NCAA Tournament to likely expand to 96 teams in 2011

[imb]

"It waters down the tournament!"

 

This is the most annoying aspect of maaaaaaniaaac sports fans. It's hilarious picturing someone sitting on their couch eating chicken wings, unable to play probably 10 minutes of organized basketball, all huffy because a team full of hardworking 20 year olds gets to celebrate their season with an extra game in front of a national audience.

[SpongeWorthy]

My favorite part about this is that the NCAA can pretty much arbitrarily expand from 65 to 96 when almost zero percent of the fan base was actively calling for it and then they'll talk about the logistical difficulties in instituting an 8 team football playoff.

[SouthSideRyan]

"It waters down the tournament!"

 

This is the most annoying aspect of maaaaaaniaaac sports fans. It's hilarious picturing someone sitting on their couch eating chicken wings, unable to play probably 10 minutes of organized basketball, all huffy because a team full of hardworking 20 year olds gets to celebrate their season with an extra game in front of a national audience.

 

They already get to do that in the NIT

[imb]

it's not going to make the regular season meaningless, what a stupid thing to say. Maybe it's meaningless if you consider just making it to a 96-team tournament your goal, but no one does that. Do you really think UCLA is going to say "well, we went 16-15, but we're an 14-seed in the tourney, let's crack open the champagne!"

 

Of course not.

 

Now that's a stupid thing to say. Of course every game has participants who want to win. Everybody wants to win every game (except the Colts), but the fact is it doesn't freaking matter if you lose a bunch of games because you'll get in anyway. Even if you're upset about the losses, it doesn't mean that it matters.

 

oh no they'll be in the tournament, what a disgrace. i didnt watch john wooden win a million games in a row so that vermont st. could get in with only 18 wins!

 

uhhh, who gives a [expletive]?

[imb]

"It waters down the tournament!"

 

This is the most annoying aspect of maaaaaaniaaac sports fans. It's hilarious picturing someone sitting on their couch eating chicken wings, unable to play probably 10 minutes of organized basketball, all huffy because a team full of hardworking 20 year olds gets to celebrate their season with an extra game in front of a national audience.

 

They already get to do that in the NIT

 

maybe that matters to illinois, im talking about teams that play hard

[Banedon]

it's not going to make the regular season meaningless, what a stupid thing to say. Maybe it's meaningless if you consider just making it to a 96-team tournament your goal, but no one does that. Do you really think UCLA is going to say "well, we went 16-15, but we're an 14-seed in the tourney, let's crack open the champagne!"

 

Of course not.

 

Now that's a stupid thing to say. Of course every game has participants who want to win. Everybody wants to win every game (except the Colts), but the fact is it doesn't freaking matter if you lose a bunch of games because you'll get in anyway. Even if you're upset about the losses, it doesn't mean that it matters.

 

oh no they'll be in the tournament, what a disgrace. i didnt watch john wooden win a million games in a row so that vermont st. could get in with only 18 wins!

 

uhhh, who gives a [expletive]?

 

While I'm ok with the expansion, I will say that I'm afraid it's not going to be Vermont St in there, but instead the 8th or 9th place team from the Big Ten.

[bukie]

I counted 18 Big 6 schools that had winning records but didn't make the NCAA tournament. Then you add teams like South Carolina (15-16), Auburn (15-17), Michigan (15-17), Rutgers (15-17), Colorado (15-16), Iowa State (15-17), Boston College (15-16), and Virginia (15-16) as Big 6 schools that were right around .500 and that makes 26 schools in all (not saying every one of these would get in). I'd be shocked if the expansion lets in more than six or seven mid-major at larges. You might have the outlier year where you get eight or nine more teams (just like we currently do in the NCAA tournament) but there's not going to be an even distribution or anything.

Let's take this year, as an example. Let's just assume the NCAA instates a rule where no non-AQ can make the tournament with a losing record (which is not out of the question, since they had that for the NIT until last year). If there were a 96-team tournament, 31 other at-larges would have to be located besides the ones already in the tournament.

