PDA

View Full Version : Tourney possibly going to 96 teams?



illinoisdukie
02-01-2010, 03:20 PM
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-march-madness-with-96-teams-done-deal-27742

roywhite
02-01-2010, 03:32 PM
Your subject line should have a question mark. Tourney going to 96?

Don't like the concept myself; hope it doesn't happen. It would further de-value regular season play. Conference tournaments already allow an opportunity for nearly every team.

DukieTiger
02-01-2010, 03:57 PM
The vast majority of the major-conference, bubble teams don't deserve to be in the tournament of 64 as it is. And let's be honest, the tournament expansion would be done with THEM in mind, NOT mid majors. Everyone has a shot to get in the tournament- it's called the conference tourney.

Between teams flaming out in the conference tourneys, playing soft schedules, and just not getting the job done- I don't really have much sympathy for bubble teams.

96 teams would ABSOLUTELY water the tourney down. I like the idea I've heard a few times, put some of these bubble teams in the play in game. Don't make the play-in game between Radford and IUPUI. Let both of those teams, who EARNED their way in, play one of the big boys. Have 4 play-in games, and let the bubble-boys battle it out for the #9 seeds.

tele
02-01-2010, 03:57 PM
Maybe UNC will make it in after all...

shoutingncu
02-01-2010, 03:58 PM
Yay! UNC still has a shot to get in, then...

(Oops, beaten to the punch)

Newton_14
02-01-2010, 04:03 PM
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-march-madness-with-96-teams-done-deal-27742

I know it is inevitable but I am holding out hope that this does not happen. We currently have the perfect tournament (even inspite of that silly play in game), but going to 96 would ruin a good thing imo.

All of the current bubble teams would get in, then the new "bubble" would involve BCS teams barely over .500 and mid-major/low level teams who did not win their conference tourney's, with decent records against a terrible schedule.

Plus it would add another weekend and ESPN would likely take the tourney away from CBS.

Very sad to me. It falls into's Jumbo's infamous line "Change is good but lame change is bad"..

CDu
02-01-2010, 04:03 PM
The vast majority of the major-conference, bubble teams don't deserve to be in the tournament of 64 as it is. And let's be honest, the tournament expansion would be done with THEM in mind, NOT mid majors. Everyone has a shot to get in the tournament- it's called the conference tourney.

Between teams flaming out in the conference tourneys, playing soft schedules, and just not getting the job done- I don't really have much sympathy for bubble teams.

96 teams would ABSOLUTELY water the tourney down. I like the idea I've heard a few times, put some of these bubble teams in the play in game. Don't make the play-in game between Radford and IUPUI. Let both of those teams, who EARNED their way in, play one of the big boys. Have 4 play-in games, and let the bubble-boys battle it out for the #9 seeds.

I would be completely okay with a bunch of play-in games, so long as it doesn't add more tournament games for the teams that really deserve to be there. I'm even a fan of fewer games required for those teams, in fact.

As long as you protect all of the conference winners and the best remaining at-large teams (so that those teams play no more than 6 games) then I don't care how you ultimately get to a field of 64. If you want to have a bunch of play-in games for the last several spots or whatever, that's just fine by me. There are invariably a ton of teams that don't really deserve to be there anyway. If you have double-digit losses during the regular season, you've proven you aren't really all that worthy of being the national champion.

KyDevilinIL
02-01-2010, 04:13 PM
Hate, hate, hate the idea.

The fate/importance/changing role of the regular season and conference tournaments is one thing. But there's more at play.

This weekend we will see a cultural phenomenon in the Super Bowl. In terms of broad appeal – I mean, as far as getting a substantial number of Average Joe, non sports fans to pay attention for a little while – the Super Bowl is unmatched.

The sporting event that comes closest to the Super Bowl in the context of non-sports fans becoming sports fans for a short time? The NCAA Tournament – but ONLY the first Thursday/Friday explosion. That's when everyone pays attention, marks on their little brackets, talks about it at work, etc. The tournament is perfect right now from a public interest standpoint, largely – and I know this sounds a little nuts, but I fully believe it – because the brackets fit so neatly and look so cool on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. Ninety-six teams will look like a mess on one sheet of paper.

Expansion makes the tournament far more confusing to the folks who don't follow basketball, but who enjoy fooling around with brackets after Selection Sunday. Those first two days are so much fun not because most people care about the games, but because it's an event, it's a burst of activity, and it gives people something to talk about.

The NCAA Tournament is already the only sporting event I can think of that loses momentum with the general public the longer it wears on. It starts huge, nearly disappears the second weekend (except for fans of teams or those genuinely interested in college hoops), then picks up a little for the FF and title game, depending greatly on which teams are involved. That first weekend, though, is a consistently reliable draw.

