NCAA Tournament to likely expand to 96 teams in 2011

[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.

 

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.

 

First of all, I'm not sure i agree with that. Who was the #10 at large in the NSBB bracketology? And who would the #50th at large have been?

 

And even if it is true, all we're doing is creating an extra round to ensure the right cannon fodder gets into the tourney. But one of the by-products of that is a week of condensed game play in the later rounds (when the teams that actually matter are playing.) As Parrish noted in his tweets, a one seed that advances will play Saturday-Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday to get to the Final Four.

 

So basically, we're putting the teams that have an actual shot at this thing through a ridiculous, weeklong gauntlet to ensure William and Mary and Stony Brook get a shot in the tournament (and a chance to win 1, maybe 2 games.)

 

Pass.

[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.

 

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.

 

Again, ridiculous. The No. 10 at-large this year was roughly Michigan State, while the No. 50 at-large would roughly be, I don't know, someone like Cincinnati. And we've still got 10 more spots to go. You think Michigan State (28-8, Final Four) isn't that much different from Cincinnati (19-16)? Much less someone 10 pegs worse?

[erik316wttn]

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.

 

Well hell, as long as we're at it, why stop at 96? Why not go whole hog and make it a cool 128? I can't wait to see who the 8 #1 seeds will be!

 

Nothing personal, Truffle, I just think your argument is flawed. I'm a big "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" kind of guy.

[Andy]

Why not just put everybody in? I'm sure we can make that happen.

[imb]

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.

 

Well hell, as long as we're at it, why stop at 96? Why not go whole hog and make it a cool 128? I can't wait to see who the 8 #1 seeds will be!

 

Nothing personal, Truffle, I just think your argument is flawed. I'm a big "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" kind of guy.

 

WELL HELL LET'S JUST LET SOME HIGH SCHOOL TEAMS PLAY IN IT TOO! WHY STOP THERE, LET'S JUST INVITE THE WOMEN TO PLAY IN THE SAME BRACKET. EVERYTHING THAT IS DIFFERENT IS WRONG AND IF I DONT COMPLAIN ABOUT IT PEOPLE WON'T REALIZE WHAT A SPORTS MANIAAAAAAAAAC I AM.

[imb]

i really hate the wild card system in MLB. if you're not top 2, you're out!

[imb]

16 nfl playoff teams? why even watch the games? booooooring

[imb]

the nba playoffs last 2 months? RIDICULOUS*

 

*this one actually has merit

[Andy]

16 nfl playoff teams? why even watch the games? booooooring

There are only 12, and 6 seeds from a conference have won the Super Bowl. No one seeded in the bottom half of a 64-team NCAA bracket has won the tournament, or even made the final, and only 2 teams in the bottom half have made the Final Four.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Andy

[erik316wttn]

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.

 

Well hell, as long as we're at it, why stop at 96? Why not go whole hog and make it a cool 128? I can't wait to see who the 8 #1 seeds will be!

 

Nothing personal, Truffle, I just think your argument is flawed. I'm a big "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" kind of guy.

 

WELL HELL LET'S JUST LET SOME HIGH SCHOOL TEAMS PLAY IN IT TOO! WHY STOP THERE, LET'S JUST INVITE THE WOMEN TO PLAY IN THE SAME BRACKET. EVERYTHING THAT IS DIFFERENT IS WRONG AND IF I DONT COMPLAIN ABOUT IT PEOPLE WON'T REALIZE WHAT A SPORTS MANIAAAAAAAAAC I AM.

 

Trolling on the internet must be the highlight of your lonely, pathetic life.

 

I didn't say "different is wrong." I said "if it isn't broken, don't fix it." There's a difference. "Change just for the sake of change" doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

64 teams ensures that just about all the qualified teams get in and get a shot. 65 teams is just a TV money grab for two teams who fight for the right to get slaughtered by a Kansas or Duke or whoever. 96 teams is just insane and waters down the postseason. It should be an actual accomplishment to make the playoffs, and if you expand it to 96 it takes that away.

