128 teams in March Madness?

[cartman]

Wow, that would be about 1/3 of all Div. 1 schools getting in. I could see some conferences sending all of their teams. I can see expanding a bit, but doubling? Wow!

hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2500025

Field of 128? Hoops coaches want tourney expanded
Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS -- In a perfect world, college basketball coaches would nearly double the size of the 65-team NCAA men's tournament field. Realistically, they'd accept a smaller victory.

Motivated in part by George Mason's remarkable Final Four run last season, coaches will urge the NCAA to expand its most lucrative championship event during the men's and women's basketball committee meetings in Orlando, Fla., this week.

"They'd love to see the tournament double to 128," said Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches. "It's based on several things. First, there are a lot of good teams worthy of making the NCAA field, and second, the size of 64 or 65 has been in place for a number of years."

Potential models range from minor adjustments to major changes.

When Haney met with NCAA officials last month, he proposed the 128-team field in part because postseason bids may help coaches keep their jobs.

At this year's Final Four, though, Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim said he supported expansion on a smaller scale. Boeheim and others suggested adding three to seven teams, a move they claimed would allow as many as four opening-round games to be played in Dayton, Ohio, instead of the one now played between the two lowest-seeded teams in the field.

Some believe such a schedule would create a more realistic tournament environment since first-round sites also play four games on the first day.

But changes don't appear imminent.

In March, NCAA president Myles Brand said he didn't see much support to expand the field and vice president for men's basketball Greg Shaheen reiterated that point Friday.

"Many, many people believe the size of the championship is just right," Shaheen said. "A lot of people think there's enough recognition of teams that did well and there's a logical and timely conclusion to the season."

Shaheen said this week's discussions, which end Thursday, will mark the first time expansion has been on the agenda in several years. The reason?

After a four-year legal battle with the National Invitation Tournament, the NCAA agreed to buy the tournament for $56.5 million last August.

Expansion also faces additional hurdles.

If the NCAA opted for a 128-team field, the number of first-round sites would double and an extra week of play would likely be added. Plus, Shaheen said the NCAA would have to debate how best to provide maximum television coverage.

Shaheen said changes would also have to be made in conjunction with the women's tournament.

"There is no one model that is obvious here, and that's something we need to contemplate," he said. "The other issue is how the women's tournament would be similarly impacted here and they need to coincide."

The coaches, however, contend there are many reasons to expand. Among their arguments:

• The number of Division I teams has increased significantly since the last major expansion more than two decades ago. The field went from 48 to 64 teams in 1985, then added a 65th team to the field in 2001 when the number of automatic bids went from 30 to 31.

• George Mason, which was one of the last at-large teams to make the field this year, proved parity in college basketball is real. The combination of prominent programs losing underclassmen at faster rates and scholarship reductions have helped mid-major schools become more competitive. The coaches believe they deserved to be rewarded accordingly.

• Now that the NCAA controls both postseason tournaments, coaches think it's time to include some of the bubble teams that annually complain when they are left out.

Could it happen?

"I don't think the idea of doubling the field is going to happen right now because there are too many complications to do that," Haney said. "But I think the committee will seriously consider what the number will be. ... I think if it happens, it will have to happen soon because of the logistical issues."

[sovereignstar]

uh.. no

[sooner333]

There's one too many in there as it is. The upsets are nice in the first few rounds, but realistically, only a handful of teams have a chance to win the whole thing. The upsets would lose their luster with the added teams, because the bigger names would have less of a chance to lose to the even worse 25 or so seeds. Then, when they happened in the second round then they would be not as shocking because both teams won their first game.

This is a terrible idea.

[Joe]

it should be 32

[Buccaneer]

32 sounds good but I would agree with 48 (plus getting rid of the automatic berth). If you want the prestige of making the playoffs, then do good in the regular season and conf tournament.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

32 sounds good but I would agree with 48 (plus getting rid of the automatic berth). If you want the prestige of making the playoffs, then do good in the regular season and conf tournament.

Is this a suggestion that you should SHRINK the tournament to 32? That is off the charts ludicrous and woud kill the tournament and college basketball.

The NCAA tournament has been around for around 70 years and virtually no one noticed until the 1980s. Some of the title games in the '60s weren't even broadcast on TV. Even in the '70s, no one cared until the Final Four and even then the title game was played on the weekend in the afternoon because no one would watch in primetime. It wasn't until the field expanded to 48 and ESPN provided early round coverage in the 1980s that the tournament began to become something, and even then it didn't reach a glory age until it reached 64.

You marginalize the regular season and postseason tournies a bit by expanding the NCAA field, but not that much. The KU/Texas Big XII final was a great battle, even though both times were ensured bids. Nobody lets up in college basketball because they know there in the tourney -- they still want to win. In that regard, I don't think expanding the NCAA will do that much to the regular season.

But the excitement that would be created by getting more mid-major and even one-bid conference schools in? That would be awesome for college basketball. Sure, you'd have times when a No. 1 seed Duke would pound a No. 32 seed. But you'd also have times when a No. 31 seed 29-3 Holy Cross team upset by Bucknell in the Patriot League championship game will stun the hell out of a No. 2 seed Arizona.

Almost every other level of basketball operates the same way -- half the league gets into the NBA playoffs, but right now less than 1/5th of college teams get into the playoffs. I'd hazard to guess that most if not all high school leagues are an all-comers tournament, just that it starts in district play first rather than statewide. College basketball has the greatest postseason limit on teams than any other level of basketball.

College basketball and the NCAA tournament is great -- why would you want less of a good thing?

