes.]

devildownunder
03-31-2010, 07:59 PM
Nothing sacrosanct about 65 teams, or 96 for that matter. Why not just throw out the conference championships (who cares about the championship of the Atlantic Sun?) and just use top 64 ranked teams, seeded as such. We don't have to mess around with selection committees, either. Of course the small conferences will scream, but how much do they add to the NCAAs anyway? It eliminates to a large extent the Cinderella teams, but how often do they really get to the final four?

In fact, let's just combine this idea with the idea of letting in all 328+ teams AND the best-of-7 format. Seed the teams 1-three hundred and whatever based on an end-of-season poll from the year before and begin the season on Thanksgiving Day with Game 1 between the 257th and 328th seeds.

Wander
03-31-2010, 08:00 PM
Why? What is sacrosanct about 65 teams? It has been 12, 16, and so forth up to 65. Why not follow K's thinking and go to 96 with a 64 team playin round? Why would that be such a significant change?



You do realize it used to be 32...and people like it better now...


What you're both failing to realize here is that there were actual basketball reasons for previous expansions, like the fact that there were legit national championship contenders being left out of the field. There's no basketball reason here, it's just about money, the NIT, and what's best for some head coaches. It does nothing to help the sport as a whole, and a lot to hurt it.

I don't know if Coach K genuinely believes that expansion would be good or if that was just some throwaway line that the press grabbed a hold of, but if he does, then I've lost a ton of respect for him. And Boeheim can go straight to Chapel Hill for being the most vocal supporting coach of what has to be one of the worst ideas in American sports history.

devildownunder
03-31-2010, 08:02 PM
It really is amazing. Part of me hopes that they are so, so blinded by the scent of green that they really can't see how asinine a move it is they are about to take.

Because, if they do see it, and are still refusing to do what's right for the game -- it is the game, after all, that's most important here, right? -- they are not stupid, they are just ____ holes.

They're all about the money, of course, but in their greed I think they are failing to see that this is far from guaranteed to make them more money in the long run and it may actually cost them some by killing a great deal of interest among casual fans.

Cameron
03-31-2010, 08:03 PM
Devildownunder:

See my addendum. But, yes, I agree with you.

Cameron
03-31-2010, 08:17 PM
I don't know if Coach K genuinely believes that expansion would be good or if that was just some throwaway line that the press grabbed a hold of, but if he does, then I've lost a ton of respect for him. And Boeheim can go straight to Chapel Hill for being the most vocal supporting coach of what has to be one of the worst ideas in American sports history.

I would agree with all of this. Coach, why? And I'd like an honest answer. You're smarter than that. Your mentor taught you better than that.

Unfortunately, however, people like Bobby Knight and Verne Lundquist and Jay Bilas and just about every other rational college basketball fan, follower or expert, are fighting a battle they are guaranteed to lose. The game is about to be tragically tarnished.

The Tournament might as well be canceled. The bright lights that once surrounded it will fade forever. Those millions of non-college basketball fans that watch on Thursday and Friday from 12 to 12 with the intensity of a seasoned coach? Gone. The excitement and revenue that millions upon millions generate each year in bracket pool contests? Gone. The staggeringly high TV ratings? Gone. The nickname of "The Greatest 19 Days in Sports?" Gone.

You stupid ________s. I hope you learn your lesson, no matter how much the game has to suffer for it to be had.

Jimmy Boeheim, you are a sorry excuse of a college basketball "ambassador." And you're overrated, too. Four NITs since 1997? Two NITS since your last title? WTF? Pick it up.

You whiney jerk.

Double DD
03-31-2010, 08:20 PM
To me, this is basically the equivalent of moving Leno to 10 PM. It's such a radically bad idea, that it's astounding to me that the people doing it can't see how bad it is. All they're doing is basically taking the NIT and squeezing it into the NCAA Tournament. And I guess the big positive for the NCAA is making more money, but I don't know how much more the networks are going to be willing to pay for these extra 32 games. Will anyone be tuning in at that point? I won't. Not unless Duke is stuck in that round somehow. Nor will I want to fill out a 95 game bracket. I hope bracket pools around the country don't make us go through the trial of filling out that first round of pointless games.

This is terrible for the regular season in the major conferences because now only the worst of the worst won't make the tourney. Remember how important it used to be to go .500 in the ACC? Screw that. Just win 6 games and you'll probably sneak in.

This is terrible for the weakest conferences. Those 13-16 seeded teams that got in with the automatic bid and occasionally make a little noise by pulling off a huge upset? Those teams will be banished to the play-in games, and maybe they'll win some of those, but no one will care, and so, fewer of those teams will be around when people actually tune in. There may be more upsets in the Round of 64 because, frankly, better teams will be playing at that point. You'll be looking at teams like NC State (or whatever), who may be seeded 15 or 16, playing those 1 and 2 seeds. NC State could conceivably beat Duke. You will see a #1 seed fall in the next decade. You will see more of the top seeds fall, period. But it won't be as exciting because it will be major conference teams pulling off these upsets, rather than your Coppin State's, or Ohio's, or whatever.

The little guys will be squeezed out to the periphery of the tournament, and the regular season in the major conferences will lose much of its importance.

How is this a good thing?

And not one of these extra teams will have a legitimate shot at winning a championship.