But playing a bunch of games before the round of 64 neuters that Thursday/Friday gold mine. In an expanded tournament, by the time the R64 happens, games will have begun a week before, and it'll be old news to a huge segment of the population. Office pools will be too cumbersome to participate in, much less administer.

I am 100 percent opposed. I think it's a terrible idea.

illinoisdukie
02-01-2010, 04:15 PM
I just dont want a network to get it and then tape delay a bunch of games. Would just ruin all the fun of getting ready for games early in the day.

Battierfan01
02-01-2010, 04:21 PM
Maybe UNC will make it in after all...

WOW, wouldn't you know it, the year that UNC sucks they want to expand the field to 96 teams. I bet Ol' Roy is phoning in his support right now!!

Acymetric
02-01-2010, 04:24 PM
Until 16 seeds start beating 1 seeds regularly there is no need for expansion. This will suck, plain and simple. The kinds of upsets we used to have, with Cinderella teams making big runs will go way down, as such teams will be beating each other up in the play-in rounds before they get a shot to upset one of the big dogs.

Matches
02-01-2010, 04:36 PM
I don't even like the current play-in game. To me it robs two conference champions of their opportunity to play on the big stage. They end up playing in a Tuesday night game that no one watches.

And the solution to that is to ADD 31 more teams? Leave those teams in the NIT where they belong.

Vincetaylor
02-01-2010, 04:38 PM
It's a stupid idea. Haven't really heard anyone for it(coaches or analysts). Of course it's totally driven by money. I'm guessing the 1st round would consist of seeds 33-96. I honestly can't see many people caring too much about those games considering the mediocrity of the teams involved and lack of significant upset potential. Can you imagine filling out a bracket for those games? Ughh.

Acymetric
02-01-2010, 04:39 PM
It's a stupid idea. Haven't really heard anyone for it(coaches or analysts). Of course it's totally driven by money. I'm guessing the 1st round would consist of seeds 33-96. I honestly can't see many people caring too much about those games considering the mediocrity of the teams involved and lack of significant upset potential. Can you imagine filling out a bracket for those games? Ughh.

Actually, I'm pretty sure in a previous thread about this there was a link to Coach K supporting this, among others.

Edit: Found it!

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18328&highlight=expand&page=3

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

Matches
02-01-2010, 04:45 PM
IIRC Herb Sendek was in favor of going to 128 teams.

Bluedog
02-01-2010, 04:47 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure in a previous thread about this there was a link to Coach K supporting this, among others.

Edit: Found it!

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18328&highlight=expand&page=3

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

Bob Knight is among the others supporting it. Personally, I don't think I'm in favor of it...

sagegrouse
02-01-2010, 05:03 PM
Maybe UNC will make it in after all...

Article says "next year," assuming the NCAA opts out of the CBS contract and opens the tournament up for bids.

Therefore, there is no bail-out for teams with bad records this year.

I am of two minds on the proposal. On the one hand, I agree with Mae West that "too much of a good thing is wonderful." But then there is the concern that this is a slippery slope to all 300+ NCAA teams being eligible for post-season.

If the 96 happens, teams should really strive to be in the top 32. Beyond that group, there will be unseemly brawl to see which other teams make the round of 64 and show up on the weekend.

sagegrouse
'Is it really possible that the four-day March Madness orgy on the first weekend could actually extend to six days of nonstop hoops?'

WiJoe
02-01-2010, 10:15 PM
And so it starts.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/64712

:eek:

dukemsu
02-01-2010, 10:44 PM
Bad idea. Why mess with the one event that is basically perfect as-is?

Silly me, I know why. But the money doesn't make it right. The regular season will be devalued even further.

Looks like the cake is baked.

dukemsu

striker219
02-02-2010, 12:26 AM
There are two things that shouldn't change regarding college basketball. First, the ACC should stay a nine team conference. Nine is perfect. And denial is not just a river in Egypt. Second, 64 teams is plenty (as is 5 Oscar nominations for Best Picture, but that's for another day). I see this going a couple ways, neither of which is really ideal.

One possibility, you expand the tournament a week. The top 32 teams rest for at least a week and a half depending on when their conference tournament was (terrible idea) while everyone else plays to get into the 64-team bracket. This results in a boring first weekend of teams that don't stand a chance playing teams that don't stand a chance (in the 25 years of the 64-team tourney, 3 teams seeded lower than 8 have made the Final Four). Nobody watches (on a national scale) except for a handful of true college basketball fans. People just don't care enough, and by the time the real tournament starts, it's been 10 days since Selection Sunday and people are sick of the hype (which is darn difficult to sustain for that long) and are ready for it to go away.