That said, we're years or decadedes away from a 128-team field. I imagine a few more teams will be added, just enough to add a couple of more "Opening Round" games to the mix. One change I would like to see made -- I'd like to see the final at-large teams forced to play in the Opening Round. Teams who won their automatic bid and make the tournament should get to play in the tournament -- not be forced to travel on 48-hour notice to Dayton, Ohio to meet another school just like them who thought they had made the field of 64 and have now been banished to the cow pasture of ESPN2.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

One change I would like to see made -- I'd like to see the final at-large teams forced to play in the Opening Round. Teams who won their automatic bid and make the tournament should get to play in the tournament -- not be forced to travel on 48-hour notice to Dayton, Ohio to meet another school just like them who thought they had made the field of 64 and have now been banished to the cow pasture of ESPN2.

I've liked this one too. Put the last two teams in the play-in and put them in the 12 or 13 seed spot in the bracket. The one BIG drawback is that it messes up brackets because while it is likely that at least one 12 seed will win a game in the tournament, it is very unlikely that the current 16 seed play-in winner will upset the likes of Duke or UCONN in round one, thus you can simply ignore the game and have bracket pools due on Thursday morning.

[timmynausea]

I definitely don't think it should shrink. Doubling the amount of teams in the tournament really only adds one round, which would take 1 or 2 days. As a fan I'd rather watch that and have one or two less regular season games.

[cartman]

I think that expansion is going to be inevitable. Hopefully, for me at least, it will help be an impetus for 1A football to move to a playoff.

I think the article does hit on a good point, that parity is becoming more and more of a factor. The "prestige" schools are always going to grab the top talent, which only sticks around for one or two years. The mid and lower schools are getting decent guys that are sticking around for 4 years, and building cohesiveness. Texas, North Carolina, and Memphis are examples of the former, and George Mason and this year's Florida examples of the latter. It appears that the parity is now a result of raw talent on a team being offset by the cohesiveness of working together several years as a team.

Since the NCAA now owns the NIT, I could see them being folded together for a 96 team tourney, with the top 32 teams getting a first round bye.

[ice4277]

Too many people make too much money off of brackets that work just fine with 64 teams. The NCAA needs to realize that that is where 75% of the interest in their tournament comes from. The beauty is in the simplicity of filling out the bracket; everyone does it, and everyone watches (at least a bit). Make it more confusing/bigger than that, I think interest in certain circles will wane.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

One change I would like to see made -- I'd like to see the final at-large teams forced to play in the Opening Round. Teams who won their automatic bid and make the tournament should get to play in the tournament -- not be forced to travel on 48-hour notice to Dayton, Ohio to meet another school just like them who thought they had made the field of 64 and have now been banished to the cow pasture of ESPN2.

Agreed, and I've been trying to make this argument on the board for some time.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...1&postcount=28

Please ignore that whole "I think Monmouth has a shot against Nova" thing.

[Buccaneer]

Almost every other level of basketball operates the same way -- half the league gets into the NBA playoffs, but right now less than 1/5th of college teams get into the playoffs.

I've seen this argument recently (I forget what the topic was, I think was the bowl games). Again, my reply would be that the problem is the former, not the latter. Granted, 20% is too small but consider the source - you have too many conference that shouldn't even be in Division 1-A. Eliminate those and you get a more respectable 25-35%, on par with MLB and NFL. 6-6 or even 6-5 teams have no business being invited to a bowl agame - it not only cheapens the regular season but the post-season as well. The business of excitement or ratings or revenues ring hollow. You put cars going in a circle with the anticipation of crashes and you get all of those.

I know that they will never go back to 48. It's just a voice of opposition in perhaps thinking 64 may be too many (or at least just right) and not jumping on the expanded number. It's no different than arguing for a libertarian point of view in not accepting the status quo or making it worse.

[Groundhog]

The NCAA tourney is perfect as-is. Please don't kill it.

[QuikSand]

A 128-team anything would be very tough to print out on one page for bracket contests.









...and you think I'm joking?

[stevew]

I would do something like adding play in games for seeds 12-16. That would expand the field to 84, you could put most of the lower tiered automatics into these slots. And then some of the 10/11 seeds could be teams that would normally be top seeds in the NIT.

[Galaxy]

Less teams...Let's have the best-season teams play...Get rid of the post-season tournaments, and award each regular season champ and the top few at-large teams a bid. My theory now is that the hottest team usually wins the tournament, not the best.

[sabotai]

I say they drop the tournament and adapt a Bowl Game type system.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I say they drop the tournament and adapt a Bowl Game type system.

[Young Drachma]

The big schools are trying act as if they want to let more mid-majors in. The reality is, they want to ensure that a big tournament will kill any hopes of an upstart like George Mason from doing what they did.

Keep it the way it is or at the most, add a few opening round games to the fray. But I prefer it the way it is now.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The big schools are trying act as if they want to let more mid-majors in. The reality is, they want to ensure that a big tournament will kill any hopes of an upstart like George Mason from doing what they did.

Keep it the way it is or at the most, add a few opening round games to the fray. But I prefer it the way it is now.

Adding one more game against a team that wouldn't make it to the tournament as-is wouldn't prevent teams like George Mason.

[clintl]

So the NCAA wants a 128-team playoff for basketball, but no playoff at all for football.

[Buccaneer]

You can play far more games of basketball in a short amount of time than in football.

[clintl]

You can play one football game a week.

The NCAA basketball tournament plays two rounds per week.

It's pretty damn easy to have a 16-team football playoff in the same amount of time that it takes to run the 65-team basketball tournament.

After all, every NCAA division except Division I-A manages to accomplish that.