And with all the hand-wringing about the weak Final Four field this year by fans and journalists, imagine what's going to happen when you dramatically increase the degree of difficulty of that first game for #1 and #2 seeds, and with upsets potentially making it a much tougher matchup then what the 3-8 seeds would get.

devildownunder
03-31-2010, 09:02 PM
And with all the hand-wringing about the weak Final Four field this year by fans and journalists, imagine what's going to happen when you dramatically increase the degree of difficulty of that first game for #1 and #2 seeds, and with upsets potentially making it a much tougher matchup then what the 3-8 seeds would get.


This is a really good point. After they get a couple of final fours featuring two 4s a 5 and a 6, we'll probably be treated to such wonderful innovations as re-seeding between rounds to protect the top seeds for as long as possible. Think what that'll do to cinderella.

And for the final step, they'll probably just declare that whoever's in the tournament has to represent the schools that pull in the best ratings. Instead of Butler advancing past Syracuse, for example, the Butler players just don Syracuse uniforms and represent the Orange the rest of the way so the more recognizable "brand" remains in the tournament.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Scorp4me
03-31-2010, 09:42 PM
It's painfully obvious that the NCAA could care less about the fans that watch it, because almost to a person no one wants the field expanded.

And don't give me that crap about how the tournament used to be 32. The fact is every team has an opportunity to "play their way in". If there are some deserving mid-major teams that are getting left out then replace some of the crappy major conference teams that are getting in with them. Truly sad that they won't fix the football post-season, but want to screw up the basketball post-season.

brevity
03-31-2010, 09:45 PM
In fact, let's just combine this idea with the idea of letting in all 328+ teams AND the best-of-7 format. Seed the teams 1-three hundred and whatever based on an end-of-season poll from the year before and begin the season on Thanksgiving Day with Game 1 between the 257th and 328th seeds.

The NBA postseason would STILL be longer.

I've been processing the idea of a 96-team tournament for the past few months, and while I still don't want it, I'm starting to get used to it. But it brings up a number of issues worth discussing, aside from the standard arguments about dilution, a less meaningful regular season, and the adverse effect to academics.

1. Everyone talks about how this move would extend the tournament (and season) an extra week. Why? We're not doubling the field. 32 more teams means 2 more days of play. The crazy opening 2 days would become 4 days, which is excessive, but not necessarily a bad thing.

Still 4 regions, still 4 pods per region, but now each pod would have 6 teams instead of 4.

9 vs. 24 (winner plays 8), 16 vs. 17 (winner plays 1)
12 vs. 21 (winner plays 5), 13 vs. 20 (winner plays 4)
11 vs. 22 (winner plays 6), 14 vs. 19 (winner plays 3)
10 vs. 23 (winner plays 7), 15 vs. 18 (winner plays 2)

Each opening round site would have 12 teams instead of 8, and 3 rounds instead of 2. That may be a better value for ticket holders, and an opportunity for the arenas/stadiums to fill up with more fan bases to entice.

Round 1 would be Tuesday-Wednesday for seeds 9-24. Round 2 would be Thursday-Friday, like always for the 1-8 seeds starting play. That's 16 games a day for 4 days. Crazy, but workable. Bear in mind that the tournament already starts on a Tuesday, only no one notices, and it doesn't affect the brackets much. Speaking of...

2. Bracket fandom would take a hit. More games to predict means less interest, and less time between Selection Sunday and opening Tuesday means that casual fans probably won't participate. This of course assumes that the Selection Committee still decides on Sunday.

Were ESPN to carry the expanded tournament, you have to wonder if their conference tournament schedule would contracted somehow to allow for an earlier selection show.

3. The move would essentially absorb the NIT into 2 days of play, which is a too quick a way to get rid of 32 teams. Schools that would otherwise host NIT games would probably lose money, and more importantly, ESPN would lose about 4 days of cheap event coverage.

4. There's been talk about how coaches would have more job security with a more wide-open field, but Tim Cowlishaw made an interesting point on ESPN today. He said that this plan could backfire; coaches that still don't make the tournament could easily be terminated simply because they need more time, but no longer have the once-nebulous bubble to fall back on.

Sorry for the long post. Still not as long as the NBA playoffs...

Mabdul Doobakus
03-31-2010, 10:28 PM
Bear in mind that the tournament already starts on a Tuesday, only no one notices, and it doesn't affect the brackets much.


I think you've pretty much summed up the first round of this new 96-team tournament. The only people who will care will be the fans of the teams playing in those rounds. The results of these games will be of no consequence to the tournament on the whole because the teams participating will have no legitimate chance of winning a championship. It will be an exercise in "who gives a crap". Ratings will suck, networks will get upset. People like us will obviously tune in for the rest of the tournament, but I am almost positive there will be much less casual interest and that TV ratings for the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the tournament will decline. Granted, I don't completely understand the finances of the whole thing, but this will damage the NCAA Tournament's standing in the sports world at large, and I don't see how that can make them money in the long run.

This is SUCH a baaaaaaaaaaaaaad idea, and it just pisses me off that the people running the NCAA are so misdirected.

Newton_14
03-31-2010, 10:33 PM
I was so hoping that this would not happen, but due to money, in my heart of hearts I knew it would.

Say hello to ESPN coverage and good-bye to CBS. Which means the folks without cable or satellite are now out in the cold and teams like this year's unc@ch battle it out with the Northern Iowa's and St Mary's for the right to play one of the top 8 seeds in each region.

A seriously watered down product, and a big dent in bracket pools.

Vitale was on the Packman show yesterday literally begging for this not to happen as were all of the hosts on the show.

The tourney is the best show in sports and this move is going to kill that. I am the ever optimist who hopes it will not be as bad as we think it will be, but I am afraid even I think there is no hope for this to end up being a good thing.

