NCAA explores expanding tournament field to 96 teams

[OUHoops]

Interesting...

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...urnament-expand-to-96-teams-?urn=ncaab,207466

It would be a flop on par with New Coke, the Edsel or Adam Morrison in the NBA: The NCAA is exploring the possibility of expanding the field of the NCAA tournament.

According to Sports Business Journal, the organization will explore how much money it could get in a new television deal if it expanded the 65-team field to 96.

"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."

It's the worst idea the NCAA has ever had, and it has had a bunch of them. Decisions based solely on financial reasons inevitably fail. And since money is the only -- ONLY -- reason the NCAA would consider expanding the tournament, this would be a disaster. (And that's assuming expansion would make money, which I don't think it would in the long run.)

A few of the major issues that would arise from an expanded field: the regular season would be rendered even more meaningless, a glut of mediocre-to-bad big-conference schools would reap the benefit and casual fans wouldn't be as interested in filling out a 96-team bracket (too daunting, asymmetrical, wouldn't fit on a regular sheet of paper). There's no call for more NCAA tournament games. Pretty much everyone thinks the 64-game event is perfect, except for one very biased interest group.

As SBJ reports, some college basketball coaches like the idea (Jim Boeheim, in particular). Of course they do. The more teams that get into the NCAA tournament, the fewer reasons there will be to fire the coaches of the 32 teams that wouldn't have made it otherwise. It's a self-serving move. It's like Congress having the ability to vote itself a raise.

If you're scoring at home, the only two valid reasons to expand the tourney: the possibility of getting more money and mediocre coaches getting a stay of execution. Sounds like a good reason to ruin the best event in sports to me!

Granted, we're far from expansion. But this is an idea that doesn't even deserve to get to the exploratory phases. If the brackets ain't broke, don't fix 'em.

 

[SoonerfanTU]

NO!!!!!

 

[thebigabd]

I would agree with it... The NCAA Tournament is supposed to be the "elite" tournament, yet it fielded teams like North Dakota State, Chattanooga, Northern Iowa, Cornell, Morgan State, Stephen F. Austin, Binghampton, and American.

Its great that those teams get to play, and they should for winning their conference tournament. That is what they play for, and I am with that 100%. It makes the NCAA Tournament inclusive and great, and the miracles that happen every once in awhile are always remembered.

But I would like to see the field expanded to make sure all the teams (that are better than the above mentioned conference winners) get included and get their chance as well. The selection would not be so difficult, it would just be adding NIT teams to the lower seeds of the NCAA Tournament.

Why wouldnt you want more and better basketball?

 

[campbest]

Absolutely terrible idea, the only reason it is being tabled is because the NCAA thinks it can make more money and college coaches are looking for more job security.

Honestly, every year when the brackets are finalized, there are usually 3-4 teams that have a legitimate gripe about not getting put it and most of the time their resumes are still lacking. Why does the 20th team left out deserve a shot, it's ridiculous and the NCAA is going to find out that many people won't watch unless it's their team playing. That is what makes the tourney special, I'll watch every game on Thursday and Friday regardless of the school.

 

[Krugerfan52]

dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

 

[bull]

I could see expanding the opening round, but not 96. You know, we could have a double header or an entire day of games at dayton on tuesday, expanding the field to 68. But really? 96? Or perhaps play a couple of play in games at the first round sites, maybe expanding to 76. But I really can't see beyond that. At least now, the NIT has some decent teams that have won 16 or 18 games. If NCAA expands, the NIT will either fold (should but won't) or be forced to field lots of sub .500 teams.

 

[suncoastsooner]

I'm torn on this issue.

96 teams seems pretty watered down but at the same time there are a lot of schools that get left out who deserve to be playing in the NCAA field than many of the small conference champions.

 

[SoonerfanTU]

I'm torn on this issue.

96 teams seems pretty watered down but at the same time there are a lot of schools that get left out who deserve to be playing in the NCAA field than many of the small conference champions.

A LOT? I see only 2-3 a year that even have a debate, actually. The small schools that get in, win their conference. No different than the rare occassions were a bad big conference team pulls off the miracle in their conference tourney.

 

[campbest]

I'm torn on this issue.

96 teams seems pretty watered down but at the same time there are a lot of schools that get left out who deserve to be playing in the NCAA field than many of the small conference champions.

Have to disagree...a lot?

 

[HoHum]

Yeah, I don't like it all. As far as having the large "play-in" round that's what the season is for! I could see eventually there being 4 play in games for the 16 seeds. But, hopefully that would be as far as that ever got.

Of all NCAA true "team" sports it's pretty much the only post-season that seems to be done 100% right.

 

[12th Street Baller]

A LOT? I see only 2-3 a year that even have a debate, actually. The small schools that get in, win their conference. No different than the rare occassions were a bad big conference team pulls off the miracle in their conference tourney.