More likely, I'm guessing, is that you cram those first games into the Tuesday-Wednesday in between Selection Sunday and the opening round Thursday. Now while this would make for an amusing week of wall-to-wall games and limited productivity at work, it would do terrible things for the drama of that first weekend. To survive the first weekend, a lower seeded team would have to beat a higher seeded team on Thursday/Friday on one day of hotel rest (which isn't the same as comfort-of-your-own-bed rest), then beat another higher seeded team on Saturday/Sunday, also on one day of hotel rest. While this might help the top 32 teams, it kinda makes for a boring tournament.

And why are they fixing basketball anyway? At least basketball plays to decide a champion. Fix football you morons! Football!

Cameron
02-02-2010, 12:42 AM
If the tournament ever goes to Fox, the NCAAs leaders making these decisions should be beaten.

Of course it's all about money, but this decision would absolutely corrupt the best sporting event in the United States, devaluing it to the point of millions no longer giving a ****. As another posted pointed out, those first two days of the NCAAs are what the whole Dance is about. Stripping Thursday and Friday of that sacred position within the hearts of sports fans and non-sports fans alike, millions of which turn into crazy hoops fans each March in search of bracket glory, would be asinine. We have a perfect product, folks.

If you want in the tournament, win damn it or quit whining. Your tournament spot, losers (Jimmy B '07), is already there. It's called the conference tournament. Go win it.

This is sickening.

snowdenscold
02-02-2010, 02:52 AM
Hate, hate, hate the idea.

The fate/importance/changing role of the regular season and conference tournaments is one thing. But there's more at play.

This weekend we will see a cultural phenomenon in the Super Bowl. In terms of broad appeal – I mean, as far as getting a substantial number of Average Joe, non sports fans to pay attention for a little while – the Super Bowl is unmatched.

The sporting event that comes closest to the Super Bowl in the context of non-sports fans becoming sports fans for a short time? The NCAA Tournament – but ONLY the first Thursday/Friday explosion. That's when everyone pays attention, marks on their little brackets, talks about it at work, etc. The tournament is perfect right now from a public interest standpoint, largely – and I know this sounds a little nuts, but I fully believe it – because the brackets fit so neatly and look so cool on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. Ninety-six teams will look like a mess on one sheet of paper.

Expansion makes the tournament far more confusing to the folks who don't follow basketball, but who enjoy fooling around with brackets after Selection Sunday. Those first two days are so much fun not because most people care about the games, but because it's an event, it's a burst of activity, and it gives people something to talk about.

The NCAA Tournament is already the only sporting event I can think of that loses momentum with the general public the longer it wears on. It starts huge, nearly disappears the second weekend (except for fans of teams or those genuinely interested in college hoops), then picks up a little for the FF and title game, depending greatly on which teams are involved. That first weekend, though, is a consistently reliable draw.

But playing a bunch of games before the round of 64 neuters that Thursday/Friday gold mine. In an expanded tournament, by the time the R64 happens, games will have begun a week before, and it'll be old news to a huge segment of the population. Office pools will be too cumbersome to participate in, much less administer.

I am 100 percent opposed. I think it's a terrible idea.

Very well said (and also striker219's comments). I think (hope?) this plan will backfire on them and they'll end up making less money due to significantly lower ratings.

CameronBornAndBred
02-02-2010, 09:07 AM
If they keep expanding, the season won't be over until late April. The latest a player can remove his name from the draft is May 8th. That's cutting it close for kids making choices.

Reddevil
02-02-2010, 10:50 AM
And why are they fixing basketball anyway? At least basketball plays to decide a champion. Fix football you morons! Football!

Thank you.

Some one needs to suggest limiting the NCAA Tourney to 32 teams just to counterbalance this nonsense. 64 teams is perfect. The season matters. The conference tournaments matter. This is just another reason sports fans need a union.

uncwdevil
02-04-2010, 11:55 AM
IIRC Herb Sendek was in favor of going to 128 teams.

"Why stop there? What's wrong with 256"?

-Sidney Lowe

duke4life32182
02-04-2010, 12:29 PM
Maybe add another play-in game or two. Don't add another round. I think the current set-up is fine. If you don't win enough games in regular season there is always the conference tournament. Plenty of chances for teams to make it.

A-Tex Devil
02-04-2010, 04:12 PM
So the 16 play-in games would be played when? Tuesday/Wednesday? Or the weekend before. My bi-annual Vegas trip just got longer.

Wander
02-04-2010, 04:23 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure in a previous thread about this there was a link to Coach K supporting this, among others.

Edit: Found it!

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18328&highlight=expand&page=3

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

Coach K is dead to me.

devildownunder
02-04-2010, 07:02 PM
Bob Knight is among the others supporting it. Personally, I don't think I'm in favor of it...

I would expect all the coaches at the power conferences to support it. The rule pretty much guarantees that as long as their record is at least .500 they'll make the tournament.