I would at least hope they have the rule that you must be above .500 to be eligible, but I expect it will be like bowl eligibility and .500 is the minimum requirement.

This just stinks..

Neals384
03-31-2010, 10:48 PM
They'll need to come up with a new tag line for teams that make it thru the preliminary round and the first round...how about

"Sexy 64" and
"Thrilling 32"

TheRob8801
03-31-2010, 11:30 PM
Brevity's post brings up something that I could see getting used to...but not necessarily enjoying...

What I don't think the NCAA heads are thinking about is the fact that with this extra round of play, the programming changes and the sudden irrelevance of the "Cinderella" teams they will most likely LOSE a whole lot of casual followers and even many staunch fans.

Whatever revenue boost they think would come of this would effectually be negated by the lack of interest by all of those folks that get drawn in to the opening 2 rounds to watch the "little guys" take on the "elite".

devildownunder
04-01-2010, 01:08 AM
I was so hoping that this would not happen, but due to money, in my heart of hearts I knew it would.

Say hello to ESPN coverage and good-bye to CBS. Which means the folks without cable or satellite are now out in the cold and teams like this year's unc@ch battle it out with the Northern Iowa's and St Mary's for the right to play one of the top 8 seeds in each region.

A seriously watered down product, and a big dent in bracket pools.

Vitale was on the Packman show yesterday literally begging for this not to happen as were all of the hosts on the show.

The tourney is the best show in sports and this move is going to kill that. I am the ever optimist who hopes it will not be as bad as we think it will be, but I am afraid even I think there is no hope for this to end up being a good thing.

I would at least hope they have the rule that you must be above .500 to be eligible, but I expect it will be like bowl eligibility and .500 is the minimum requirement.

This just stinks..


The worst part is, you know there is no going back. Once they establish paydays for 32 more schools, the membership will never go back to 64/65

flyingdutchdevil
04-01-2010, 03:47 AM
The worst part is, you know there is no going back. Once they establish paydays for 32 more schools, the membership will never go back to 64/65

This is sadly true. Even though I'm wholeheartedly against the idea of expansion, I hope it works simply for this reason.

There is no going back. Sigh...

Saratoga2
04-01-2010, 07:36 AM
Play 32 play in games on Monday or Tuesday and then start the full tournament on Thursday and Friday. That could be done without extending the season and presumably the teams playing for the conference titles would be the higher ranking and wouldn't be in the play in games. I also presume that the NIT would be discontinued.

The teams playing Thursday and Friday wouldn't know their opponents from the playin games early, but maybe that doesn't matter.

buckshot
04-01-2010, 12:30 PM
Why 96? Why not 68? or 72? Expanding to 68/72 would let a few more bubble teams in and let the little guys duke it out for a chance to play the 1's and/or 2's.
I understand its all for the money, but it seems that ESPN would want to ease the public into the idea. Slowly water it down instead of just drowning it all at once.

throatybeard
04-01-2010, 12:46 PM
In fact, let's just combine this idea with the idea of letting in all 328+ teams AND the best-of-7 format. Seed the teams 1-three hundred and whatever based on an end-of-season poll from the year before and begin the season on Thanksgiving Day with Game 1 between the 257th and 328th seeds.

We essentially have this already. The Conference tournaments are the play-in rounds for the Big Dance.

SoCalDukeFan
04-01-2010, 01:14 PM
The NBA postseason would STILL be longer.

I've been processing the idea of a 96-team tournament for the past few months, and while I still don't want it, I'm starting to get used to it. But it brings up a number of issues worth discussing, aside from the standard arguments about dilution, a less meaningful regular season, and the adverse effect to academics.

1. Everyone talks about how this move would extend the tournament (and season) an extra week. Why? We're not doubling the field. 32 more teams means 2 more days of play. The crazy opening 2 days would become 4 days, which is excessive, but not necessarily a bad thing.

Still 4 regions, still 4 pods per region, but now each pod would have 6 teams instead of 4.

9 vs. 24 (winner plays 8), 16 vs. 17 (winner plays 1)
12 vs. 21 (winner plays 5), 13 vs. 20 (winner plays 4)
11 vs. 22 (winner plays 6), 14 vs. 19 (winner plays 3)
10 vs. 23 (winner plays 7), 15 vs. 18 (winner plays 2)

Each opening round site would have 12 teams instead of 8, and 3 rounds instead of 2. That may be a better value for ticket holders, and an opportunity for the arenas/stadiums to fill up with more fan bases to entice.

Round 1 would be Tuesday-Wednesday for seeds 9-24. Round 2 would be Thursday-Friday, like always for the 1-8 seeds starting play. That's 16 games a day for 4 days. Crazy, but workable. Bear in mind that the tournament already starts on a Tuesday, only no one notices, and it doesn't affect the brackets much. Speaking of...

2. Bracket fandom would take a hit. More games to predict means less interest, and less time between Selection Sunday and opening Tuesday means that casual fans probably won't participate. This of course assumes that the Selection Committee still decides on Sunday.

Were ESPN to carry the expanded tournament, you have to wonder if their conference tournament schedule would contracted somehow to allow for an earlier selection show.

3. The move would essentially absorb the NIT into 2 days of play, which is a too quick a way to get rid of 32 teams. Schools that would otherwise host NIT games would probably lose money, and more importantly, ESPN would lose about 4 days of cheap event coverage.

