Possible tourney expansion

[met1990]

Any thoughts on the potential the men's tournament could expand to 96 teams?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/basketball/ncaa/02/04/ncaa.tournament.expansion.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

It seems like one of those things that will eventually happen regardless of what the fans think. Too much money to be made. Pretty soon every NCAA basketball and I-A football team will be in the postseason regardless of whether they earn it.

[NDSUstudent]

I am pretty mixed on the whole thing. In theory if a great mid-major screws up in their tourney it will give them a second chance but the committee also loves high majors and I'm sure they would put at least 10 of them with .500 records in the dance. Yuck....

Honestly, my favored expansion would be move to 68 teams and have the last 8 at-large bids play-in.

[EndZoneQB]

This is a fail.

[North Side]

i am totally against it............ only reason it would be done is to make more money............. 65 teams is enough lets keep it that way!!!!!!! NIT can get bigger for all i care just dont touch the big dance its great the way it is....

[IzzyFlexion]

i am totally against it............ only reason it would be done is to make more money............. 65 teams is enough lets keep it that way!!!!!!! NIT can get bigger for all i care just dont touch the big dance its great the way it is....

Agreed. When there are only a couple dozen teams capable of making it to the final 4 as it is, why throw that many more cinderella hopefuls in there clogging it up.

[Tatanka]

Pass.

Anyone who really thinks this will be good for the little guys is loco in la cabeza.

[Blue]

I actually addressed this back on Monday on my Twitter page. The article I found here: http://ow.ly/12GSN (http://ow.ly/12GSN) first surfaced in the SportsBusiness Journal.

My first take was that mid and low majors will be screwed if this happens.

My second take was that expanding the field should mean all mid and low major conferences get 2 teams in. Because we all know March Madness is great because of the Cinderella stories that come up.

But we all know the NCAA is a greedy, money hungry bastard that likes the big schools more than the small schools. Will be interesting to see this played out.

[tony]

Bah, if they do this, only conference tourney champs and teams .500 or better in their conference should get in... but we know that is not how it's going to work.

[heckler]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304574596193031015448.html

Which extra 31 teams would have played in the NCAA tournament with a 96-team field? Below is an educated guess culled from the NIT field. All but Bowling Green makes the cut – the Falcons had the lowest ratings percentage index (RPI) of the NIT's four No. 8 seeds:

Auburn – 22-11 (10-6 SEC, 2nd in West Division)
@Baylor – 20-14 (5-11 Big 12, 9th)
Creighton – 26-7 (14-4 Missouri Valley, tied 1st)
Davidson – 26-7 (18-2 Southern, 1st in South Division)
Duquesne – 21-12 (9-7 Atlantic 10, tied 5th)
Florida – 23-10 (9-7 SEC, 3rd in East Division)
George Mason – 22-10 (13-5 Colonial, 2nd)
Georgetown – 16-14 (7-11 Big East, tied 11th)
Illinois State – 24-9 (11-7 Missouri Valley, 3rd)
Jacksonville – 18-13 (15-5 Atlantic Sun, 1st)
Kansas State – 21-11 (9-7 Big 12, tied 4th)
Kentucky – 20-13 (8-8 SEC, tied 4th in East Division)
Miami – 18-12 (7-9 ACC, tied 7th)
Niagara – 26-8 (14-4 MAAC, 2nd)
Nebraska –18-12 (8-8 Big 12, 8th)
New Mexico – 21-11 (12-4 Mountain West, tied 1st)
Northwestern – 17-13 (8-10 Big Ten, 9th)
*Notre Dame – 18-14 (8-10 Big East, tied 9th)
$Penn State – 22-11 (10-8 Big Ten, tied 4th)
Providence – 19-13 (10-8 Big East, tied 7th)
Rhode Island – 22-10 (11-5 Atlantic 10, tied 2nd)
Saint Mary's – 26-6 (10-4 West Coast, 2nd)
*San Diego State – 23-9 (11-5 Mountain West, 4th)
South Carolina – 21-9 (10-6 SEC, tied 1st in East Division)
Tennessee-Martin – 22-9 (14-4 Ohio Valley, 1st)
Tulsa – 24-10 (12-4 Conference USA, 2nd)
UAB – 22-11 (11-5 Conference USA, 3rd)
UNLV – 21-10 (9-7 Mountain West, 5th)
Virginia Tech – 18-14 (7-9 ACC, tied 7th)
Washington State – 17-15 (8-10 Pac 10, 7th)
Weber State – 21-9 (15-1 Big Sky, 1st)

$-NIT champion
@-NIT runner-up
*-lost in NIT semifinals

[missingnumber7]

All in all it means something for mid majors getting 1 or 2 more in possibly and the majors all getting at least another in.

[ndsubison1]

dumbest idea ever

[IndyBison]

I didn't read this article but past discussions were centered around coaches because coaches would be on the hot seat if they didn't make the tournament. With an expansion, they could the same record during the seasno and conference tournament but add "NCAA Tournament" team to their resume for that season. I think that's a very bad reason for doing this. I liked it as it was with 64 and the 65th team is silly. I wish the play-in game was the last 2 at-large teams and not two low auto-qualifiers.

