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

[snoodmonger]

I hate it. Keep it the way it is.

 

Change bad!

 

It's not so much that I dislike change. I just don't see the point. What's wrong with the current system? What is adding 30 teams going to improve? Why dilute the importance of the regular season any further? Because with 31 more teams, you basically have to be total garbage to miss the tournament.

 

Also, to GR's point, I'm not sure it's a benefit that the top seeds have a tougher first game. The tourney is already a crap shoot. And while most people like the big upset, I'm not sure I like a system that makes it even less likely the best teams will be left standing.

[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.

 

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.

In a 96-team tournament, 32 of the teams would get byes, and the remaining 64 would play in 32 first round games to pare the overall field to 64.

 

So, by round (number of games):

 

32 + 32 + 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 95

[bukie]

Here are a few reasons why I'd be in favor of the expansion:

 

1. Increases the playoff representation of the league to a little over 27%, in line with MLB (8 of 30, 27%) and lower than NFL (12 of 32, 38%), NBA and NHL (16 of 30, 53%)

2. Allows more minor/mid-major conference teams in (hey, there's even a decent chance they make a provision for regular season champs, like the NIT does currently), even if not at the same rate as the Big 6.

3. Honestly, the best part of the NCAA tournament is the craziness of the first two rounds. Adding 32 teams and an extra round at the beginning only amplifies that craziness an extra round, IMO. More people are interested for an extra night or two of game time.

4. Minor conference teams have a better chance of winning a first round game (pitted against a 9 seed instead of a 1 seed, it basically gives every team a fighting chance in at least one game).

5. 1 and 2 seeds will likely have a more challenging first round game, leading to more high seed upsets.

 

Reasons to be hesitant:

1. This basically puts every .500+ major conference team in the tournament, barring special provisions. I'd like to see the NCAA require taking every regular season conference champ + tournament champ before taking a .500 big 6 team.

2. Increased chance of high seed upsets mean the better teams will be even less likely to win it all.

[Banedon]

In a 96-team tournament, 32 of the teams would get byes, and the remaining 64 would play in 32 first round games to pare the overall field to 64.

 

So, by round (number of games):

 

32 + 32 + 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 95

 

Gotcha...I see where I was off now.

[SouthSideRyan]

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 don't have to do anything about the Great West, it's a collection of some of the worst teams in college basketball. They deserve nothing. This idea sucks out loud and will be bad for the tournament in the long run, and not even that profitable in the short run.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This idea sucks out loud and will be bad for the tournament in the long run

 

Explain this one to me.

[NewUserName]

Since this would basically assure that if you are in a major conference and have a winning record you will make the tournament, I think teams would be a little less willing to play teams that can beat them non-conference.

 

I think it was already mentioned, but either expand it to where all the teams make it or just leave it alone.

[TruffleShuffle]

2. Allows more minor/mid-major conference teams in (hey, there's even a decent chance they make a provision for regular season champs, like the NIT does currently), even if not at the same rate as the Big 6.

 

this, to me, is the #1 argument for this system. but if they're making this change then they had better let in teams like whoever doesn't win the ivy league (harvard/cornell), rather than just letting in every "bcs conference" school that's over .500.

[SouthSideRyan]

This idea sucks out loud and will be bad for the tournament in the long run

 

Explain this one to me.

 

Do you think there's a tipping point where adding teams becomes a negative to the tournament? 64 creates a rapid fire atmospher dropping it from 64 to 16. There's going to be burnout with this number of games, especially with so many crappy games to start things off.

[Soul]

Interesting. I didn't think they would do this. I don't hate it but doesn't this take away any and all halfway decent clubs for the NIT? I can imagine that tourney folding in a few years.

[jersey cubs fan]

This idea sucks out loud and will be bad for the tournament in the long run

 

Explain this one to me.