4. There's been talk about how coaches would have more job security with a more wide-open field, but Tim Cowlishaw made an interesting point on ESPN today. He said that this plan could backfire; coaches that still don't make the tournament could easily be terminated simply because they need more time, but no longer have the once-nebulous bubble to fall back on.

Sorry for the long post. Still not as long as the NBA playoffs...

First of all I much prefer that the NCAA leave the tournament alone. If they want to expand, then add 3 more teams and 3 more play in games.

However I now see how this might work and while I think it would be worse than we have now, I can see how it might be workable.

I can also understand why some coaches are for it, the Jim Boeheims of the world. Look at UNC-CH this year. Even if they win the NIT, what have they won? If they lose then they will have to look at UNC NIT Second Place T-Shirts that will be proudly worn by many Duke Fans (hopefully when their 2010 NCAA Champions shirts are in the wash). However, suppose you get into the NCAA Tournament and win just one game, then you made the field of 64, and the first game is probably against a team that is not very good. Get lucky and win two games and you made the round of 32. Its a second chance that means something. Get real lucky and win more games and your awful season is now a success because you made the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 or whatever. Lose the first game and it merely confirms your awful season.

So while I understand that some coaches may be for it, and other coaches (K?) may be for it because it helps others in the coaching fraternity, it seems to me to be very detrimental for the average fan. The whole bracket thing becomes a nightmare unless they have more time between the selections and the first games, which I doubt and might serve to cool interest. It also lets in more teams that clearly do not deserve a shot at the NC.

SoCal

MChambers
04-01-2010, 01:33 PM
As usual, the Onion pretty well nails it:

http://www.theonion.com/video/ncaa-expands-march-madness-to-include-4096-teams,14317/

hurleyfor3
04-01-2010, 03:43 PM
I'm most interested in this from a scheduling/logistics perspective. (I mean, if you're a 7 seed, you're probably not winnning the thing anyway. But I'm pretty sure George Mason would have won its hypothetical extra game in 2006.)

One reason the NCAA wants to scrap the Nit that is rarely mentioned: The NCAA still has a decades-old aversion to holding tournament games in NYC, and by extension, holding any ncaa-controlled event in NYC. This stems from gambling scandals many decades ago, the details of which I'm not certain of, but the antagonism towards NYC is definitely still present. Point is, if the Nit is still around, it will probably be moved somewhere else soon. Could be East Rutherford.

I don't think they can go to 96 all at once, and certainly not to 96 for next year. The dates and sites for all the regional games are set for the next few years. You can play 32 more games before the set dates, but that affects the scheduling of conference tournaments and so on.

They could go to 4 play-in games next year pretty easily, though (have them all in one day at Dayton). Then over the next few years afterwards go to 8-16 extra teams by strong-arming some of the weaker conferences into moving their tournaments around.

So I think we'll go to 68, then 72, then who knows. They'll probably have the Nit around in some form for now but it will be in wind-down mode.

One other thing... if you move the Final Four back a week it coincides with the Masters. And Augusta is one of those organizations that doesn't give a crap about anyone else's schedule. This spells trouble for cbs, and I can't think of any other major sports events that overlap in this way, other than the car races in Indy and Charlotte both on Memorial Day Sunday.

arydolphin
04-01-2010, 03:51 PM
Transcript from the NCAA press conference this afternoon:
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=62561

It's a long read, but here's the crazy part that comes out of it (as if 96 teams isn't crazy enough): they would want the tournament to start with the round of 96 on the same days (Thursday/Friday), then have round of 64 on Saturday/Sunday of the first weekend, then have the round of 32 on Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday after that. So what that would mean is that the teams that makes it into the Sweet 16 would basically have to go straight to another city for the regionals without going back to campus at all. They say that they're weighing the 68-team idea as well, but all of their talk is about the 96-team idea. The way that the NCAA talking heads avoid some of the issues brought up by the press is also comical in the transcript.

kyriecrazy2013
04-01-2010, 04:04 PM
Perhaps they should focus on fixing the selection process to pick deserving schools first, before they attempt to expand the tournament. There are plenty of problems with the tournament as it is (seeding problems, game dates, etc.). Adding an additional 31 teams to the mix creates many much larger issues, including scheduling issues, who plays who... etc. We can't even seed 65 teams properly (this year being an extreme example) much less include the 65 best teams in the nation. Focus on the initial problems first.

Kewlswim
04-01-2010, 04:24 PM
Hi,

Is there any chance that this is one of those things like I've had happen at work where we do a "brain storming session" and every idea is looked at and it does not mean we are going to do anything? I can't believe the NCAA would want to hurt conference tournaments and/or dilute the product. I just have a feeling when all is said and done three more teams will be added (each #1 plays a play-in winner) or some sort of small tweak. I could be wrong though, the NCAA has a capacity to surprise me in new and imaginative ways. Wouldn't college presidents have to agree to this too? Aren't they already alarmed by how much these kids travel? When do these student-athletes have time for school under a 96 team field? Seems odd that this would happen.

GO DUKE!

hurleyfor3
04-01-2010, 04:32 PM
Aren't they already alarmed by how much these kids travel?

Not at all, if their treatment of Tyler Hansbrough was any indication. [rimshot]

Kewlswim
04-01-2010, 04:34 PM
Not at all, if their treatment of Tyler Hansbrough was any indication. [rimshot]

My goodness, I think what you just wrote seems rather foul. :)

GO DUKE!

Exiled_Devil
04-01-2010, 05:10 PM
96 teams starts getting us into baseketball (http://www.hulu.com/watch/22640/baseketball-two-man-sack-race)post-season levels.