[HoboJack]

I didn't read this article but past discussions were centered around coaches because coaches would be on the hot seat if they didn't make the tournament. With an expansion, they could the same record during the seasno and conference tournament but add "NCAA Tournament" team to their resume for that season. I think that's a very bad reason for doing this. I liked it as it was with 64 and the 65th team is silly. I wish the play-in game was the last 2 at-large teams and not two low auto-qualifiers.

I personnaly think this would be the worst thing possible for the mid-majors, and the Cindarella stories of the Tourney. Right now the last at-large bid take up the 10-11 seeds typically. Most of the true 'Cindarellas' are the 12-14 seeds, that nobody really expects to win. Any expansion won't add teams at the bottom end, it will be additional at larges in the lower middle. If they add 7 teams to 72, last at larges will be 12-13 seeds. That means the team that would have been a Cindarella in the current format would now be a 14-15 seed, have to play a play-in game, then turn around & play a 1 or 2 seed in the next round (of 64). I believe only 2 #2's have ever lost in the first round & no #1 has ever lost a first round game.

The tourney would lose the 'Cindarella' story so that a Big East team with a losing conference record, or the 7th place team in the Big 11 can get in the tourney. Those schools might buy more tickets, but they won't make more people watch at home. The TV viewership is where the money for the Tourney is really made.

I think every team already has a chance to get in the big dance. Do well enough in the regular season & win your conference tourney. Do that & you get your shot. Don't cheapen the experience by fixing what isn't broken.

[ndsubison1]

I personnaly think this would be the worst thing possible for the mid-majors, and the Cindarella stories of the Tourney. Right now the last at-large bid take up the 10-11 seeds typically. Most of the true 'Cindarellas' are the 12-14 seeds, that nobody really expects to win. Any expansion won't add teams at the bottom end, it will be additional at larges in the lower middle. If they add 7 teams to 72, last at larges will be 12-13 seeds. That means the team that would have been a Cindarella in the current format would now be a 14-15 seed, have to play a play-in game, then turn around & play a 1 or 2 seed in the next round (of 64). I believe only 2 #2's have ever lost in the first round & no #1 has ever lost a first round game.

The tourney would lose the 'Cindarella' story so that a Big East team with a losing conference record, or the 7th place team in the Big 11 can get in the tourney. Those schools might buy more tickets, but they won't make more people watch at home. The TV viewership is where the money for the Tourney is really made.

I think every team already has a chance to get in the big dance. Do well enough in the regular season & win your conference tourney. Do that & you get your shot. Don't cheapen the experience by fixing what isn't broken.

Yep. We would not see as many cinderella runs if expansion were to happen. The top teams would get a first round bye giving them an even higher advantage

[TheDoctor]

I better go Twitter about this and when I am done, I'll come back here and provide you guys with a link :D ;)

[onbison09]

Plus the NCAA's new slogan would be "See ya in March." The regular season wouldn't mean jack.

[SDbison]

Any thoughts on the potential the men's tournament could expand to 96 teams?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/basketball/ncaa/02/04/ncaa.tournament.expansion.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

It seems like one of those things that will eventually happen regardless of what the fans think. Too much money to be made. Pretty soon every NCAA basketball and I-A football team will be in the postseason regardless of whether they earn it.
As it stands now there are 34 FBS bowl games and about 124 FBS teams. So 68 out of about 124 possible teams get in a bowl game. Thats close to 55% of all teams. Way too much!
With DI basketball there are something like 320 teams and currently 65 DI teams make the tourney. This means 20% of all teams make it.
In my opinion selecting anything more than the top 1 out of 4 teams is too much so the NCAA basketball tourney has it about right.
If anything, the NCAA should expand the play in games to 16 (4 in each bracket) to allow conferences like the Summit to get their second place team (or #1 conference team that loses in conf tournament) a chance to prove it belongs. Then there are about 25% teams that make the tourney.
Of course this makes sense and the NCAA will never do that.

[Tatanka]

As it stands now there are 34 FBS bowl games and about 124 FBS teams. So 68 out of about 124 possible teams get in a bowl game. Thats close to 55% of all teams. Way too much!
With DI basketball there are something like 320 teams and currently 65 DI teams make the tourney. This means 20% of all teams make it.
In my opinion selecting anything more than the top 1 out of 4 teams is too much so the NCAA basketball tourney has it about right.
If anything, the NCAA should expand the play in games to 16 (4 in each bracket) to allow conferences like the Summit to get their second place team (or #1 conference team that loses in conf tournament) a chance to prove it belongs. Then there are about 25% teams that make the tourney.
Of course this makes sense and the NCAA will never do that.

Don't disagree with your logic, if that's the way it actually would work. However, there's no way in hell the NCAA would take a second-place team / #1 team that loses in tourney from the Summit over some middling team from a power conference. So we're back to square 1. Best bet for the Summit to get a second team in the tourney is to... ok, well that's a non-starter.

I agree though--basketball has it closer to right than most other college sports. Don't mess with what ain't broke.

[CaBisonFan]

Could this mean that the Big 'Ten' would get 'eleven' teams in?

But seriously...if it meant that a very strong mid-major could get an at-large bid...then I'm for it.

The Monster Dance.

[ISXBISON]

Horrible idea that will water down and destroy what is and has been the most exciting event in college sports.