Edited April 2, 2010 by erik316wttn

[Exile on Waveland]

i really hate the wild card system in MLB. if you're not top 2, you're out!

 

The wild card system is great. It allowed some outstanding teams to enter the playoffs that otherwise wouldn't have due to somewhat random chance (divisional alignment). The NCAA Tournament remedied that situation years ago.

 

Oh, and sometimes different is worse. Some people are reluctant of change no matter what, some are reluctant of change for the worse.

[imb]

16 nfl playoff teams? why even watch the games? booooooring

There are only 12, and 6 seeds from a conference have won the Super Bowl. No one seeded in the bottom half of a 64-team NCAA bracket has won the tournament, or even made the final, and only 2 teams in the bottom half have made the Final Four.

 

so what's the problem? if you're not worried about these teams actually ruining your bracket and winning, that just means it's more basketball to watch or bet on or not. i don't see how this impacts anyone's life negatively.

[erik316wttn]

16 nfl playoff teams? why even watch the games? booooooring

There are only 12, and 6 seeds from a conference have won the Super Bowl. No one seeded in the bottom half of a 64-team NCAA bracket has won the tournament, or even made the final, and only 2 teams in the bottom half have made the Final Four.

 

so what's the problem? if you're not worried about these teams actually ruining your bracket and winning, that just means it's more basketball to watch or bet on or not. i don't see how this impacts anyone's life negatively.

 

And I don't see how you even can wonder if this affects anyone's life negatively. Of course it doesn't.

 

People can post opinions about not liking things even if it doesn't negatively affect their lives.

[imb]

i don't understand why you don't like it enough to whine about it if it doesn't affect you negatively at all.

[Andy]

i don't understand why you don't like it enough to whine about it if it doesn't affect you negatively at all.

As a Notre Dame fan, making the tournament is a cool accomplishment, because it doesn't happen every year. This last season, we had a crazy 6-game win streak to cement our spot in the tournament (and, it turned out, get overseeded). In a 96-team field, we'd never have been on the bubble to begin with at 6-8 in the Big East.

 

Fans of teams like ND, or Iowa, or whoever else are who this thing is probably intended to make happy, but I personally like that making the tournament is still something of an accomplishment. Now anyone from a big conference is pretty much in.

[imb]

maybe i've just always looked at winning a game in the tourney as an accomplishment instead of just making it. Probably because of how underachieving all the early kelvin sampson years were where you could bank on the 12 seed to beat us.

 

i still haven't heard a good argument against this other than the usual complaining about anything that's not what we're used to.

[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.

 

Again, ridiculous. The No. 10 at-large this year was roughly Michigan State, while the No. 50 at-large would roughly be, I don't know, someone like Cincinnati. And we've still got 10 more spots to go. You think Michigan State (28-8, Final Four) isn't that much different from Cincinnati (19-16)? Much less someone 10 pegs worse?

 

Michigan State is a bit of a loaded example because of their injury circumstances, why not use Temple or Vandy? Can you say with a great deal of confidence that they'd be so much better than a Cincinnati over a similar 50 or 75 game schedule that it's ridiculous they'd be grouped anywhere near together?

 

In a perfect world, the expansion wouldn't go all the way to 96, but I'm okay with it. It makes the pursuit of a bye more compelling(if there's such a chasm between the bubble and the at larges who make it, wouldn't it be better if those teams had a lot to play for instead of the bubble?) while keeping the pursuit of the teams on the bubble, and it adds more games to the tournament. For all the "no one cares about Minnesota v. Stony Brook" talk, no one cares about BYU/Florida or Vandy/Murray St. if the game is in November. It's the inclusion in the tournament that makes the game compelling, and I really don't buy that it would be so much more watered down by the expansion.

[snoodmonger]

maybe i've just always looked at winning a game in the tourney as an accomplishment instead of just making it. Probably because of how underachieving all the early kelvin sampson years were where you could bank on the 12 seed to beat us.