 

Looking at Pomeroy's rating, here are the top 31 rated teams that didn't make the tourney:

 

26. Dayton

37. Virginia Tech

44. Mississippi State

46. Arizona State

48. Miami FL

49. VCU

51. Mississippi

53. Illinois

55. Memphis

56. UConn

60. Alabama

61. North Carolina

64. UAB

65. St. John's

66. Rhode Island

67. Wright State

68. NC State

69. Texas Tech

70. Seton Hall

71. Wichita State

74. Cincinnati

75. Northeastern

76. Missouri State

77. Tulsa

80. Marshall

82. Northwestern

83. South Florida

88. Kent State

90. Portland

91. Nevada

92. Arizona

 

That's an 18-13 distribution, just going straight down the list. I'd imagine teams like St. Louis, William and Mary, Illinois State, Charlotte and Pacific would get consideration too ahead of middling and bottom feeder major teams like Arizona, St. Johns or Texas Tech, who finished barely .500. Heck, even in the NIT, Northwestern was seeded below W&M, Illinois State and Charlotte.

 

I'm not saying a change needs to be made, just that it's not all the gloom and doom so many are decrying.

[imb]

it's not going to make the regular season meaningless, what a stupid thing to say. Maybe it's meaningless if you consider just making it to a 96-team tournament your goal, but no one does that. Do you really think UCLA is going to say "well, we went 16-15, but we're an 14-seed in the tourney, let's crack open the champagne!"

 

Of course not.

 

Now that's a stupid thing to say. Of course every game has participants who want to win. Everybody wants to win every game (except the Colts), but the fact is it doesn't freaking matter if you lose a bunch of games because you'll get in anyway. Even if you're upset about the losses, it doesn't mean that it matters.

 

oh no they'll be in the tournament, what a disgrace. i didnt watch john wooden win a million games in a row so that vermont st. could get in with only 18 wins!

 

uhhh, who gives a [expletive]?

 

While I'm ok with the expansion, I will say that I'm afraid it's not going to be Vermont St in there, but instead the 8th or 9th place team from the Big Ten.

 

So? would it be an absolute shame if illinois made the tournament (cheapshot)

 

Seriously though, Miss. St. took Kentucky to OT in the SEC tournament this year and missed the field of 64. Under this scenario, they're in. WHAT A DISGRACE. What does it matter to you if the 8th-best big 10 team makes it to the expanded ncaa instead of the nit? It's just more basketball to watch.

 

This is something that people will complain about so they can keep their sports maaaaaaniaaaaac card and then in 2 years the complaints will fade away and everyone will agree that it was awesome and like usual i can revel in being right all along.

[SouthSideRyan]

You know that nobody's pissed about the possibility of Mississippi St. They're pissed that UNC can embarrass themselves and their families all season long and still make the tournament.

[chuckywang]

Here's something to think about. In a 96 team tournament, the no. 1 seed will play the winner of a no. 16/17 matchup. Now, note that all the small conference champions will probably be seeded somewhere between 20 and 24, so the seeds for 16 and 17 will be teams that just didn't make it in a 65 team tournament. This year, it will probably be teams like Dayton, UNC, and UConn. Imagine if you're Kentucky and your first tournament game is against UConn.

[imb]

You know that nobody's pissed about the possibility of Mississippi St. They're pissed that UNC can embarrass themselves and their families all season long and still make the tournament.

 

what is there to be pissed about? Someone make a compelling point about why a mediocre UNC team getting to play one game in an expanded NCAA field instead of going to the NIT is a bad thing? At the most extreme it's just completely neutral and not worth this lame outrage that it's getting.

 

It boils down to people being upset for a little bit, getting used to it and then in a few years when everyone has accepted it, more money and exposure for NCAA basketball. OH GOD BUT WE MUST KEEP 16-15 WAKE FOREST POLY TECH OUT OF THE TOURNAMENT, IT'S A SHAM.

[C.C.]

Depaul still doesn't have a shot, but I welcome it. It's one more [expletive] game.

[imb]

Depaul still doesn't have a shot, but I welcome it. It's one more [expletive] game.

 

you won't be saying that when 17-14 Boston College makes the 2011 tourney. THE HORROR. i just shuddered while i imagined that horrifying possibility. Why even watch the games if the 7th best team from a major conference can make the tournament. WHY EVEN LET THIS SPORT EXIST. just cancel college basketball, invite 96 teams to the tourney in march and lets all go chill with kyle in BF, North Dakota for 3 months and watch cricket in the meantime.

[cubsfan]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h273/IowaTD/newbracket.jpg

[snoodmonger]

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

 

Revenue.

 

Booster donations are way down because of the economy, so schools need to pay for sports programs how they can. Basketball is one of the few college sports that actually make money, so they need that revenue to pay for other sports. This gets more revenue to more schools, and doesn't negatively affect the teams involved in the tournament in any way.