Exiled_Devil
04-01-2010, 05:14 PM
Play 32 play in games on Monday or Tuesday and then start the full tournament on Thursday and Friday. That could be done without extending the season and presumably the teams playing for the conference titles would be the higher ranking and wouldn't be in the play in games. I also presume that the NIT would be discontinued.

The teams playing Thursday and Friday wouldn't know their opponents from the playin games early, but maybe that doesn't matter.

Even though they are not playing on Sunday, the teams that would be playing in the early rounds find out on Sunday. And then thye have to turn around on 12 hours notice to play a game? The travel logistics alone would be horrible, never mind the ability to scout and play.

Starting the tournament any earlier would be bad for the teams involved, especially if they are the smaller programs - these programs don't have charter planes to bring them to tourney sites. They need to find transportation to <fill in random city> in 2 days? I would imagine that this would strain some school's budgets in a way to negate any financial benefit of going to the tourney.

Also, how much more money do they expect to get, because as much as they hope to make the pie bigger, they are inviting 32 more teams to dessert.

SoCalDukeFan
04-01-2010, 06:46 PM
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=62561

I mean they talk about academic excellence and then potentially pulling "students" away from school for a week.

They say that today one team could have to play 7 games in the tournament, (the play-in game winner which has never come close to happening) but in the expanded field it would only be two teams - duh there are only two teams in the championship game.

They talk about a reduction in travel time from the current system which includes the NIT. Here's an idea, get rid of the NIT and save all of that travel time. More relevantly, why add to the travel time for the successful teams.

This idea makes New Coke, Leno every night at 10, and Edsel seem brilliant.
These people want more dough and are trying to find a way to justify it.

SoCal

Jderf
04-01-2010, 07:10 PM
Not entirely sure why I just went through the effort of typing all this out (probably just dodging homework), but now that I have, I may as well post it.

I don't think 96 teams is a good idea. I agree that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But what if it could make more money? That is the question the NCAA is asking and it seems the answer, sadly, is that it can.

Let’s face it, the real problem here is what to do with the NIT. It loses money. The players in the NIT don’t take it as seriously as they would if they were playing for a spot in the NCAA tournament, making the games somewhat meaningless. The expansion move eliminates the money-losing NIT in favor of slightly more compelling basketball action, where the players will be playing with more heart. The net effect could actually be positive, although I don’t buy that. I still think it’s just an awkward idea that will make the tournament slightly worse.

However, I feel like people have been blowing it way out of proportion. Many have claimed that it is a doomsday scenario, the end of the beautiful NCAA tournament itself. That is absurd. The NCAA tournament will continue to be the thrilling, nerve-wracking, nail-biting tournament that it has been since as far back as I can remember.
Let’s look at some of the irrational fears about the changes that will come with a field of 96.

1) It will dilute the field.

Yes! This is tautological. Of course, with more teams in, the talent-per-team will be slightly lower. However, it is not at all clear that this will ruin the tournament; for viewers, it will be mostly the same. There is a play-in round now, and nobody watches it. I suspect the same will be true for the play-in round of 64. Heck, very few people actually watch every one of the first-round games as it is, and that doesn’t ruin the tournament. I’m obsessed with college basketball, and yet I didn’t watch any 1-16 matchups this year except for Duke’s. Yet, this did not ruin the tournament for me.

Of course, if your team is competing, you will certainly watch. But otherwise, just ignore it like you do to the current play-in game anyway. The important thing will still be earning a place in the field of 64.

2) It destroys the cinderella.

This is false. It will do no such thing. The reason 1 seeds occasionally fall to 9 seeds is not because the 9 seed is better than the 1. (I think we would all agree that, while UNI was a tough and talented team, that Kansas was still better.) The reason this happens is that these highly ranked teams are given opportunities to choke, and sometimes they do. With 96 teams, the top seeds will still have to play six games to win. That means just as many chances to fall at the hands of a cinderella. I think people would still consider teams like Rhode Island (who would have made the field of 96 this year) a potential cinderella.

If anything, it could make cinderellas more likely. More at-large teams will play against the auto-bids from scrap conferences, keeping some of them out of the round of 64. This means many of the higher seeds will actually have tougher first round games than before, which will reduce the first round blow-outs and make things more interesting.

3) There are already more spots than deserving teams.

This is logically unfounded. The number of teams that deserve a place in the field is defined by the number of teams accepted into the tournament. If we change that number, we change the definition. But, you say, we should decide this by whether or not the team has a realistic chance at winning the tournament. Then I would say that you are making an argument for why the tournament should be reduced to 32 teams, not for why it should remain at 65. Remember that no seeds from the bottom 32 have ever won.

Actually though, where do we draw the line at what we call a “realistic” chance? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.5%? There is no objective dividing line for where the odds cease to be realistic. Every team has a very real, non-zero chance of winning the tournament (no matter how small that percent is).

“But, but, but, no team below an 8 seed has ever won!” Like I said, this is an argument for 32 teams, not 65. “Except seeds 9 through 16 have a chance. Remember when Louisville made it to the Final Four as an 11?” Again, how are we determining this? None of them have ever won it. Besides, everyone has a chance. Where do we draw the line for who has a chance? A 14 seed has, say, a 0.6% chance, whereas a 21 seed has a 0.4% chance? I don’t see a qualitative difference here.

4) It will make earning a bid meaningless.

