Re: Source: 96-team March Madness a 'done deal'

[Andy]

Take this FWIW, but SPORTSbyBROOKS is reporting, citing an ESPN source and an unnamed source from a big-time hoops school, that a 96-team March Madness is a done deal.

 

Sources at ESPN and inside the administration at a powerhouse NCAA basketball school told me today that the NCAA basketball tournament going to 96 teams is a “done deal.”

 

An ESPN source said, “It’s a done deal with the expansion of the tournament. Depending on how soon a (TV) deal is done, the added teams could start next year. The NCAA confirmed that bidders would be interested in 96 teams, so they’re going with it.”

 

Another ESPN source confirmed to me that the network was in the formative stages of pondering a bid for the expanded tournament.

[UMFan83]

I'm guessing that the 32 lowest seeds have a playin round to get into the bracket of 64? Or each region will be broken into seeds 1-24. I can't wait to predict a 23-2 upset on my bracket.

[bukie]

Well, they had to do something to address the 34th conference (Great West). Adding a sub-round makes as much sense as anything, especially since there are now upwards of 350 D-1 teams.

[UMFan83]

Also....Northwestern still won't make it.

[CubColtPacer]

If they structure 96 like I think they might (top 32 given a bye) I think it would be great for all schools involved. There would actually be incentive to be an 8 seed while now people would rather often be a 10. The small schools at the bottom of the tournament will still get to play a big school and get exposure, but playing a 9 seed will give them a much better chance of an upset than a 1 seed. Even with an expanded field, there will probably be less mismatches overall as the 1-2 seeds will likely have a decent opponent from the very first game. And then of course the benefit to all those schools who will get in the tournament from the beginning.

 

I think this is pretty much a win-win.

[Guest]

Well, they had to do something to address the 34th conference (Great West). Adding a sub-round makes as much sense as anything, especially since there are now upwards of 350 D-1 teams.

 

They didn't have to do anything. They could have just taken away one at large big so the seventh place team from a major conference would be left out (not a big deal at all). Of course, they'd never actually do that and even if they did, it would just leave out a mid-major team anyway.

[ISUCubsFan]

Worst decision ever if true. It basically gives a bid to any major conference school that has a winning record, and nearly eliminates the possibility of a small conference school pulling an upset over anyone in the top 20, which is why the first round is one of the best days in sports. Do we really want teams that are in the CBI now to get invited to the Big Dance? It's not about the Great West either, they aren't eligible for a bid for another decade and when they are they can add another play-in game or subtract another at large.

[snoodmonger]

I hate it. Keep it the way it is.

[bukie]

Worst decision ever if true. It basically gives a bid to any major conference school that has a winning record, and nearly eliminates the possibility of a small conference school pulling an upset over anyone in the top 20, which is why the first round is one of the best days in sports. Do we really want teams that are in the CBI now to get invited to the Big Dance? It's not about the Great West either, they aren't eligible for a bid for another decade and when they are they can add another play-in game or subtract another at large.

 

It basically adds the NIT field to the NCAA tournament.

 

If anything, it greatly increases the possibility of a minor conference school winning a first round game, and also increases the chance of a 1 seed being upset in the first game they play.

[Banedon]

I hate it. Keep it the way it is.

 

Change bad!

[davell]

This news makes me cringe. I guess the top 8 seeds all get byes? The 1st 4 days of the tournament are probably the single best thing in sports to watch for me personally. That goes down the drain now. It's like what was just said: You're basically adding the NIT field to the main field. What's the advantage here honestly? More revenue is about all I can think of and I don't care about that. Goliath finally kicked David's ass for the last time, if this happens.

[Mark Priors Calves]

What happens to the CBI?

[minnesotacubsfan]

I hate it. Keep it the way it is.

 

Change bad!

 

Kansas needs no interuption form YOU!

[Derwood]

but football can't have a playoff because they don't want to extend the season :roll:

[ISUCubsFan]

Worst decision ever if true. It basically gives a bid to any major conference school that has a winning record, and nearly eliminates the possibility of a small conference school pulling an upset over anyone in the top 20, which is why the first round is one of the best days in sports. Do we really want teams that are in the CBI now to get invited to the Big Dance? It's not about the Great West either, they aren't eligible for a bid for another decade and when they are they can add another play-in game or subtract another at large.

 

It basically adds the NIT field to the NCAA tournament.

 

If anything, it greatly increases the possibility of a minor conference school winning a first round game, and also increases the chance of a 1 seed being upset in the first game they play.

 

I don't think I'll care all that much if a 22 or 23 beats a 10 or 11. It won't be the same as a 14 over 3 or 15 over 2, where a legitimate title contender is eliminated by someone most of the nation has never heard of. 1 seeds will play either middling big conference teams that have lost 14 games already, or mid-majors that aren't the best team in a weaker conference. Sure, the chances of an upset go up, but there's not nearly as much shock value when Nebraska is hanging with a top 5 team as opposed to someone like Albany.

[Exile on Waveland]

I hate it. Keep it the way it is.

 

Seconded. I really, really hate this. College basketball's postseason is basically perfect and you're going to change it? Meanwhile, college football's postseason is mostly a farce and we can't change that?