The only reason I can think of that would give this idea any credence is finding a way to include those schools who dominated their conference but lost in their tournament. These small-school "minor" conferences basically play a meaningless regular season due to the fact that only the school that wins the conference tournament gets to go to the big dance. I know there have been many exceptions but the majority of the time this is the case.

I for one would rather see a 26-4 VCU make it than a 19-11 Syracuse team. Still, 96 teams? Are they serious?

 

[Tony]

I can honestly say I have no opinion on this.

 

[campbest]

All it does is cheapen the regular season, if it were a 96 team field now, we wouldn't be making statements like "need to win two out of the next three" or finish with a certain conference record.

 

[DenverSooner]

Personally I like it. It would let a lot more smaller schools into the Tournament and lead to more upsets. The first weekend where half the teams get cut could have some fun games to watch. Imagine 16 more BCS teams and 16 more mid-majors. Pools would be a lot different. Good luck picking the winners between the 16-17 game, 15-18 game, 14-19 game, etc. Those games should be as close as the second round games where it is tough to pick a winner.

 

[suncoastsooner]

A LOT? I see only 2-3 a year that even have a debate, actually. The small schools that get in, win their conference. No different than the rare occassions were a bad big conference team pulls off the miracle in their conference tourney.

You're telling me there weren't "a lot" of schools more deserving of playing in the NCAA Tourny in 2008 than: Mt. Saint Mary's, Coppin State, Georgia, Mississippi Valley State, Sienna, UMBC, Austin Peay, and Texas-Arlington?

Or 2009: Cal State-Northridge, Chatanooga, Moorhead State, Radford, or Morgan State?

Like I said 96 is probably too much but more play in games to eliminate such teams that we able to sneak into the field because they got hot one weekend for a three or four game cycle in their conference tourny would be nice. Would make for even better opening round games in my opinion.

 

[Tony]

You're telling me there weren't "a lot" of schools more deserving of playing in the NCAA Tourny in 2008 than: Mt. Saint Mary's, Coppin State, Georgia, Mississippi Valley State, Sienna, UMBC, Austin Peay, and Texas-Arlington?

Or 2009: Cal State-Northridge, Chatanooga, Moorhead State, Radford, or Morgan State?

Like I said 96 is probably too much but more play in games to eliminate such teams that we able to sneak into the field because they got hot one weekend for a three or four game cycle in their conference tourny would be nice. Would make for even better opening round games in my opinion.

Hello suncoast. "Deserving" is a tough word. You are right that many teams who don't make the tournament are better than some of the smaller teams that don't. And if our goal is to fill out a bracket with the absolute best 65 (or 96) teams, then yes, there are more deserving teams. But that isn't really what we're going for. And none of those teams who get left out in favor of small schools have a legitimate chance to win the tournament, so I don't think it's a big deal.

That said, if they expanded to 96 I don't think I'd be that upset.

PS Did you see that Donovan is probably going to Everton?

 

[thebigabd]

Here is my line of thinking.....

Do I want to see more basketball? yes...

Do I want to see more good teams in the nations elite tournament? yes...

Do I care about implications on the regular season? no....

Do I think a lower seed NIT team can beat a top 4 seed on a neutral court? yes....

Will this create many more classics and great games? yes....

 

[suncoastsooner]

PS Did you see that Donovan is probably going to Everton?

*Thread Hijack Disclaimer*


Probably is a mighty strong word to use here at this time and this early in negotiations. The Guardian and BBC Sport tend to embellish these sort of negotiations early in the process. I'm sure Everton is interested in Donovan or any available player like him for the January window. They certainly need an attacking midfielder with his sort of skill set, the club isn't the typical Eurosnob type like many on the continent, and a need for him will be even more so with the losses they are going to suffer from the African Cup and with the brutal stretch of games they are going to see in league and cup play in the months leading up to the World cup. Two major hurdles that have to be overcome though are the transfer back window to the Galaxy for Landon and the price tag attached to Landon's boot. Everton is pretty cash strapped and has a lot of debt right now. I don't know if they are going to be willing to pay what the Galaxy are going to demmand for him without some extra help from the USSF nudging them a bit. I hope something beneficial to both parties is able to be worked out and Landon is able to get some much needed time on the pitch leading into next summer... whether it is at Everton elsewhere it is needed to keep him in form.

My Landon hating stopped durring the ConFed Cup if you were trying to get a rise out of me. He finally became Mandon in South Africa this summer.

 

[NickZepp]

Dumb idea. It's just like having the bowls in college football. Too many teams make the post season there. And the first rounds of the tournament would be boring. I think 64 is just the right number. The only change I make is maybe adding 3 more play in games just cause I think 1 play in game is stupid.

 

[pasoonerfan87]

not a fan...imagine really strong conferences like last year in the big east getting 11 or 12 teams in the tournament..or a big xii conference that is strong this year getting 8-9 teams..if you are one of the 5 worst teams in your conference how could you really justify going to the tournament?