NCAA explores expanding tournament field to 96 teams

[billyball]

I'm sure the NIT folks love this idea.

 

[soonermike53]

Just like the article said, it is all about the NCAA making money. If there is a way they can make a few more million off an extra weekend of postseason basketball, while giving a few schools on the bubble the opportunity to "play their way in," then I do not see why they would not do it. Honestly, I would rather them cut the regular season short one week, and add an extra week of postseason basketball. But, again, it is not about the fans, it is all about making money for the NCAA (see the BCS for example).



:tinypower

 

[NickZepp]

I'm sure the NIT folks love this idea.

I think what this does is get rid of any need for NIT or any other extra tournaments. If you count the other tournaments there are probably a little more than 100 teams in post season now but the NCAA Tournament would have the monopoly on any tournament and there would really be no reason for one.

 

[SoonerEyeDoc]

What a joke. They are against a football playoff because it would be a detriment to academics for the players yet a 2 month odyssey NCAA tournament is considered acceptable? The hypocrisy of the NCAA is an embarrassment.

 

[NickZepp]

What a joke. They are against a football playoff because it would be a detriment to academics for the players yet a 2 month odyssey NCAA tournament is considered acceptable? The hypocrisy of the NCAA is an embarrassment.

Any type of post season tournament in college football would make March Madness seem like nothing economically.

 

[thebigabd]

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?

Because the 9th best team in the Big 12 is better than the first place team in the Big Sky. If it was truly a tournament for the elite, the best teams would be in it and not crappy conference winnners.

 

[NickZepp]

Because the 9th best team in the Big 12 is better than the first place team in the Big Sky. If it was truly a tournament for the elite, the best teams would be in it and not crappy conference winnners.

I don't disagree but it's not like we see a lot of the small conference tournament winners going deep in the NCAA regularly. Usually it's a big conference name that goes deep and wins it all.

 

[thebigabd]

I don't disagree but it's not like we see a lot of the small conference tournament winners going deep in the NCAA regularly. Usually it's a big conference name that goes deep and wins it all.

Right, but what I am saying is that last years Baylor team (NIT) could have defeated ANY team seeds 2-15 playing in last years NCAA Tournament on a neutral court. If they are good enough to play and win, why not include them? The point of the tournament is to find the best team, not give the regular season champs the easiest road for a title.

What if North Carolina had to play 26-7 Davidson (6 seed NIT), 21-11 Kansas State (4 seed NIT), or 26-7 Creighton (1 seed NIT) in the opening round of the tournament instead of Radford?

What if OU had to play Auburn (22-11) instead of Morgan State? What is Louisville had to play 23-9 San Diego State instead of Morehead State? What if Pitt had to play Baylor instead of East Tennessee State?

Wouldnt that make the tournament better? Wouldnt you rather see bubble teams like Kansas State play Pitt in the opening round instead of Morehead State? Wouldnt that be a truly elite tournament?

 

[NickZepp]

Right, but what I am saying is that last years Baylor team (NIT) could have defeated ANY team seeds 2-15 playing in last years NCAA Tournament on a neutral court. If they are good enough to play and win, why not include them? The point of the tournament is to find the best team, not give the regular season champs the easiest road for a title.

What if North Carolina had to play 26-7 Davidson (6 seed NIT), 21-11 Kansas State (4 seed NIT), or 26-7 Creighton (1 seed NIT) in the opening round of the tournament instead of Radford?

What if OU had to play Auburn (22-11) instead of Morgan State? What is Louisville had to play 23-9 San Diego State instead of Morehead State? What if Pitt had to play Baylor instead of East Tennessee State?

Wouldnt that make the tournament better? Wouldnt you rather see bubble teams like Kansas State play Pitt in the opening round instead of Morehead State? Wouldnt that be a truly elite tournament?

You have a point but they will never change this format. There's too much popularity. Something that could help out what you want done is to add 3 more play in games so that all the bad teams that win a conference tournament can play the play in game to play the 1 seed. That makes the 15 seeds and higher all stronger than being some team that just got in.

 

[HoHum]

Right, but what I am saying is that last years Baylor team (NIT) could have defeated ANY team seeds 2-15 playing in last years NCAA Tournament on a neutral court. If they are good enough to play and win, why not include them? The point of the tournament is to find the best team, not give the regular season champs the easiest road for a title.

What if North Carolina had to play 26-7 Davidson (6 seed NIT), 21-11 Kansas State (4 seed NIT), or 26-7 Creighton (1 seed NIT) in the opening round of the tournament instead of Radford?

