Should NCAA Expand Tournament to 96 Teams?

[RainMaker]

Just curious what the consensus is amongst sports fans here. Can continue to discuss in other thread.

[DaddyTorgo]

I get the argument based on the fact that it'd actually help the smaller teams, but i think it might make it less 'special" and really be sorta overkill

[Groundhog]

If it aint broke...

[rowech]

When a 16 team wins a game we can talk.

[molson]

There's way more division I teams than there was in 1985, when they went to 64 teams. So I can see some expansion, but 96 seems a little drastic. Maybe just have a few more play-in games, including bubble teams playing for a 12 seed.

[PackerFanatic]

I think the "play-in game" to make it 65 teams is enough of a joke. And as a lot of people have said, the "at-large" class this year was pretty weak, imagine how watered down things would get if you added 30 more teams. Plus it would really put a damper on the conference tournaments (and kill the NIT, but do we really care about that?)

[gstelmack]

Screw it, just bundle the conference tourneys into the NCAA tourney. I know they expanded so conference runners-up had a shot, but if you set this up right and just had every conference run their tourneys as the early rounds, they'd have everybody involved and we could be done with the discussion.

[wade moore]

I'm a big mid-major supporter - and I'm totally against this idea.

[stevew]

I think they should give the top 8 conference tournament winners byes into the sweet 16 and cut the field to 40.

Maybe you add 8 more spots and have some of these minor conferences play in for 9 and 10 seeds. That would give you 48 teams

[wade moore]

Cut teams? Um, no.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I'm a big mid-major supporter - and I'm totally against this idea.

Yeah, I have a lot of friends from those schools that are against it too. It would help them a lot too. There are always mid-majors who have really good years and are better than a lot of tournament teams that just don't get the opportunity to show it due to how the system is setup.

But it also diminishes what making the tournament means. There is an element of the game where just making the tournament is good enough. While you would love to see W&M do well in it, I think just an appearance would be a huge victory in your world (and the rest of the W&M community). If you put 96 in, it's just not that special to get in. It becomes more like college bowl season where everyone with a pulse gets to play.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, I have a lot of friends from those schools that are against it too. It would help them a lot too. There are always mid-majors who have really good years and are better than a lot of tournament teams that just don't get the opportunity to show it due to how the system is setup.

But it also diminishes what making the tournament means. There is an element of the game where just making the tournament is good enough. While you would love to see W&M do well in it, I think just an appearance would be a huge victory in your world (and the rest of the W&M community). If you put 96 in, it's just not that special to get in. It becomes more like college bowl season where everyone with a pulse gets to play.

Yup - pretty much sums it up.

[RainMaker]

Does anyone know what happens if they do expand for next year? I've already bought tickets to the first and second rounds. I mean you'd have to either add another day to the region (and hope the arena is open) or make the opening round games hosted on campus (which bring in massive corruption and ruins the whole point of the tournament).

If it does happen, I'd love for them to add a Tuesday/Wednesday set of games for free.

[BYU 14]

In think the field is stretched as it is. The 64th team in will never win it all and it would completely diminish what the regular season and conference tournaments mean IMO. Conference tournaments provide ample opportunity for Cinderella teams to snag a spot.

While not defending their regular season title may knock some smaller teams out, would they really fair well in the big dance if they lose to a team in their conference tournament that finishes 16-15 on the season?

[wade moore]

Don't believe anyone that tries to tell you this is to help the "little guy". This will let a LOT more high majors in and a few more mids. In the end, this is all about the money.

Fans don't want it. Coaches don't want it. The "media" doesn't want it.

CBS and the NCAA want it to line their pockets.

[Big Fo]

No. And get rid of the play-in game.

[RainMaker]

I disagree about the coaches. From reading, it seems like most are in favor of it. That could be just them taking the party line, or it could be that it helps their job security. Making the tournament is an accomplishment and as long as you do it, your job is relatively safe (unless you're at a top school). Just like bowl games, it means more of a chance that these guys can sit back and say "well we did make the tournament 4 of the last 5 years". No one really cares if you are a 5 seed or 12 seed as long as you are in.

[Lathum]

The bitch of it is it seems college basketball has evolved to the point of where the 15-2, 14-3, and 13-4 games aren't all blow outs. There is enough parity to make these opening games competitive and they are going to mess it up by adding more teams.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Don't believe anyone that tries to tell you this is to help the "little guy". This will let a LOT more high majors in and a few more mids. In the end, this is all about the money.