 

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

 

Well I'm sorry that the NCAA didn't realize they needed to fulfill your requirements of what benefits needed to be met, but I think "more revenue without much in the way of negatives" was sufficient for them.

 

Increased revenue is a given. Obviously, that's why they're considering expansion, and it's why they'll do it, regardless of the public perception of the move.

 

It's pretty obvious that, in this thread, people weren't debating the revenue benefits of expanding the tournament. They're debating how an expanded tournament affects the event itself.

 

If you can't figure out the distinction between the two, you're kind of an idiot.

[imb]

you'll have to forgive snood, the jayhawks choke still has him stressed

[snoodmonger]

you'll have to forgive snood, the jayhawks choke still has him stressed

I'd argue, but nobody knows more about choking than an OU football fan.

[imb]

hahahaha there's no way a kansas football fan is trying to talk football smack

[snoodmonger]

hahahaha there's no way a kansas football fan is trying to talk football smack

 

 

Hey, you were the one talking basketball smack to a KU fan when your team paid Tiny Gallon to help lead them to a 14-18 record.

[Illini Iceman]

The one concern I have is that is seems to me the more teams and rounds you add the less likely it becomes that the best team is the champion. If the goal of the tournament is to crown a true national champion (not to just raise as much money as possible) then expanding the tournament seems to be contrary to that goal since the single elimination format really works against the top teams the more games you make them play.

 

I actually think the first round bye hurts the higher seeds in a tournament like this. The other team gets a chance to play and work out their nerves, get accustomed to the neutral court, etc while the team with a bye just sits around. It is part of the reason I think DePaul had so many issues with getting upset in their opening NCAA tournament games back in their glory years (along with bad fundamentals and free throw shooting of course).

[Jon]

The one concern I have is that is seems to me the more teams and rounds you add the less likely it becomes that the best team is the champion. If the goal of the tournament is to crown a true national champion (not to just raise as much money as possible) then expanding the tournament seems to be contrary to that goal since the single elimination format really works against the top teams the more games you make them play.

 

I actually think the first round bye hurts the higher seeds in a tournament like this. The other team gets a chance to play and work out their nerves, get accustomed to the neutral court, etc while the team with a bye just sits around. It is part of the reason I think DePaul had so many issues with getting upset in their opening NCAA tournament games back in their glory years (along with bad fundamentals and free throw shooting of course).

They get to sit and actually plan for their opponents, unlike the team they'd get in the second round.

 

I'm not exactly sure what the goal is in regards to the best team, but I sure hope they don't think a single elimination tournament is about determining the best team. There are very few sports in which you can determine the best team on the field or court. College basketball is certainly not one of them. It's about determining a champion.

 

 

I think a big wildcard is going to be how expansion impacts seeding. With more teams, are committee members going to rely on just one or two rankings to seed at-large teams or will it push them to use their guts a bit more?

[bukie]

I think the best way to reward the bye teams (if we're looking to do that) is to hold the opening and second round at the bye team's home gym for each 3-team "pod". So, for example, let's say in the new format, Kansas is the 1 seed, and UConn and North Carolina are the 16/17 seeds in their bracket. Then, the UConn-North Carolina game, followed by the Kansas-winner game could both be played at the Allen Fieldhouse. If anything, it might swing the advantage too far in the bye-team's favor, but imagine, then, the battle to get an 8 seed over a 9 seed.

[Derwood]

I hope it happens because it would tear a hole in the whole "we can't have football playoff because the kids would miss too much class" excuse.

[SouthSideRyan]

hahahaha there's no way a kansas football fan is trying to talk football smack

 

 

Hey, you were the one talking basketball smack to a KU fan when your team paid Tiny Gallon to help lead them to a 14-18 record.

 

Let's just agree that you both cheated your way to miserable failures and be done with it.

[SouthSideRyan]

I think the best way to reward the bye teams (if we're looking to do that) is to hold the opening and second round at the bye team's home gym for each 3-team "pod". So, for example, let's say in the new format, Kansas is the 1 seed, and UConn and North Carolina are the 16/17 seeds in their bracket. Then, the UConn-North Carolina game, followed by the Kansas-winner game could both be played at the Allen Fieldhouse. If anything, it might swing the advantage too far in the bye-team's favor, but imagine, then, the battle to get an 8 seed over a 9 seed.

 

The problem with this is that nobody will voluntarily step foot in Manhattan, KS(or virtually any Big 12 city) to watch their team play.