NCAA BB Tournament Expansion?

[NeedMoreFans]

I heard this on the radio today, and have read it on a couple of blogs...Apparently, the NCAA is considering expanding the men's BB tournament. The report says that the tournament could be expended to either 68 or 96 teams. If it would go to 96, it would mean the end of the NIT. They say the NCAA can get out of it's current deal with CBS, so it is shopping for a deal, which may include more than one network.

 

Link to Blog

 

Personally, 68 makes sense, but not 96. It would reduce the importance of the regular season, and would make tournament appearances less meaningful.

[owbc]

So basically, the idea is to leave the horrible football BCS alone, while completely messing up the basketball tournament that everyone likes the way it is.

[paul253]

96 is way too many teams. I know every year you have 4 or 5 teams that whine about not making the tournament. But let's face it, even if those teams did make it they'd be lucky to win the first game. Each year there are probably 6-7 teams that have a real good shot at winning it all, and every now and again you get a real shocker from a 5-8 seed. The tournament is perfect the way it is. There is no reason to water it down to the point where teams with records of 16-14 getting in.

[trwi7]

Who wouldn't love to see a 1 vs 24 seed matchup?

[Invader3K]

"Let's take what works and wreck it!"

[Brewtacular]

With 96 teams even the gophers could make the tourney 11 straight years! Er...maybe if it is 128.

[davego]

The only thing that I'd like if they did go to a 96 team is some sort of losers bracket that could be turned into the NIT. Say, after the first weekend you could have those teams still playback and the NIT becomes much more interesting. I do like the part where every regular season champ gets a birth in the NCAA's. To me, that increases the value of the regular season, greatly.

 

But, all in all...leave it alone.

[homer]

This would further dilute the already more or less meaningless in season games.

[owbc]

I think the plan is to give a number of first round byes to make things work out...so there still would be nothing lower than a 1/16 game.

[davego]

If the regular season champs of a conference are assured a birth when winning the regualr season; wouldn't that increase the value of the season? Might cut-away at the conference tourneys I suppose...

[NeedMoreFans]

I think the plan is to give a number of first round byes to make things work out...so there still would be nothing lower than a 1/16 game.

My guess is that the 1-8 seeds would not have a first round game. They would play the winners of the first round. I guess technically, there could be a game lower than 1/16...if all of the 17-24 seeds win that first round game.

 

I guess I would have no problem with adding 3 teams, so every region has a play-in game, but 96 is too over the top.

[craigharmann]

So basically, the idea is to leave the horrible football BCS alone,

Oh goodness no! The government is going to fix that!

[DHonks]

I support 96 teams because it means smaller conferences will get some more respect. I was in college about 10 years ago, and at least 2 of the years my Santa Clara Broncos had 20+ wins. Yet they didn't even get an NIT invite. These seasons included beating Gonzaga (by then consistently in NCAA) and finishing 3rd in a conference in which 2 teams were making the tourny each year (usually Pepperdine and Gonzaga). Making matters worse is that friends at Minnesota one year saw their team make the post-season with a 15-14 record, while my school had one of its best seasons since Steve Nash's days, and were punished because the WCC was too strong that year. And the regular season still would matter...it would affect seeding!

[JJHardy7]

I think the plan is to give a number of first round byes to make things work out...so there still would be nothing lower than a 1/16 game.

 

If this is the plan, I really like it. We'll get to see some major conferences vs. some mid majors and have the best team (not bigger conference) advance. I do not want to see a #1 vs. a #24 or anything like that. I also think this would create better matchups in the second round of the tournament. One of the problems with the tournament is seeding smaller schools. Sometimes they are seeded too high or too low...and sometimes they aren't good, but they received an automatic birth. The additional teams would essentially correct some of that problem.

[patrickgpe]

id expand it to 68 to force all 16 seeds to earn a spot. It wouldn't hurt the tournament at all. 96 teams would make a mockery of it and make the conference season worthless as all "bcs" schools and most mid majors with a winning record would be in. Thats approximately 1/3 of all D1 schools.

[bjkrautk]

id expand it to 68 to force all 16 seeds to earn a spot. It wouldn't hurt the tournament at all. 96 teams would make a mockery of it and make the conference season worthless as all "bcs" schools and most mid majors with a winning record would be in. Thats approximately 1/3 of all D1 schools.

I don't know that I like the idea of making the lesser schools play 3 games during the opening week to everyone else's two. I also don't like the notion that 16 seeds don't "earn" their way in to the tournament: their league has an automatic bid, and established their own procedure for determining who gets it.

 

That's a moot point, since no 1 seed has ever lost a first-round game. The failure of any 16 seed to advance really makes it difficult to justify expanding past 64 teams.

 

 

[JJHardy7]

The failure of any 16 seed to advance really makes it difficult to justify expanding past 64 teams.