This is true in a sense. However, I’m not sure that it destroys the tournament. All that will happen will be that people will start to value earning a spot in the field of 64 more than just earning a bid. This is not so different from how things are now. The goal will still be getting to be one of those 64 teams. All that will change is who ends up earning that. Interestingly, winning conference tournaments (and now regular seasons) might actually become devalued, because doing so would only earn you a chance to make the field (a chance you might have earned anyway).

5) It will make the regular season meaningless.

This is simply not true. Yes, results in the NCAA Tournament go a long way towards defining a season. Many people decry their great teams when they “choke” in the tournament (Kansas this year will probably feel much of the pain that we know all-too-well). Most people would take an extra win in the tournament for an extra loss in the regular season any day. But remember, this is already the case! Rearranging the format of the tournament is not going to change that. For some reason, we as fans have collectively decided that the tournament defines the season, and this is simply the way it is.

6) It will destroy the bubble discussion.

For me this is the most interesting change. It might be true, but it will be replaced by discussion of who deserves a bye.
Today's bubble discussion centers around who deserves or does not deserve to get into the tournament. Most of the media concentrates on who those four or five teams are that are so close but just barely miss out on the action. This is so popular that Joe Lunardi has made a profession out of it. With a field of 96, that discussion might die down somewhat. It will simply be less interesting if people are discussing who are the 97th to 100th best teams in the country.

However, this does not mean that it will kill the anticipation of Selection Sunday. More likely than not, this discussion will shift to one about who does or does not deserve a place in the field of 32. In other words, the discussion will be for who gets a bye. Who are the three or four teams who will feel shafted because they thought they earned the right not to have to play an extra game? I predict that this discussion will be just as heated as the current bubble debates are.

7) It will wreck the bracket-filling fun that makes March so amazing.

This one is not true. If you don’t want to fill out a 96 team bracket, then simply wait until after the play-in round to fill it out (just like people do with the current play-in game anyway). You’ll then have 64 teams to choose from, just like you do now.

8) It will force student athletes away from the classroom for more time than necessary.

Umm, it’s one game.

9) It will be a travel logistics nightmare.

This is actually probably the biggest problem. I’m not going to pretend to understand all the intricacies of the planning process, but I can only imagine that it would be extraordinarily complex. But I’m sure most schools would gladly put up with the travel inconveniences for a chance to play there way into the field.

10) There will be no going back.

Remember, at least if this does end up being the world-ending disaster that some think it will be, it will force the ratings to be so bad that the networks will have no choice but to return to the old ways. The 96 team tournament will be looked back on as a three-year blip, a failure of an experiment, an historical accident. If the ratings are not bad enough to force this, than it will simply act as a referendum, telling the NCAA that it really isn’t that bad and that people can accept change, if only grudgingly.

---

Whew, sorry about that. So like I said, it really won’t be so bad, just a little different and weird (and maybe a little worse). Eventually though, people will get over it. Sorry for the novel of a post.

GoingFor#5
04-01-2010, 07:45 PM
I hate this idea. This will greatly diminish the number of surprising upsets we see. (14) Ohio over (3) Georgetown would never have happened...instead, (14) Ohio would battle the 19th seed (I dunno, UNC?) in the first round and whoever won would go into their next game at a disadvantage and probably not have as good of a shot at an upset. That' just 1 example. We'll also miss a lot of the things everyone has already pointed out and all just for the money.

If this does happen, I really really hope ESPN would cancel their Bubble Watch because it would be so ridiculous.

Jderf
04-01-2010, 08:13 PM
(14) Ohio over (3) Georgetown would never have happened...instead, (14) Ohio would battle the 19th seed (I dunno, UNC?) in the first round and whoever won would go into their next game at a disadvantage and probably not have as good of a shot at an upset.

You're right, Ohio (14) over Georgetown (3) would not have happened, because Ohio would not have been a 14 seed! A better team would have been a 14 seed, and probably would have played a 19 seed that would also have been better than Ohio (who has an RPI of 95!). As to whether they would be at a disadvantage just for have played an extra game, that depends on the NCAA's scheduling and how much time there is between games.

Exiled_Devil
04-01-2010, 08:41 PM
1) It will dilute the field.

Yes! This is tautological. Of course, with more teams in, the talent-per-team will be slightly lower. However, it is not at all clear that this will ruin the tournament; for viewers, it will be mostly the same. There is a play-in round now, and nobody watches it. I suspect the same will be true for the play-in round of 64. Heck, very few people actually watch every one of the first-round games as it is, and that doesn’t ruin the tournament. I’m obsessed with college basketball, and yet I didn’t watch any 1-16 matchups this year except for Duke’s. Yet, this did not ruin the tournament for me.

Of course, if your team is competing, you will certainly watch. But otherwise, just ignore it like you do to the current play-in game anyway. The important thing will still be earning a place in the field of 64.


Your assessment of the first round is waaay off. I know lots of sports fans who take the day off on Friday (and sometimes Thursday) to watch the tourney 12 -12.They may or may not have a team in the mix, but the first round of the tourney is excellent. The two options for expansion I have heard involve either a bye for the top seeds (yawn) or 1 seed vs a 24 seed. (equally yawn-worthy). That means that the likelihood of seeing good, exciting games with teams that are recognized in the first round is pretty low.

With the opening round diminished like that, then the excitement of the tourney is diminished. Furthermore, one of the great things about March Madness is the filling out of brackets - I am part of a bracket pool of a couple of hundred people, many of whom follow the sport from February 27th to April 5. I expect that the number of casual bracket fillers will decrease with the advent of 24 team regions.