What if OU had to play Auburn (22-11) instead of Morgan State? What is Louisville had to play 23-9 San Diego State instead of Morehead State? What if Pitt had to play Baylor instead of East Tennessee State?

Wouldnt that make the tournament better? Wouldnt you rather see bubble teams like Kansas State play Pitt in the opening round instead of Morehead State? Wouldnt that be a truly elite tournament?

Where's the reward of being a #1 Seed if you have to go play a team that's the level of a 10 or an 11 seed in the first round? This would make the seeding process utterly useless and the regular season nothing but a joke. Which would bring interest and attendance down.

If they're going to do this, you might as well get rid of all seeds and just throw them in using a random generator. 1 seeds are SUPPOSED to be able to play these week teams. Because they had such a great regular season. Not play the same level of team that a 6 seed is going to play.

 

[DenverSooner]

Where's the reward of being a #1 Seed if you have to go play a team that's the level of a 10 or an 11 seed in the first round? This would make the seeding process utterly useless and the regular season nothing but a joke. Which would bring interest and attendance down.

If they're going to do this, you might as well get rid of all seeds and just throw them in using a random generator. 1 seeds are SUPPOSED to be able to play these week teams. Because they had such a great regular season. Not play the same level of team that a 6 seed is going to play.

I don't get it. If you are No. 1 seed you play the winner of the 16/17 game after your buy. If you are a No. 2 seed, you play the winner of the 15/18 game, etc. Nothing changes unless there is an upset and if there is an upset the first game is against an even lower seed.

All you do is take everyone from 9 up and have them play another game. 9 seeds play a first round game againts a 24 seed (if my math is correct). If a 24 seed won the first two rounds, UNC would play East Popcorn State in the second round and beat them by 1,000 points or they might be the first No. 1 seed to lose to a 24 seed.

 

[MNsooner]

I am not sure how this solves the problem of teams not making it that deserve to. Enlarging the field lowers the necessairy qualifications of getting into the tournament, but in the end the last four teams left out will still probably have case for why they should be let into the tournament. All that this seems to do is take away a lot of the magic of the first round in my opinion. Plus, I like having the NIT be a quality tournament.

 

[thebigabd]

All that this seems to do is take away a lot of the magic of the first round in my opinion

You mean the lowest seed being 0-century against the top seed? That isnt magic, its a slaughter. Those teams could play NIT teams in an opening round while the top seeds get a bye. Maybe they would win one every now and then? Thats magic....

 

[sanguinetti]

i know for a fact i could not take 1. Jim Nantz and 2. seeing the same GD commercials for an extra week of a 90 team field.

 

[MNsooner]

You mean the lowest seed being 0-century against the top seed? That isnt magic, its a slaughter. Those teams could play NIT teams in an opening round while the top seeds get a bye. Maybe they would win one every now and then? Thats magic....

Strawman for sure. Everyone knows the 1 to 16 games are worthless, but everything else is interesting. Those teams are going to get killed no matter who they play. Any game they play even in a 96 team field will be boring. The expanded field does nothing to solve that problem.

 

[rrm]

Oh, I think it is a great idea. In fact, they should make it a 360 team tourny, even if they had to create some more D-1 teams.


And, and, and they could make it like triple elimination or sumpfin. With lots of consolation brackets and stuff. Why they could have multiple, alternative national champions. And, and some teams could get special awards, like for congeniality or swimsuit competition.

Great idea.

 

[WaymanFan]

Oh, I think it is a great idea. In fact, they should make it a 360 team tourny, even if they had to create some more D-1 teams.

While a 360 team tournament field may be a bit much, I'd support a 256 team event because it divides nicely into 8 rounds.

In all seriousness, if there's going to be a change, put it back to 64 and leave it there for eternity.

Bigabd mentioned that the 9th place team in a major conference will often be better than the winner of a minor conference. Perhaps, but most people couldn't care less about a 9th place team in any conference. However, the best team in a minor conference has a chance to pull off a huge upset or two in the NCAA Tournament...and 99 times out of 100, that generates a lot of excitement!

 

[DenverSooner]

I don't get why people are so against it. One of the best things about the Tournament is the little guy beating or giving a game to the big school. I think you would get more of that.

 

[soonergrad09]

Why not keep the bracket clean and make it 128?

 

[DenverSooner]

Why not keep the bracket clean and make it 128?

Because it would match a 1 seed against a 32 seed. That would be a really bad mismatch.