NCAA Tournament to likely expand to 96 teams in 2011

[erik316wttn]

This is completely asinine. It's fine how it is. This is simply a desperate attempt at a money grab.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800

 

I guess on the bright side it may get rid of the Not Important Tournament (NIT)

[NCCubFan]

I think it's more likely the No Interest Tournament stays and the CBI and CIT are done.

[chuckywang]

The CBI and the CIT are privately owned and operated (CBI by Gazelle Group and CIT by CollegeInsider.com), so this decision will have no bearing on those tournaments. They're still going to invite teams that are left.

[kujay]

Yeah this is stupid. Why mess with a good thing? Except, of course, for money. And lots of it.

 

But no 96-team women's tournament? WTF! That's what we need!

[Banedon]

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=56661

[NCCubFan]

The CBI and the CIT are privately owned and operated (CBI by Gazelle Group and CIT by CollegeInsider.com), so this decision will have no bearing on those tournaments. They're still going to invite teams that are left.

I was thinking of a trickle-down effect, not the NCAA shutting them down. I had forgotten that the NCAA bought out the NIT to settle the lawsuit a few years ago.

[Old Style]

turrible [/sir Chuck]

[snoodmonger]

Where is the "2011" from the thread title coming from. The provided link really only says they're exploring a few options and that 96 is one of them

[Guest]

Am I the only one here not against this?

[Guest]

Am I the only one here not against this?

 

Nope, I like it.

[bukie]

I know there was a thread somewhere where I outlined the things I liked about it. Can't find it now, though.

[CubColtPacer]

Am I the only one here not against this?

 

I see positives and negatives to it. It's scary messing with such a great thing but it has the potential to be even better with this change. I'm with you in not being against it.

[javy knows my name]

Am I the only one here not against this?

 

Nope, I like it.

How can you look at how this tournament played out and be in favor of this? We're looking at the results of a pretty much perfect playoff system; I just don't see why it needs to be tweaked at all

[bukie]

Am I the only one here not against this?

 

Nope, I like it.

How can you look at how this tournament played out and be in favor of this? We're looking at the results of a pretty much perfect playoff system; I just don't see why it needs to be tweaked at all

What is it about this tournament that can't be played out with a 96-team tourney?

[cubsfan]

Am I the only one here not against this?

 

Nope, I like it.

How can you look at how this tournament played out and be in favor of this? We're looking at the results of a pretty much perfect playoff system; I just don't see why it needs to be tweaked at all

What is it about this tournament that can't be played out with a 96-team tourney?

Having a tournament with less than 60 mediocre teams.

Edited April 1, 2010 by cubsfan

[chuckywang]

Am I the only one here not against this?

 

Nope, I like it.

How can you look at how this tournament played out and be in favor of this? We're looking at the results of a pretty much perfect playoff system; I just don't see why it needs to be tweaked at all

What is it about this tournament that can't be played out with a 96-team tourney?

 

And and the tournament last year was pretty vanilla. As was 2008.

[bukie]

Here's what I posted in February:

 

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.

[Guest]

Am I the only one here not against this?

 

Nope, I like it.

How can you look at how this tournament played out and be in favor of this? We're looking at the results of a pretty much perfect playoff system; I just don't see why it needs to be tweaked at all

What is it about this tournament that can't be played out with a 96-team tourney?

Having a tournament with less than 60 mediocre teams.

 

Again, the difference between William & Mary/Illinois and Utah State/Florida is not nearly worth the outrage that it's getting. If you're against 96 teams, then you probably should be pushing hard to move it to 32 or 16.

[bcl412]

As an Iowa fan I'm cool with the expansion :)

[snoodmonger]

 

Again, the difference between William & Mary/Illinois and Utah State/Florida is not nearly worth the outrage that it's getting. If you're against 96 teams, then you probably should be pushing hard to move it to 32 or 16.

 

Except as it stands now, only a handful of those crappy teams get in, not every single one of them. Teams that are 6 games under .500 in conference play have no business in the tourney. With all the slop the gets in now, it's barely a reward to get into it. Letting every team that didn't pull a total faceplant is counter to the whole idea of the tournament.

[Guest]

 

Again, the difference between William & Mary/Illinois and Utah State/Florida is not nearly worth the outrage that it's getting. If you're against 96 teams, then you probably should be pushing hard to move it to 32 or 16.

 

Except as it stands now, only a handful of those crappy teams get in, not every single one of them.

 

Like I said in another thread, we're talking about a 30 game season with schedules that are wildly different. The difference between at large #10 and at large #50 isn't really that great on a true ability level, which means the only difference in those play in games is in our perspective of the teams.

[Exile on Waveland]

Again, the difference between William & Mary/Illinois and Utah State/Florida is not nearly worth the outrage that it's getting. If you're against 96 teams, then you probably should be pushing hard to move it to 32 or 16.

 

That's incredibly dense. Automatic bids exist, you know? Reducing the amount of teams to 32 or 16 either forces the NCAA to (i) eliminate at-large berths (AWFUL) or (ii) eliminate non-BCS automatic bids (everyone loves that in football, right?).

 

Plus, again, there is a big difference between a few crappy, undeserving at-large teams getting bids and 30+ crappy, undeserving at-large teams getting in.

[TruffleShuffle]

i'd be willing to bet that everyone bitched and moaned when it went from 16 to 32 and 32 to 64, saying it's watering down the field and making it worse for everyone.

[imb]

awesome, more excuses to eat hot wings at work

[imb]

sorry, THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IM USED TO, THIS IS ASININE