2) It destroys the cinderella.

This is false. It will do no such thing. The reason 1 seeds occasionally fall to 9 seeds is not because the 9 seed is better than the 1. (I think we would all agree that, while UNI was a tough and talented team, that Kansas was still better.) The reason this happens is that these highly ranked teams are given opportunities to choke, and sometimes they do. With 96 teams, the top seeds will still have to play six games to win. That means just as many chances to fall at the hands of a cinderella. I think people would still consider teams like Rhode Island (who would have made the field of 96 this year) a potential cinderella.

If anything, it could make cinderellas more likely. More at-large teams will play against the auto-bids from scrap conferences, keeping some of them out of the round of 64. This means many of the higher seeds will actually have tougher first round games than before, which will reduce the first round blow-outs and make things more interesting.



I bolded what would kill Cinderella's. At least part of it. A big problem with the big field is the idea that <.500 teams from the big leagues will get auto bids. Who wants to see an NCState vs Rutgers game in the opening rounds?

If anything, the smaller conferences should get MORE teams into the tourney if it expands. If htere is expansion, I like Coach K's stance of regular season and conference tourney champs from all the conferences both getting auto bids.

GoingFor#5
04-01-2010, 09:08 PM
I like Coach K's stance of regular season and conference tourney champs from all the conferences both getting auto bids.

I'm worried that would open the door to collusion in the smaller conferences where the regular season champion tanks it in the conference tourney to give the league 2 bids.

striker219
04-01-2010, 09:27 PM
If there is a silver lining to the imminent expansion, it is that if it happens after this season then Kerlina will be the last team to lose in NIT history. That's one for the record books.

dukebluelemur
04-01-2010, 09:42 PM
Jderf, the way you're pitching this you sound like a shill for the NCAA...

65 was bad enough. 96 is a disaster. I can't see myself been remotely as excited about any game that doesn't involve Duke, since I cant imagine there will ever be as high a percentage of higher seeds moving on.

The tournament should be something you EARN, not something you get even if you go 5-11 in a weak ACC.

If EVERYONE gets in, its just not special anymore.

Heck, even NC State might have made it... now that's just worthless. You're going to have Conferences getting ALL their teams in.

Indoor66
04-01-2010, 09:47 PM
A trophy for everyone, a trophy for everyone. :mad:

Welcome2DaSlopes
04-01-2010, 09:49 PM
Idk if it was mentioned but if they want more games, they should just put in 3 more play-in games. smh why ruin perfection.

loran16
04-01-2010, 10:45 PM
8) It will force student athletes away from the classroom for more time than necessary.

Umm, it’s one game.
.

THIS IS NOT CORRECT.

See Bob Feinstein's questions from the Transcript. Currently, the players after the games on Saturday and Sunday head back to campus, where they go to class for 2-3 days (M-Wed) before heading off to regionals. The team did that this week for example.

Under 96, the first week would be TH-Sunday as now, and the second week would have games Tues-Sunday (so some team would play Tues, Thurs, Saturday)

The end result would be teams not going home and thus losing the class time.

If the ncaa cared about academics, it would give a damn about this. Instead, the representative at the press conference pretended not to understand the question.

brevity
04-01-2010, 10:47 PM
I'm worried that would open the door to collusion in the smaller conferences where the regular season champion tanks it in the conference tourney to give the league 2 bids.

You mean that a team that knows it's already in the NCAA Tournament will feel less inclined to win a grueling 3-day conference tournament? We already have this with the traditional multi-bid conferences.


You're right, Ohio (14) over Georgetown (3) would not have happened, because Ohio would not have been a 14 seed! A better team would have been a 14 seed, and probably would have played a 19 seed that would also have been better than Ohio (who has an RPI of 95!).

I forgot to mention this new issue in my earlier post. You're correct: the MAC's 9th best team, which happened to win its tournament and then destroy Georgetown, would not be a 14 seed in a 96-team tournament. Maybe a 20? Someone needs to take the 32 NIT teams this year and insert them appropriately into the 2010 NCAA Tournament, just to see what it would look like. (For example, Bleacher Report did one here (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/352062-breaking-down-a-possible-96-team-bracket-who-benefits-the-most).)

If you click that link, you'll immediately see the problem. I don't know if UNC is deserving of being in a 96-team tournament, much less as a 16 seed, but you better believe 1 seed Kansas would be calling foul here. Now, you can argue that the Selection Committee would do a better job of seeding these teams (maybe), but the bottom line is that the 1 seeds would no longer be playing the weakest teams in the field.

dukelifer
04-01-2010, 11:14 PM
You mean that a team that knows it's already in the NCAA Tournament will feel less inclined to win a grueling 3-day conference tournament? We already have this with the traditional multi-bid conferences.



I forgot to mention this new issue in my earlier post. You're correct: the MAC's 9th best team, which happened to win its tournament and then destroy Georgetown, would not be a 14 seed in a 96-team tournament. Maybe a 20? Someone needs to take the 32 NIT teams this year and insert them appropriately into the 2010 NCAA Tournament, just to see what it would look like. (For example, Bleacher Report did one here (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/352062-breaking-down-a-possible-96-team-bracket-who-benefits-the-most).)

