Expanding Tournament to 96 Teams?

[RougeDawg]

Hey, we may get in next year!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...terstitialskip

[techfan01]

I think this is retarded

[Dwayne From Minden]

It's happening - might as well get used to it...

5 years from now, no one will be longing for the "old 64 days" because no one longs for the old "48 or 54" days now....

[inudesu]

It's happening - might as well get used to it...

5 years from now, no one will be longing for the "old 64 days" because no one longs for the old "48 or 54" days now....

That's because 64 is better than 48 or 54.

Lots of people still long for the days of 64 instead of 65. Why is that? Because 64 is better than 65 (in addition to being better than 48, 54, or 96).

[Dwayne From Minden]

No they think the play in game is stupid - big difference

In 5 years 96 will be well accepted

[theprofessor]

No they think the play in game is stupid - big difference

In 5 years 96 will be well accepted

we'll see. i disagree with you, but we'll see. i don't like 65. i wouldn't mind 68, where there are four "opening round" games. i know i won't get my way, but i'd like to see those eight teams be the last eight at-large teams, rather than the two worst teams in the tournament. those teams could all play for 12 seeds left open on the bracket.

[dawgtired]

I know I'm in a very miniscule minority... but I would prefer they go back to 48 or even 32, not the other direction. Tournament expansion has killed and is killing the regular season.

[inudesu]

I know I'm in a very miniscule minority... but I would prefer they go back to 48 or even 32, not the other direction. Tournament expansion has killed and is killing the regular season.

It wasn't just the tournament expansion, it was conference tournaments.

If you tightened the field now, the regular season would still not mean much because you'd still have to win the conference tournament.

[inudesu]

No they think the play in game is stupid - big difference

In 5 years 96 will be well accepted

How is that different?

I think 64 is better than 65. I wish they would return to 64.

When they expand, I will think 64 is better than 96. I will wish they would return to 64.

[RealityCheck]

If the field is going to 96, go ahead and take it to 128 and get rid of conference tournaments completely. I would base the number of autobids by that year's conference RPI...top 8 conferences get 4 autobids, 9-16 get 3, 17-24 get 2, and 25 down get 1. Right now that would lock in 79 teams and still leave 49 at-large bids.

Or in a 128-team field, the Top 100 RPI should be selected automatically and the other 28 have to be selected by the committee including regular season conference champions below the Top 100.

[StrayDawg]

A lot of people are saying this is just a play by the NCAA to get more money out of the TV negotiations that are coming up next year. By gonig to 96, they have more games and can ask for more money from ESPN, CBS, whomever.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think this is large school bias at work again.

Going to 96 will allow more schools to get in, which will allow room for more "mid-major" schools. That's a good thing.

But, the top 32 teams will get a bye in the first round, which means that the "big" schools will have a chance to watch their opponent play a game (and have more time to watch film on them) before actually playing them. That greatly decreases the chances of a team like Northwestern State knocking off Iowa in '06 or Ohio beating Georgetown this year. First round upsets are one of the best parts of March Madness, and I don't think that should be compromised just because the Big East got their feelings hurt because they didn't get more teams in the tourney.

Just my opinion.

[hookdown]

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think this is large school bias at work again.

Right! The majority of those 32 slots will go to teams like 17-13 UNC or a 16-15 UCONN. If they expand, make it where no one has a first round bye.

If they do this, they are really stupid. They are taking the most exciting two days of sports in the world (1st round action on Thursday and Friday) and greatly diluting it. This will wind up pitting non-power conferences against each other or against the #9 ACC or #10 Big East schools. If they win, then so what. And like you said, it gives the bye schools a chance to scout them in person plus extra rest.

I expect it, but do not like it one bit.

[RealityCheck]

Right! The majority of those 32 slots will go to teams like 17-13 UNC or a 16-15 UCONN. If they expand, make it where no one has a first round bye.

If they do this, they are really stupid. They are taking the most exciting two days of sports in the world (1st round action on Thursday and Friday) and greatly diluting it. This will wind up pitting non-power conferences against each other or against the #9 ACC or #10 Big East schools. If they win, then so what. And like you said, it gives the bye schools a chance to scout them in person plus extra rest.

I expect it, but do not like it one bit.

Exactly...that's why I said go to 128...keep it even for everyone. First-round byes were always my biggest gripe with a 48-team field...96 is twice as bad as 48. 128 wouldn't be twice as good as 64, but it would be a far sight better than 96.

[hookdown]

The Hookdown Plan :icon_wink::


1) Expand to 128 teams (33 conferences)

2) Take the top two from each conference (regular season champ & tourney champ, if same take regular season runner up) 66 slots filled

3) Fill the remainder from the top 128 RPI lists in order (must have winning record - 62 remaining slots)

4) If open slots remain, take remaining schools with best records even if RPI is below others with higher RPI (frankly I don't think RPI should mean squat if you are 16-15 and finished 15th in the Big East...)



This would allow some fairness for each conference (#2), fairness for the power conferences (#3), and fairness for the "little guys" (#4). Since I made this up in about 30 seconds, I have not looked at how it would work in actual practice or historically. Fill free to fire away and poke holes as much as you like. I am sure there are about a 1000 things that are obviously wrong with it. Perhaps option #4 never even comes into play. After I take a look, I reserve the right to tinker and modify...


Still hate the 96 idea and fill they should retract to 64 teams.


Update: Just counted and there were 11 teams in the top 128 RPI standings of .500 or worse starting at #92, UNC 16-16. These teams would not be elgible.

[Dwayne From Minden]

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think this is large school bias at work again.

Going to 96 will allow more schools to get in, which will allow room for more "mid-major" schools. That's a good thing.

But, the top 32 teams will get a bye in the first round, which means that the "big" schools will have a chance to watch their opponent play a game (and have more time to watch film on them) before actually playing them.

Bingo

That and George Mason and Butler crashing the Big Boys party and obtaining VALUABLE revenue units -

Remember the basketball money is what floats the non-revenue producing monies in the AQ conferences also - NOT FOOTBALL....