 

Do you think there's a tipping point where adding teams becomes a negative to the tournament? 64 creates a rapid fire atmospher dropping it from 64 to 16. There's going to be burnout with this number of games, especially with so many crappy games to start things off.

 

As a casual observer, the only interesting part of the tourny is the first weekend. By the end I don't really care. And the most interesting part is seeing some 12-16 seed trying to squeek by against a big boy. Under this system, that takes away a big part of the fun. A lot of those little guys are going to be eliminated in a play-in game against some mediocre big boys, which means the big boys are just going to be playing less talented big boys in their first games.

 

And of course it just changes the names of the people who are going to be whine about being "snubbed" from an already bloated tournament.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This idea sucks out loud and will be bad for the tournament in the long run

 

Explain this one to me.

 

Do you think there's a tipping point where adding teams becomes a negative to the tournament? 64 creates a rapid fire atmospher dropping it from 64 to 16. There's going to be burnout with this number of games, especially with so many crappy games to start things off.

 

You can duplicate that atmosphere though. Have the play in games on Saturday/Sunday then have the tournament proceed on the schedule it is now. Bit of a layoff for the teams with byes, but I don't think it's that huge a deal.

[hawkeyecub]

I also hate it for the reasons that have already been spelled out in this thread.

[UMFan83]

One thing I think they should do is give every conference a bye into the second round and make the 62 at large teams all play a play in round to advance to the main 64 team tournament. That way there is still value to winning your conference tourney and at least gives some merit to the regular season.

 

I never understood why the playin game doesn't pit the last 2 at large teams instead of 2 conference champions.

[Old Style]

Horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible.

 

Bud Selig must be behind this movement. I'm okay with adding 3 more "play-in" games to get the field to 68 but that is enough. Anything more and you're just diluting a great formula.

[SouthSideRyan]

There never should've been a play-in game to begin with. There's no reason there can't be 31 at large bids.

[SpongeWorthy]

I hate that we're probably being robbed of the unprecedented 1 vs. 16 first round upset.

[snoodmonger]

This idea sucks out loud and will be bad for the tournament in the long run

 

Explain this one to me.

 

Do you think there's a tipping point where adding teams becomes a negative to the tournament? 64 creates a rapid fire atmospher dropping it from 64 to 16. There's going to be burnout with this number of games, especially with so many crappy games to start things off.

 

You can duplicate that atmosphere though. Have the play in games on Saturday/Sunday then have the tournament proceed on the schedule it is now. Bit of a layoff for the teams with byes, but I don't think it's that huge a deal.

 

 

I think that layoff is also a problem. Right now, the tournament starts on the Thursday after Selection Sunday, right? (that's how I remember it.)

 

And Selection Sunday is at the end of the conference tournament week. So when do you hold this initial play-in round? The weekend after selection sunday (when we'd normally be into round two of the tournament)? If you do that, teams with a first round bye wouldn't start until the Thursday after that. That's almost two weeks off.

 

So not only do these teams have to find a way to stay sharp during an 11 or 12 day layoff, but it's all so I can watch the 9th place team in the ACC face off with the second place team in the Big Sky? Sorry, that would suck.

[Butterscup1679666578]

At least Mizzou will get in every year now since all 12 teams in the league will get a bid.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This idea sucks out loud and will be bad for the tournament in the long run

 

Explain this one to me.

 

Do you think there's a tipping point where adding teams becomes a negative to the tournament? 64 creates a rapid fire atmospher dropping it from 64 to 16. There's going to be burnout with this number of games, especially with so many crappy games to start things off.

 

You can duplicate that atmosphere though. Have the play in games on Saturday/Sunday then have the tournament proceed on the schedule it is now. Bit of a layoff for the teams with byes, but I don't think it's that huge a deal.

 

 

I think that layoff is also a problem. Right now, the tournament starts on the Thursday after Selection Sunday, right? (that's how I remember it.)