Fans don't want it. Coaches don't want it. The "media" doesn't want it.

CBS and the NCAA want it to line their pockets.

To the first point, exactly - any expansion would go to the power conferences. The smaller schools would be left to screw off.

But as far as the coaches go? Getting an invite can be a way off the hot seat for a year. More schools in = more invites = more job security. I'm sure more than a few coaches are in favor of it.

[Pumpy Tudors]

No, it should be expanded to 400 teams.

[Young Drachma]

I'd prefer an expanded tournament and the dissolution of the farce that is the NCAA-owned NIT. But I doubt they'll can that tournament if they expand it, though I wish they would.

[Young Drachma]

Dola

The fact that people readily admit that the 64th team is unlikely to win, makes me more inclined to support it. At the point it's all about "the experience" and a "shot" to win, rather than a realistic one, I'd favor adding more teams, because it's not going to matter. If anything, it'll make it likely that some random school gets hot and reels off a bunch of wins.

Whether this benefits anyone is debatable, but...I'm all for giving more student-athletes a carrot to end their seasons with, rather than shutting them out if it's all a farce anyway...sort of like the play-in game already is.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

No, it should be expanded to 400 teams.

That's too much. Expand it to 398, with two play-in games for the last two spots. Top 114 teams get a first round bye.

[Chief Rum]

96 teams are way too much, but I am not against the idea of making Tuesday a "play in" day with four games featuring the eight lowest seeded teams, so that there is a play in winner for each #1. This would add three more at large spots and give the play in gameday more of an oomph because there would be more games.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by stevew

I think they should give the top 8 conference tournament winners byes into the sweet 16 and cut the field to 40.

Maybe you add 8 more spots and have some of these minor conferences play in for 9 and 10 seeds. That would give you 48 teams

Ugh. Then why even play a conference schedule? Most of the #1 seeds in this year's tournament locked up their seed because of conference and non-conference play. Not because of the conference tournament. If anything conference tournaments should be given less emphasis and the regular season conference winners should get the at-large bid. If the NCAA tourney wants to expand then get rid of the conference tournaments. That makes more sense.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Don't believe anyone that tries to tell you this is to help the "little guy". This will let a LOT more high majors in and a few more mids. In the end, this is all about the money.

Exactly! This will add a few mid-majors, but add more struggling high majors which will only lead to more complaints about who is and isn't in.

If they truly want to help the mid-majors then they would put a cap on how many teams can come from each conference. Personally, I would suggest no more than 40% of the teams from each conference. This year you had the Big East with 50% and the Big 12 had 58% of their teams in the tournament. That's the best place to cut the fat. So instead of 7 teams from the Big 12, you'd have 4-5.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

If they truly want to help the mid-majors then they would put a cap on how many teams can come from each conference.

Who on earth said anything about expanding to 96 teams having anything to do with helping mid-majors? This is about ESPN wanting another week of games & being willing to pay more for 96 than CBS is believed willing to pay for 65. And that's the only thing it's about.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Who on earth said anything about expanding to 96 teams having anything to do with helping mid-majors? This is about ESPN wanting another week of games & being willing to pay more for 96 than CBS is believed willing to pay for 65. And that's the only thing it's about.

Those on the "pro" side say it helps the mid-majors. They don't really believe it, but they say it.

As for people saying coaches are for it. I'd like to see an article where they say that. It may be true - but I've heard a lot of people make this claim, but the couple of coaches I've read/heard about are not in favor of it.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Those on the "pro" side say it helps the mid-majors. They don't really believe it, but they say it.

As for people saying coaches are for it. I'd like to see an article where they say that. It may be true - but I've heard a lot of people make this claim, but the couple of coaches I've read/heard about are not in favor of it.

I have yet to read a coach that isn't for it. Why are they all for it? Easier to say you've been to the tournament x amount of times. Makes your resume look better.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by rowech

I have yet to read a coach that isn't for it. Why are they all for it? Easier to say you've been to the tournament x amount of times. Makes your resume look better.

It sounds like Bill Self and Mark Few aren't fans of expanding to 96. Those are the only two I've seen suggest adding too many would take away from the tourney.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...to-96-teams-/1

[Logan]

I also heard the Cornell coach say he wasn't in favor of expanding. But he was the first coach I heard go in that direction.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Those on the "pro" side say it helps the mid-majors. They don't really believe it, but they say it.

