Expanding Tournament to 96 Teams?

[RealityCheck]

If you picked the 2010 field of 128 using just RPI and winning (not .500 record) as the criteria, 123 teams would automatically have been in...by conference (listed in conference RPI order)

Big 12--8
Big East--13
ACC--9
$EC--7
Big Ten--7
MWC--5
A10--8
Pac 10--5
MVC--7
WAC--4
CUSA--7
Colonial--4
WCC--3
Horizon--3
MAAC--3
MAC--4
Southern--4
Big Sky--3
Big West--3
OVC--2
Sun Belt--2
Ivy--2
Summit--2
America East--1
A-Sun--1
Southland--1
Big South--champion only
Patriot--champion only
Northeast--champion only
MEAC--1
SWAC--champion only
Great West--0

The next 5 teams in RPI below 128 that would be eligible would add 1 team from these conferences--
Horizon--#4
Sun Belt--#3
Ivy--#3
MAAC--#4
A-Sun--#2

[techman05]

I would only like expansion if they did away with all conference tournaments and expanded just enough to give the 1 seeds a bye. Obviously, there needs to be a better advantage given to the 1 seeds. The last few years prove that the gap between great teams and really good teams is closing. If the networks and NCAA want the best teams to be playing late in the tourney, they have to figure out a way to give them an edge.

[inudesu]

Obviously, there needs to be a better advantage given to the 1 seeds.

Why? They get the 16th seed in the first round. What else could they want?

[champion110]

This has just watered down the NIT even more.

Saying that, I really don't care. There will still be upsets and there are a lot of teams that this will help (those teams that lost close games, but had great teams, and didn't get in). There is no such thing as a "mid major", so it won't hurt anyone too much. It will just give more teams a chance to show what they can do.

I know I am in a minority on this, but I don't see any real reason listed above that makes this a bad thing. Yeah, it is for more revenue and it is to get in more of the big conference teams, but that might backfire on them BIG TIME.

[techman05]

Why? They get the 16th seed in the first round. What else could they want?

All I am saying is that now, 1's are going down before the sweet 16 all the time. If the networks and NCAA want the more popular programs, which are often the 1's, to go further in the tourney, they may have to add in more advantages. I love that the field is becoming more even, although the quality isn't as good with guys jetting for the NBA so early. I don't like the idea of expansion, and I hate the idea of play in games. The idea of a bye for a small # of teams is just more appealing to me than other options.

[theprofessor]

The idea of a bye for a small # of teams is just more appealing to me than other options.

i couldn't disagree more. the thing that makes the ncaa tournament the greatest postseason is that everyone has the same opportunity to win it. it's why we see so many upsets. when you start giving teams byes, you are giving them a competitive advantage that takes away what makes the tournament so appealing.

[BuzDawg73]

Why in the world would you want to give the #1's more of an advantage than they already have? And why is it important to have the "more popular" teams get to the final four? What spurs the success of this tournament is the possibility that the pundits get proven wrong. I can not imagine giving the "more popular teams from the "more popular" conferences any more breaks than they already get. Talk about supporting an inequitable system.

[HogDawg]

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

In 5 years 96 will be well accepted

Sorry, but the idea of expanding the NCAA tournament to 96 teams is ludicrous. It "waters down" the tournament too much. We'll simply end up with more games that are not competitive.

Who really wants to see a #24 seed lose by 40 points to a #1 seed? It's absurd, and it's a waste of peoples time and money.


HD

[techman05]

I couldn't agree more that play in games and expanding the tourney are stupid. I like it just the way it is. I am trying to get you guys to understand that, from a money making standpoint, there is more to be made if the popular or major market teams are in the tourney. I am arguing what should be done if the advertisers and networks want to ensure that they make more money. I will be honest, I am not tuning in to see "Northern Southeast corner of Whatever State" play against another directional school. That is what we will get. How many people do you think tossed their brackets and quit paying attention when Georgetown, Cuse, Kansas, and Kentucky all got knocked out? How much harder will it be to keep the masses engaged in a tourney that is so watered down that UML makes it in? All I am saying, as a casual fan, is that you will have to give me something to watch, or I will be getting fired up about Spring Training Baseball. Either keep it the way it is, which is the best postseason tourney in all of sports, or do something to make it more interesting. Do not just add more teams.

[OmahaDawg]

24 will not play #1. The top 8 seeds will receive byes.

By the way, I don't like the 96-team idea.