 

This is a good point. I guess the way I look at it is that if you have a mid major that had a winning record/good season, but didn't get inot the dance as it stands now...they'd play a weak automatic bid team in the '1st round' and settle the issue on the court. No offense to any smaller schools or small conferences...but some of these 16 seeds clearly aren't better than a lot of teams left out.

 

I know it would not be a good thing for small conferences (like the Ivy league), but I think if you're going to put the best teams in the tournament I like the idea of expansion. It does have its own issues though.

[JJHardy7]

id expand it to 68 to force all 16 seeds to earn a spot. It wouldn't hurt the tournament at all. 96 teams would make a mockery of it and make the conference season worthless as all "bcs" schools and most mid majors with a winning record would be in. Thats approximately 1/3 of all D1 schools.

 

I believe more than half of NBA teams make the playoffs...and isn't something like more than half of D1 football teams go to a bowl game? I know the 1/3 sounds like a big percentage, but it's not that different than some other current scenarios.

 

If this happens, it'd be nice to get rid of the NIT tournament.

[pitchleague]

If this happens, it'd be nice to get rid of the NIT tournament.

this just can NOT happen! My yearly NIT Pool is the bombz!

 

 

[randybreuerfan]

72 teams would work --

 

Teams would be seeded up to 18. 15 v 18 and 16 v 17 at all 8 first-weekend sites on Tuesday.

 

The past 4-5 years it seems like there were a few teams left out that really had a chance to upset a 3-6 seed.

[dadofandrew]

I think Bo Ryan has said all teams should be in, though I'm not sure how he'd swing it.

 

I'm all in favor of 96, as DH pointed out, many solid teams win conference and then lose in the tourney, finish 27-5, and somehow get left out. The ACC, Big Ten, and Big East's 9th and 10th place teams are usually better than many small conferences top team, and as George Mason proved, you can be a very good team getting hot at the right time, and make it a long way.

 

It would also allow teams who had injuries, academic troubles, and such to sneak in as well.

[MJLiverock]

Hate the idea. 64 is plenty, just because a few 5th place teams from major conferences don't get in there is no reason to water it down.

 

With 96 would the top 32 get a bye so the first round would be a bunch of teams seeded 9+ being playing on Mon. Tues. Wed? They would almost have to play those games at the home court of the higher seeded team unless they expected the winning team to spend the whole week at the site. A nine vs. 24 game, 10 vs 23, etc. really doesn't seem any better than the NIT tourney and those games really arent' that interesting except the fans of the schools involved. Attendence at 1st round games now is fairly spotty unless it basically a home game for one of the teams.

 

The Cinderella stories would drop off as some of the smaller schools had to beat one more major to advance to the 64 round. Seeing a team like VMI knock out a Duke in round 1 versus VMI playing a 5th place team from the Pac10 in round one or even losing just so we can see the middle of the pack big school play a top team just doesn't carry the fun underdog rooting fandom that makes the NCAA tourney great.

[LouisEly]

Personally I think any team should have to have a winning conference record in order to get into the tourney. Schools like Gonzaga and others have won enough games where a team that goes 14-2 in their conference is just as likely to win a first round game as an 8-8 team from a "major" conference. Maybe 8-8 could qualify, but a losing conference record should disqualify you for the tourney. If you're not among the top half of teams in your own conference you don't deserve to be there.

 

Maybe 68 teams as long as there is some criteria that the last 8 teams to get in must have at least 20 wins or 10 conference wins, I might be behind it. But I don't need to see those extra three teams be 17-14 teams from power conferences.

[paul253]

I can't believe they are seriously considering this. I thought this was something someone from ESPN though of or something. The tournament is the most successful event the NCAA has. Why mess with it? Are they really that concerned that people's feelings are hurt because they don't get to play in it? Think about it. Of all these teams that complain they don't make the tournament, most of them can't even win the NIT! Who the heck wants to see N.C. State play Providence in a first round tournament game?

 

This just shows how backwards the NCAA is. The won't institute a college football playoff and now they want to double what was supposed to be an elite basketball tournament. What a joke.

[twobrewers]

I hate the idea as well.

 

It really minimizes the excitement of the mid to small majors that have fantastic conference tournaments. The Big Ten tournament, while mildly exciting, isn't really needed. The conference tournaments where only the champion will get into the NCAA tournament - fantastic! (Being a huge Gonzaga fan, the WCC conference tournament is held each year in Las Vegas and is amazing. Everyone knows the Zags are getting in, but the other teams are playing for their lives for the upset to sneak into the tournament. The WCC tournament, for me, is as exciting as the NCAA tournament)

 

In that sense, the NCAA tournament already is expanded. You just have to think of the conference tournaments as "play-in" games.