 

And Selection Sunday is at the end of the conference tournament week. So when do you hold this initial play-in round? The weekend after selection sunday (when we'd normally be into round two of the tournament)? If you do that, teams with a first round bye wouldn't start until the Thursday after that. That's almost two weeks off.

 

So not only do these teams have to find a way to stay sharp during an 11 or 12 day layoff, but it's all so I can watch the 9th place team in the ACC face off with the second place team in the Big Sky? Sorry, that would suck.

 

If the layoff is that big of a deal, make it a weeklong event, adding the two extra days on Tuesday and Wednesday. There's space in Championship week to keep Sunday open(with selection on Saturday) if that's needed for travel purposes.

[bukie]

This idea sucks out loud and will be bad for the tournament in the long run

 

Explain this one to me.

 

Do you think there's a tipping point where adding teams becomes a negative to the tournament? 64 creates a rapid fire atmospher dropping it from 64 to 16. There's going to be burnout with this number of games, especially with so many crappy games to start things off.

 

You can duplicate that atmosphere though. Have the play in games on Saturday/Sunday then have the tournament proceed on the schedule it is now. Bit of a layoff for the teams with byes, but I don't think it's that huge a deal.

 

 

I think that layoff is also a problem. Right now, the tournament starts on the Thursday after Selection Sunday, right? (that's how I remember it.)

 

And Selection Sunday is at the end of the conference tournament week. So when do you hold this initial play-in round? The weekend after selection sunday (when we'd normally be into round two of the tournament)? If you do that, teams with a first round bye wouldn't start until the Thursday after that. That's almost two weeks off.

 

So not only do these teams have to find a way to stay sharp during an 11 or 12 day layoff, but it's all so I can watch the 9th place team in the ACC face off with the second place team in the Big Sky? Sorry, that would suck.

 

One way to do it would be to have the opening weekend start Tuesday instead of Thursday (as the play-in game is now), and teams without byes would have to play 3 games the first weekend to advance. It'd give teams with byes more of an advantage, and would make the opening week a little crazier.

 

The ridiculous "dilutes the field" argument happens every single time a playoff expands. I'm curious if the "purists" were up in arms when the field expanded from 32 to 40 to 48 to 52 to 53 to 64 teams from 1978 to 1985. With the sheer number of D-1 teams now, the tournament was due for an expansion.

[Andy]

I agree with snood in that this makes it even less likely that the best team will win the title. The 64-team tournament, while fun as hell, already resulted in the best team not usually winning the title, and this will make it even worse.

 

For all the ridiculous faults in college football's system, and there are many, it's better than this 96-team insanity. No reason to even play a regular season for a lot of teams at this point.

[illiniguy]

This kinda reminds me of how Hendry took a 98 win team and chagned it all up resulting in an 84 win team. If it isn't broke, why the hell are they trying to fix it? Maybe the NCAA should be doing it's job and deciding on what to do with USC football and what Coach Cal is doing. What a joke.

[illiniguy]

I agree with snood in that this makes it even less likely that the best team will win the title. The 64-team tournament, while fun as hell, already resulted in the best team not usually winning the title, and this will make it even worse.

 

For all the ridiculous faults in college football's system, and there are many, it's better than this 96-team insanity. No reason to even play a regular season for a lot of teams at this point.

When is the last time the best team didn't win the title? Beisdes the obvious in '05 :mrgreen:

[Andy]

I agree with snood in that this makes it even less likely that the best team will win the title. The 64-team tournament, while fun as hell, already resulted in the best team not usually winning the title, and this will make it even worse.

 

For all the ridiculous faults in college football's system, and there are many, it's better than this 96-team insanity. No reason to even play a regular season for a lot of teams at this point.

When is the last time the best team didn't win the title? Beisdes the obvious in '05 :mrgreen:

2006 I guess (Florida was a 3 seed). 3 years before that, Syracuse, another 3 seed, won.

 

The best team wins more often than I'm granting the system, but it won't happen as much now, I'll bet.