 

Also, while this isn't my own independent thought, I think this could decrease viewership and interest. Filling out brackets has become a national pastime, and it becomes way more involved and complicated with 96 teams. The NCAA may not want to admit that, but a lot of people that aren't big basketball/sports fans enjoy the tournament for that very reason.

[Banedon]

I hate it. Keep it the way it is.

 

Seconded. I really, really hate this. College basketball's postseason is basically perfect and you're going to change it? Meanwhile, college football's postseason is mostly a farce and we can't change that?

 

Also, while this isn't my own independent thought, I think this could decrease viewership and interest. Filling out brackets has become a national pastime, and it becomes way more involved and complicated with 96 teams. The NCAA may not want to admit that, but a lot of people that aren't big basketball/sports fans enjoy the tournament for that very reason.

 

Picking the winners of 79 games based on the names of the schools and their mascots will be much harder for the average fan than picking only 64 games based on the names of the schools and their mascots.

 

Warning...math of the top of my head may be wrong or completely made up.

[davell]

I didn't even think of it that way. But yeah, changing this and leaving football alone is beyond absurd.

[UMFan83]

If you basically took last year's NIT bracket and added it to the NCAA field, teams like Georgetown at 16-14 last year would make it to the Big Dance. Doesn't it serve a young team like Georgetown to play in a tournament that it can actually be competitive in rather than be low seed and get killed by a much more skilled team in the first round? And the sad thing is, there will still be arguments about teams getting snubbed, only it will be so much more stupid.

 

On a positive note, Michigan would still have a shot this year.

[bcl412]

I'd rather just have a 347 (or however many teams there are) super tournament then to expand it even more. If it keeps getting bigger there isn't much reward in going and with 96 teams you'd have to imagine most power schools are going to get in.

 

I'd rather just keep it a 65.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'd rather just have a 347 (or however many teams there are) super tournament then to expand it even more. If it keeps getting bigger there isn't much reward in going and with 96 teams you'd have to imagine most power schools are going to get in.

 

I'd rather just keep it a 65.

 

Yeah, let's not be ridiculous and let in more than 65 teams to a tournament. It might dilute the field.

[Banedon]

I'd rather just have a 347 (or however many teams there are) super tournament then to expand it even more. If it keeps getting bigger there isn't much reward in going and with 96 teams you'd have to imagine most power schools are going to get in.

 

I'd rather just keep it a 65.

 

Yeah, let's not be ridiculous and let in more than 65 teams to a tournament. It might dilute the field.

 

I hope my team makes the funky 48.

[Exile on Waveland]

I hate it. Keep it the way it is.

 

Seconded. I really, really hate this. College basketball's postseason is basically perfect and you're going to change it? Meanwhile, college football's postseason is mostly a farce and we can't change that?

 

Also, while this isn't my own independent thought, I think this could decrease viewership and interest. Filling out brackets has become a national pastime, and it becomes way more involved and complicated with 96 teams. The NCAA may not want to admit that, but a lot of people that aren't big basketball/sports fans enjoy the tournament for that very reason.

 

Picking the winners of 79 games based on the names of the schools and their mascots will be much harder for the average fan than picking only 64 games based on the names of the schools and their mascots.

 

Warning...math of the top of my head may be wrong or completely made up.

 

Yes, as it grows I think it will become more daunting. It's not just the extra 15 games (didn't double check . . . hope you're right . . .); it's also the decreasing of font size and such since the bracket will need to fit on one page (if it's not on one page, I really think you'll see slacking off). It's not about being "hard." It's about people being lazy and stupid.

 

Edit: Assuming you're correct about the 15/16 extra games, that's almost a quarter more games that would need to be picked. I'd say that's a rather substantial percentage.

[bukie]

I hate it. Keep it the way it is.

 

Seconded. I really, really hate this. College basketball's postseason is basically perfect and you're going to change it? Meanwhile, college football's postseason is mostly a farce and we can't change that?

 

Also, while this isn't my own independent thought, I think this could decrease viewership and interest. Filling out brackets has become a national pastime, and it becomes way more involved and complicated with 96 teams. The NCAA may not want to admit that, but a lot of people that aren't big basketball/sports fans enjoy the tournament for that very reason.

 

Picking the winners of 79 games based on the names of the schools and their mascots will be much harder for the average fan than picking only 64 games based on the names of the schools and their mascots.

 

Warning...math of the top of my head may be wrong or completely made up.

A 96 team tournament would feature 95 games total, since only one team is eliminated per game.

[Banedon]

I hate it. Keep it the way it is.

 

Seconded. I really, really hate this. College basketball's postseason is basically perfect and you're going to change it? Meanwhile, college football's postseason is mostly a farce and we can't change that?

 

Also, while this isn't my own independent thought, I think this could decrease viewership and interest. Filling out brackets has become a national pastime, and it becomes way more involved and complicated with 96 teams. The NCAA may not want to admit that, but a lot of people that aren't big basketball/sports fans enjoy the tournament for that very reason.

 

Picking the winners of 79 games based on the names of the schools and their mascots will be much harder for the average fan than picking only 64 games based on the names of the schools and their mascots.

 

Warning...math of the top of my head may be wrong or completely made up.

A 96 team tournament would feature 95 games total, since only one team is eliminated per game.

 

I figured a 64 team tournament is 63 games.

 

And then you add another 32 teams...which I figured would be playing "play-in" games...which means 16 more games.