 

i still haven't heard a good argument against this other than the usual complaining about anything that's not what we're used to.

 

I think totally rejiggering the schedule so that teams basically have to play every other day on the road to the Final Four is a horrible departure from the current format. Especially when doing so is purely the result of an effort to let a bunch of weak-ass teams in the tournament.

 

And you haven't really made a compelling argument in favor of it the new format, either.

[imb]

maybe i've just always looked at winning a game in the tourney as an accomplishment instead of just making it. Probably because of how underachieving all the early kelvin sampson years were where you could bank on the 12 seed to beat us.

 

i still haven't heard a good argument against this other than the usual complaining about anything that's not what we're used to.

 

I think totally rejiggering the schedule so that teams basically have to play every other day on the road to the Final Four is a horrible departure from the current format. Especially when doing so is purely the result of an effort to let a bunch of weak-ass teams in the tournament.

 

And you haven't really made a compelling argument in favor of it the new format, either.

 

it rules

[TruffleShuffle]

And you haven't really made a compelling argument in favor of it the new format, either.

 

mo' money

 

(though possibly mo' problems)

[snoodmonger]

And you haven't really made a compelling argument in favor of it the new format, either.

 

mo' money

 

(though possibly mo' problems)

 

I meant an argument that shows how it improves the tournament as a sporting event and a championship event.

[MWV]

I feel an interminably protracted playoff schedule would be an excellent way prepare NCAA players for the rigors of the NBA.

[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.

 

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.

 

Again, ridiculous. The No. 10 at-large this year was roughly Michigan State, while the No. 50 at-large would roughly be, I don't know, someone like Cincinnati. And we've still got 10 more spots to go. You think Michigan State (28-8, Final Four) isn't that much different from Cincinnati (19-16)? Much less someone 10 pegs worse?

 

Michigan State is a bit of a loaded example because of their injury circumstances, why not use Temple or Vandy? Can you say with a great deal of confidence that they'd be so much better than a Cincinnati over a similar 50 or 75 game schedule that it's ridiculous they'd be grouped anywhere near together?

 

In a perfect world, the expansion wouldn't go all the way to 96, but I'm okay with it. It makes the pursuit of a bye more compelling(if there's such a chasm between the bubble and the at larges who make it, wouldn't it be better if those teams had a lot to play for instead of the bubble?) while keeping the pursuit of the teams on the bubble, and it adds more games to the tournament. For all the "no one cares about Minnesota v. Stony Brook" talk, no one cares about BYU/Florida or Vandy/Murray St. if the game is in November. It's the inclusion in the tournament that makes the game compelling, and I really don't buy that it would be so much more watered down by the expansion.

 

I chose the loaded example of Michigan State intentionally, as I'm sure you're aware. Temple wasn't an at-large team. But taking Pomeroy No. 35 Vanderbilt, a team that was 24-9 and 12-4 in a power conference, and saying they'd still look better than No. 74 Cincinnati (19-16, 7-11) after 20 more games isn't terribly difficult in my opinion (though I could've used a better team to support my point, as I actually believe Cincy is pretty damn good and likely would have picked them to upset Vandy). Basketball isn't baseball where you really need a plethora of games to separate the good from the mediocre.

 

I don't see how it's debatable expansion will water the tournament down. I think it's already watered down -- garbage teams like UTEP, Utah State, etc., already get at-large berths -- and adding 31 middling teams waters it down even more. It makes the product on the court worse, with no redeeming qualities that I can see. Other than, of course, money for a not-for-profit.

[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.

 

If you can't finish above .500 in your conference, you probably don't belong in the NCAA tournament.

[Soul]

I'm wondering what reason I would have to care about the regular season now, or even the conference tourneys.

 

Is it to find out if the 7th, 8th, and 9th best teams in a conference will "make it"? Sorry, that's not enough for me to pick up the remote.