Ah, okay. It's kind of like (not trying to be political here, so nobody get upset) the whole "bringing freedom to Iraq" thing.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ah, okay. It's kind of like (not trying to be political here, so nobody get upset) the whole "bringing freedom to Iraq" thing.

yup.


As for the coaches for/against it - I know Gary Williams has said he's against it.

I know I've heard multiple CAA coaches say they are against it, but I don't remember which ones.

People bring up the specter of "job security", but I haven't actually seen a quote of a coach in favor of it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty clear result from the vote thus far.

[NewIdentity]

I don't get it. What is wrong with the NIT tournament?

I for one enjoy following my school in the NIT games.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

People bring up the specter of "job security", but I haven't actually seen a quote of a coach in favor of it.

Coach K:

That changed with comments from Coach K, who added that he “had put a lot of thought” into it:

“The NCAA could opt out of its TV contract at the end of this season. If they do, or if they don’t, it’s probably time to take a look at everything. The NCAA owns two properties — the NCAA Tournament and the NIT. What I propose, is that you combine the two properties and come up with a field of 96. You would have 64 teams play. Thirty-two teams get byes, and then it would be the same tournament, but with 96 teams.

“I don’t think we put enough value on the regular season. By expanding to that — and not having the NIT — you reward everybody who wins the regular season. So it puts value on the regular season. I think it would upgrade everything. You still have your conference tournaments, and if you win that, you’re in. If the Patriot League has two teams, so be it — there’s two teams from the Patriot League in the Tournament. I think, if we’re going to do anything, that’s what I’d do. I wouldn’t marginalize the NCAA Tournament. Combine it, reward the regular season. That’s what I would do.”

Boeheim:

"You can't tell who's good and who's not some days," Boeheim said.

Boeheim is for expansion, but he doesn't want everyone in. "The people who say it would dilute the Tournament are wrong," Boeheim said. "It would actually strengthen the Tournament." Boeheim said the key reason it would improve the field is because good teams that knocked out in the conference tourneys would be back in.

Boeheim argued that history is on his side. "[The Tournament has] expanded throughout its history and gotten better every time."

Jay Wright and John Thompson III:

Now, with talk swirling that the NCAA may opt out of its 11-year, $6 billion television deal with CBS after this season and then partner with ESPN on a 96-team event, Big East coaches are on board.

"I love it," said Villanova coach Jay Wright, whose team reached the Final Four a year ago and is in line for a No. 1 seed this March. "I just think it's an idea whose time has come.

"If you look at college football, close to 50 percent of the teams go to bowl games. I think there's so many good teams that don't go to the Tournament. I think the NIT will still be strong and I think it will provide more great basketball and I don't think it will effect the regular season at all."

...

Georgetown coach John Thompson III, whose team beat Duke earlier this season, and Seton Hall coach Bobby Gonzalez joined Wright during Thursday's Big East conference call in voicing their support for expansion.

"I would like to see the Tournament expanded," said Thompson, who added that he hadn't given any thought to exactly how many teams should be invited or how a 96-team event should be constructed. "At the end of the day, I would like to see it opened up and see more teams get a chance to compete."

I think it's interesting when you see the coaches who argue for it being the ones who generally aren't concerned about ever being part of the 64 teams. Maybe they're using their higher profile to help out friends, former assistants who are now coaching at smaller schools, etc who would benefit from the stronger potential for job security. I think anyone who doesn't think that's one part of it --after $$$ of course -- is being naive, honestly.

edit: I cut this out of the last quote originally, but it's a good example of a lower guy fighting for it:

[Bobby]Gonzalez said he was initially opposed to expansion but changed his mind after listening to Boeheim's comments.

"I've recently started thinking in the other direction, that maybe expansion would be good for college basketball, especially after being in a league like this and seeing that everybody just beats each other up every year," Gonzalez said. "If you're middle of the pack in this league, you might deserve to be in the NCAA."

This is a guy who, in four years, has had numerous academic flameouts, has depended a ton on transfers of questionable character, has repeatedly embarassed his school with his sideline conduct (to the point of getting himself suspended), is a T waiting to happen...and this year alone has had a kid get arrested for DWI while also trying to drive in the wrong direction on a Garden State Parkway entrance ramp, had a player punch another player in the balls twice 3 nights ago, had a just-dismissed player who was arrested for kidnapping/burglary. WITH ALL THAT, a Catholic university that really tries to protect its public image would still be employing him as the basketball coach if the tournament field was a bit bigger, instead of him getting canned a few days ago.