If you click that link, you'll immediately see the problem. I don't know if UNC is deserving of being in a 96-team tournament, much less as a 16 seed, but you better believe 1 seed Kansas would be calling foul here. Now, you can argue that the Selection Committee would do a better job of seeding these teams (maybe), but the bottom line is that the 1 seeds would no longer be playing the weakest teams in the field.
A 1 seed would go down in the first round eventually- if they are playing a team in the bottom of a big conference year in and year out.

devildownunder
04-02-2010, 04:06 AM
Transcript from the NCAA press conference this afternoon:
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=62561

It's a long read, but here's the crazy part that comes out of it (as if 96 teams isn't crazy enough): they would want the tournament to start with the round of 96 on the same days (Thursday/Friday), then have round of 64 on Saturday/Sunday of the first weekend, then have the round of 32 on Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday after that. So what that would mean is that the teams that makes it into the Sweet 16 would basically have to go straight to another city for the regionals without going back to campus at all. They say that they're weighing the 68-team idea as well, but all of their talk is about the 96-team idea. The way that the NCAA talking heads avoid some of the issues brought up by the press is also comical in the transcript.

Here's Dana O'Neil's take on what they said. The schedule is just awful. This gets worse and worse. Will someone please tell me this is all just a bad April Fool's Day joke?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5048513

GoingFor#5
04-02-2010, 12:04 PM
You mean that a team that knows it's already in the NCAA Tournament will feel less inclined to win a grueling 3-day conference tournament? We already have this with the traditional multi-bid conferences.


Right and it would expand to the smaller conferences. For instance, this year in the Metro Athletic Conference, Siena won the regular season and the tournament. If they were already guaranteed a berth in the tournament, they would be very well inclined to tank the tournament and get their conference more bids. I think it would be much worse of a problem with the smaller conferences because they would face real pressure from administrators to make their conference look good by having more bids rather than just resting up like the major conference teams do. Generally when the major conference teams take the tournament off, they just give an automatic bid to an at-large team rather than giving a new team a bid.

Matches
04-02-2010, 12:17 PM
It'll be the end of paper brackets, at least. There's not enough room on the printed page for an extra round of games. Less of a concern online, but many of the folks (like my wife and kids) who will take the time to fill out a paper bracket won't bother going online.

There will still be a bubble - there will always be a bubble unless all 347 teams get in - but it will be watched with less enthusiasm, because the teams on the bubble will not be as good as the teams who are on the bubble now.

The feeling of playing three mini-tournaments will be gone - it'll be like one two-week tournament for the first five rounds. There will be even more talk of "resting up" for the NCAAs at the expense of going all-out in the conference tournaments.

Games will be very poorly attended, because (1) few will care about the first round, and (2) it will be harder to travel to neutral sites for mid-week games.

It's true that past expansions were resisted initially then later gained acceptance. In the past there's been a reasonable argument, though, that many good teams were being left out of the event - that's not true here - there are AT MOST 4-5 teams in a given year who are truly NCAA-worthy but do not get in.

Bad bad idea.

tecumseh
04-03-2010, 01:21 AM
John Feinstein the Washington Post writer and Duke alum did a good job pointing to the hypocrisy of the NCAA and their expanded field. Note the spokesperson took the tack when all else fails act dumb and don't answer the question.

Under the expanded format teams moving on would certainly miss the whole second week of class. And remember we can't have a football playoff because the student athletes would miss too much class (when the semester would be over for most of them anyway)

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=62561

oldnavy
04-03-2010, 06:53 AM
John also had an article comparing Krzyzewski to Dean Smith. I actually thought that it was a fair column and made some interesting points. I didn't sense the usual "Duke Quilt" that I get from Feinstein.

miramar
04-03-2010, 08:38 AM
"The point here is this: Becoming more like Dean Smith isn't a bad thing; it's a good thing. Smith was not only one of the greatest coaches who ever lived; his program stood for all that was good about college basketball. Krzyzewski has built a similar program at Duke, regardless of what people who have never met him write or say about him."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/02/AR2010040203732.html

weezie
04-03-2010, 08:57 AM
Were Wooden and ucla ever subjected to any degree of antipathy?
Just wonderin'

Indoor66
04-03-2010, 09:02 AM
Were Wooden and ucla ever subjected to any degree of antipathy?
Just wonderin'

Yes. They were definitely the hated ones of their day. Everybody wanted to beat UCLA! They were talked about negatively.

That said, remember the we are talking about the '60s and '70s. There was no Internet, only newspapers and Sports Illustrated. It was a more civil time for that type of discourse. True hate was reserved for Vietnam issues.

killerleft
04-03-2010, 11:17 AM
"The point here is this: Becoming more like Dean Smith isn't a bad thing; it's a good thing. Smith was not only one of the greatest coaches who ever lived; his program stood for all that was good about college basketball. Krzyzewski has built a similar program at Duke, regardless of what people who have never met him write or say about him."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/02/AR2010040203732.html

Listen carefully... is that John's other shoe whistling toward the floor?

theAlaskanBear
04-03-2010, 12:01 PM
I really really dislike this idea. Its nonsense, utter nonsense. It devalues the regular season and conference championships. It rewards mediocre and bad teams.

Anyone have a list of the theoretical 96 teams that would make it into the tourney this year? Do we really want to see teams like Iowa St, Colorado, Nebraska, Virginia (sub 500 teams) in the tourney?

You could make all 16 seed games as play-in games. But no one wants to see the NIT teams play. You have ceaased rewarding teams for having good seasons.

Can you imagine when a good but not great school doesnt make the 96 team NCAA, like NC State? Automatic firing.

bluepenguin
04-11-2010, 12:29 PM
I think the real reason for expansion is to make sure that UNC makes the field next year.