What an awful idea. Another example of the downside to TV/big money's involvement with sports. We get to see our fave teams play more than ever these days but at the same time we get awful decisions like this one that make a mockery of the idea of a "championship tournament".

March Madness is perfect as it is. When they went up from 48 (?) to 64 that was a good idea. I don't like play-in game (stuff the ncaa, that's what it is, no matter what they call it) but it doesn't harm the event. This, however, ruins things. Right now, the first four days of the event are unmatched among the early rounds of major tournaments for anticipation, excitement, etc. Once this starts, the beginning of the tournament will either a) become a gray, meaningless slog of games between teams with no real chance of winning the tourney or b) result in good teams getting shafted so that the TV people can have a marquee name for these early-round games. And they still won't be entertaining.

Oh well, my wife will be happy. She won't see her husband turn into a march madness junkie/zombie every year because it just won't be fun anymore. :(

devildownunder
02-04-2010, 07:04 PM
Very well said (and also striker219's comments). I think (hope?) this plan will backfire on them and they'll end up making less money due to significantly lower ratings.

Here, Here! Because that's the only way they'd ever fix it. They couldn't care less about balance of competition or integrity. Money is the only thing that matters. See also: the BCS.

SCMatt33
02-04-2010, 09:18 PM
Here's an article I wrote (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/339583-ncaa-tournament-solution-let-the-at-large-teams-play) discussing the possible expansion and my idea. It basically allows the final at-large team to play BEFORE making the bracket.

Neals384
02-04-2010, 09:27 PM
Not a bad idea overall. I like that the conference winners all get in, and the bubble teams have to earn a spot.

But...the idea of finishing up conference tournaments mid-week is a show stopper. No way are the powers that be going to give up a weekend of TV revenue.

How about re-working your idea so that all the seeding and matchups are known on selection Sunday, as current. And the play-in games on Monday or Tuesday.

SCMatt33
02-04-2010, 10:46 PM
But...the idea of finishing up conference tournaments mid-week is a show stopper. No way are the powers that be going to give up a weekend of TV revenue.

How about re-working your idea so that all the seeding and matchups are known on selection Sunday, as current. And the play-in games on Monday or Tuesday.

I thought hard about how the scheduling would be affected. The main reason I don't think that the current play-in system should be adapted to at-large teams is the inconstancy of seeds. Right now, the play in team is a 16 and there is really no great advantage to any 1 seed, as they have never lost.

If the bracket was created with at-large teams as play-in teams, it would change yearly which seed they would have. Let's say, for example, that the last 4 in are three 12-seeds and an 11-seed. There is no good way to assign which 5-seed has to play a rested team as opposed to the ones who just played.

Furthermore, the creation of the brackets after the play-in games allows for re-seeding, which I think makes sense in this case.

As for the scheduling, I think that the conferences would jump at this opportunity. Currently, there are conference championship games on Saturday night. Major League Baseball altered its entire playoff schedule a few years ago just to avoid Saturday night. It's the worst ratings night of the week.

Also, having the early rounds on the weekend allows for all of the games to be seen. Not many people will watch a noon quarterfinal on a Friday, but they might on a Saturday.

Underdog5
02-05-2010, 12:57 AM
...but anything that gives me more games to watch is a positive in my book. I just love to watch games (currently up at 1a watching Gonzaga pound Portland) so have at it. But what do I know... I would also really like to see is the elimination of the autobids and play the best 64 teams in. Put all the autobids in the NIT along with the other teams that were "snubbed". This way just about every tourny game would be more competitive and fair.

devildownunder
02-05-2010, 01:23 AM
Here's an article I wrote (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/339583-ncaa-tournament-solution-let-the-at-large-teams-play) discussing the possible expansion and my idea. It basically allows the final at-large team to play BEFORE making the bracket.

but your idea is for a 68-team tournament. they're talking about going to 96, that's a completely different (and far inferior, IMO) animal.

UrinalCake
02-05-2010, 07:42 AM
I don't buy the argument that expanding the tournament would allow more bubble teams in. Because all you've done is expand the bubble, which means there will be another group of teams that just barely got left out, and they'll complain that they should have gotten in. No matter where you draw the line, there will always be some borderline teams that don't get in.

At the same time, I don't believe that expanding to 96 teams will devalue the regular season in the same way that a playoff in football would. Teams are always playing for a seed, so every game is important. I suppose for some mid-major teams it takes some pressure off of needing to win their conference tournament in order to get in, but if you're on the bubble with 64 teams then you're probably not "guaranteed" to get in even with 96, so it's not like you're going to ease up during the season.

dukegirlinsc
02-05-2010, 08:11 AM
I despise this. DESPISE it. It's coming down to nothing but money, which is why the BCS is a disaster. Disaster.

Don't ruin a perfect tournament by adding lame play-in games. The tournament is a privilege, not a party that everyone should be involved in.