[Passacaglia]

It would be interesting if the NCAA Tournament were something more like the FA Cup. Let any college who wants to compete in it, and run it over the course of the season, concurrent with the conference's regular season. They could still do the first couple rounds in a crazy 4-day weekend of games like they do now. Although if that's done at the beginning of the season, you've got competition with football games.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Come on, just open up a FEW more spots after 96, and then my New Orleans Privateers could get in next year! The NCAA had better hurry, though, since we're dropped to D3 the following season.

[the_meanstrosity]

Some of those comments from the coaches don't make a lot of sense to me. How does adding more mediocre teams make the tourney stronger? How many "good teams" get knocked out of their conference tournament and still not make the NCAA tourney? Only the mid majors right? So why not add more mid majors and cut out some of the teams that finish fifth or higher in their conference?

And Jay Wright's comments are ridiculous comparing college football and college basketball. 50% of the football teams may get to go to bowls, but only two have an opportunity to win the national championship. I love Jay Wright, but it's a stupid comparison.

And I'll also argue with Boeheim that "expanding" the tournament with the play in game has added absolutely nothing to the tournament. As for the previous expansions I would guess those would be due to the increased numbers of basketball teams added over time.

[Logan]

It's because they're lying. If they said "that money will eventually trickle down to me" or "it could end up saving my job when I lose some momentum"...people could have an issue with that.

[Celeval]

If someone shows me a way to easily fit a 96-team bracket onto one sheet of paper without reading glasses, then I'll consider it.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Logan

It's because they're lying. If they said "that money will eventually trickle down to me" or "it could end up saving my job when I lose some momentum"...people could have an issue with that.

I'd respect them more if they said that, lol.

I just don't see why they want to ruin a good thing. The bracket is perfect now. The only improvement I could see is to take the regular season winner of the conference as well as the tournament winner.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Celeval

If someone shows me a way to easily fit a 96-team bracket onto one sheet of paper without reading glasses, then I'll consider it.

Wear 3d glasses.

[wade moore]

Fair enough Logan - I appreciate you digging that up.

I'd be interested in some company doing a poll of coaches. I just don't see a benefit to this expansion that is "good for basketball" vice "good for some peoples' pocket books".

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

I'd respect them more if they said that, lol.

I just don't see why they want to ruin a good thing. The bracket is perfect now. The only improvement I could see is to take the regular season winner of the conference as well as the tournament winner.

but that would mean.. what was it.. 6 more at-large bids gone in this year's field? I don't see people going for that.

Nope. I say if a mid-major conference has issue with their regular season winner getting bumped, don't have a conference tourney.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Fair enough Logan - I appreciate you digging that up.

I'd be interested in some company doing a poll of coaches. I just don't see a benefit to this expansion that is "good for basketball" vice "good for some peoples' pocket books".

No problem.

I'm not sure if it's within one of the articles I ended up quoting from, but I saw one mention of a quick poll that was taken after one of the first real discussions of expansion took place. It said that about 25 coaches were polled and the results were pretty much split.

I'd like to be the one who runs a poll where the coaches know their votes show up as anonymous, but I'd be able to know where they sided. I'd think we'd see plenty of crossover from both sides compared to what we hear publicly.

[Warhammer]

Where's the HELL NO! option? The only way I could get behind the proposal is if there is a separate rule that prohibits teams from getting in with sub-.500 conference records.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by wade moore

but that would mean.. what was it.. 6 more at-large bids gone in this year's field? I don't see people going for that.

Nope. I say if a mid-major conference has issue with their regular season winner getting bumped, don't have a conference tourney.

Personally, I would love to see conference tournaments done away with. They are completely worthless aside from another way to make money.

As far as the at-large bids go I'd be fine with only the top 40% of teams in a conference, max. So you wouldn't see conferences like the Big 12 get 7 teams or the Big East get 8.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

Personally, I would love to see conference tournaments done away with. They are completely worthless aside from another way to make money.

Apparently you've never been to a mid-major conference tourney.

My wife and I look forward to that weekend more than just about any all year.

I personally think, at least at the mid-major level, that they are "good for basketball" and VERY good for conference exposure.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Where's the HELL NO! option? The only way I could get behind the proposal is if there is a separate rule that prohibits teams from getting in with sub-.500 conference records.

I think the sub-.500 conf/overall record should be a requirement for post-season play. With the caveat of teams that win their conference tourney would be an exception.