[hookdown]

Following up on my previous post of 128 teams, here is your field for 2010 using my previous criteria:



America East Conference - Stony Brook, Vermont
Atlantic 10 Conference - Temple, Xavier
Atlantic Coast Conference - Duke, Maryland
Atlantic Sun Conference - ETSU, Lipscomb
Big 12 Conference - Kansas, Kansas State*
Big East Conference - West Virginia, Syracuse
Big South Conference - Coastal Carolina, Winthrop
Big Sky Conference - Montana, Weber State
Big Ten Conference - Ohio State, Purdue*
Big West Conference - UCSB, Pacific*
Colonial Athletic Association - ODU, Northeastern*
Conference USA - Houson, UTEP
Great West Conference - South Dakota, HBU*
Horizon League - Butler, Wright State*
Ivy League - Cornell, Princeton
Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference - Siena, Fairfield*
Mid-American Conference - Ohio, Kent State
Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference - Morgan State, Delaware State*
Missouri Valley Conference - Northern Iowa, Wichita State*
Mountain West Conference - SDSU, New Mexico
Northeast Conference - Quinnipiac, Robert Morris
Ohio Valley Conference - Murray State, Morehead State*
Pacific 10 Conference - Washington, California
Patriot League - Lehigh, Bucknell*
Southeastern Conference - Kentucky, Mississippi State*
Southern Conference - Wofford, Appalachian State*
Southland Conference - Sam Houston State, Stephen F. Austin*
Southwestern Athletic Conference - UAPB, Jackson State
Sun Belt Conference - UNT, Troy
The Summit League - Oakland, IUPUI*
West Coast Conference - St. Marys, Gonzaga
Western Athletic Conference - NMSU, Utah State

* Regular season champ also won conference tournament


At Large:
1 Georgetown
2 Baylor
3 Villanova
4 Texas A&M
5 Tennessee
6 Pittsburgh
7 Wisconsin
8 BYU
9 Richmond
10 Vanderbilt
11 Michigan State
12 Texas
13 Oklahoma State
14 Georgia Tech
15 Clemson
16 Louisville
17 Wake Forest
18 Rhode Island
19 Florida State
20 Missouri
21 UAB
22 UNLV
23 Notre Dame
24 Marquette
25 Memphis
26 Dayton
27 William & Mary
28 Virginia Tech
29 Seton Hall
30 Ole Miss
31 Arizona State
32 UConn
33 Cincinnati
34 VCU
35 Marshall
36 Tulsa
37 South Florida
38 Texas Tech
39 Nevada
40 Illinois
41 Northeastern
42 Illinois State
43 Charlotte
44 Louisiana Tech
45 Portland
46 St. Johns
47 Iona
48 St. Louis
49 Indiana State
50 Akron
51 Missouri State
52 Charleston
53 Arizona
54 NC State
55 Miami
56 Harvard
57 Alabama
58 Bradley
59 Wisconsin-Green Bay
60 Buffalo
61 USC
62 Southern Mississippi
63 Creighton
64 Northwestern (RPI # 116)



Also, I made a mistake previously. There are only 32 conferences, one of which does not have an automatic bid at this time (Great West). In this scenario, I went ahead and gave them one.



Update: I just counted it up and only 47 of the 128 come from the "power" conferences or about 1/3. I kind of like that.

[counselingdawg]

I say let all 300+ teams in tournament. This has been bandied about for years, would only take a couple more rounds and no-body could gripe they didn't get in.

[hookdown]

I say let all 300+ teams in tournament. This has been bandied about for years, would only take a couple more rounds and no-body could gripe they didn't get in.

Make them 3 game playoffs for each round and, start in November, and we can eliminate the regular season as well! :icon_wink:


I have heard this as well. To me there is not a whole lot of difference between 96 and 300whatever...

I still say 64 is the perfect number.

[HogDawg]

24 will not play #1. The top 8 seeds will receive byes.

That doesn't mean a #24 seed won't play a #1 seed in #24's 2nd round. If a #24 seed wins their first game (against say, a #9), then you could end up with a #24 vs #1 don't you?



HD

[theprofessor]

That doesn't mean a #24 seed won't play a #1 seed in #24's 2nd round. If a #24 seed wins their first game (against say, a #9), then you could end up with a #24 vs #1 don't you?

no, they won't re-seed the tournament after the first round. the #24 would then play the #8, and the #1 would play the 16-17 winner. here's how it would look:

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

i actually think you would have more likelihood of a #1 seed losing its first game if it's playing a 16/17 that is a solid mid-major or a streaky major, rather than one of the worst seeds in the tourney.

that said, i am not in favor of expanding to 96.