64 vs 96

[jay santos]

I've been listening to the arguments about this. I was pretty against this when I first heard about it. But the more I hear people complain about it, the more it sounds like "I'm afraid of change just because I'm afraid of change". Don't worry, you'll find your cheese again after they change to 96.

For all the same reasons they want to move from 64 to 96, I also predict we see a 32 team college football playoff eventually. And we will love them both.

[Indy Coug]

I'm fundamentally against rewarding mediocrity. It has nothing to do with some primal "fear of change".

A 32 team college football playoff is beyond bloated and stupid.

[TripletDaddy]

I've been listening to the arguments about this. I was pretty against this when I first heard about it. But the more I hear people complain about it, the more it sounds like "I'm afraid of change just because I'm afraid of change". Don't worry, you'll find your cheese again after they change to 96.

For all the same reasons they want to move from 64 to 96, I also predict we see a 32 team college football playoff eventually. And we will love them both.

I am not afraid of change. I just think it is silly to include approx 75% of all teams in the post-season. Expanding to 96 is all about cash grab. By definition, multiple teams with losing records will be playing in the tournament. Strikes me as ridiculous. A first round matchup between 2-loss Kansas and a 17 loss team. yawn.

How does 96 work?

96
48
24
12
6
3
??

[CJF]

I don't want to expand it. I like the way it is now. I also don't see any reason to expand other than potentially make more money for CBS. Was there really 31 teams could realistically make some noise in the tournament if they had only been let in? I would say there probably is not a single team that didn't make it that would have made an impact on things. Also, watering it down just means more "power" conferences get in. And we all want to see the 14th place Big East team in the tournament.

Leave it at 64. Heck, I'd even be in favor of going back to 48 before going to 96.

[jay santos]

I am not afraid of change. I just think it is silly to include approx 75% of all teams in the post-season. Expanding to 96 is all about cash grab. By definition, multiple teams with losing records will be playing in the tournament. Strikes me as ridiculous. A first round matchup between 2-loss Kansas and a 17 loss team. yawn.

How does 96 work?

96
48
24
12
6
3
??

There are 300 something D1 BB teams.

I think the way I heard it is that seeds 1-8 would get a first team bye. So 96 to 64 to 32 etc. Replaces the NIT. Provides an extra two days of excitement. I wouldn't vote for it, but the more I hear the more I'm OK with it.

[Maximus]

I am not afraid of change. I just think it is silly to include approx 75% of all teams in the post-season. Expanding to 96 is all about cash grab. By definition, multiple teams with losing records will be playing in the tournament. Strikes me as ridiculous. A first round matchup between 2-loss Kansas and a 17 loss team. yawn.

How does 96 work?

96
48
24
12
6
3
??

I thought it would be the same but higher seeds receive bys.

[Maximus]

I've been listening to the arguments about this. I was pretty against this when I first heard about it. But the more I hear people complain about it, the more it sounds like "I'm afraid of change just because I'm afraid of change". Don't worry, you'll find your cheese again after they change to 96.

For all the same reasons they want to move from 64 to 96, I also predict we see a 32 team college football playoff eventually. And we will love them both.

16 would be fine and awesome for football.

[CJF]

I am not afraid of change. I just think it is silly to include approx 75% of all teams in the post-season. Expanding to 96 is all about cash grab. By definition, multiple teams with losing records will be playing in the tournament. Strikes me as ridiculous. A first round matchup between 2-loss Kansas and a 17 loss team. yawn.

How does 96 work?

96
48
24
12
6
3
??

Up until about 15 years ago or so it was a field of 48. Top seeds had a bye. There is a chance you would have teams with overall losing records.....conference tournament winners, but there are close to 300 D-1 basketball programs. 96 would mean you're still taking winning programs. Only way I could get behind a field of 96 is if the conference tournaments were removed and the automatic bids went to regular season champions. Shared or outright. I think it is a bad idea overall to expand.

[jay santos]

Also, watering it down just means more "power" conferences get in. And we all want to see the 14th place Big East team in the tournament.

I think this is a bad assumption. Look at this list.

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

Teams 45 - 80 are the teams we're talking about. A lot of midmajor teams there. And I think they'd probably have a rule that you had to have an overall winning record to make it.

[CJF]

I think this is a bad assumption. Look at this list.

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

Teams 45 - 80 are the teams we're talking about. A lot of midmajor teams there. And I think they'd probably have a rule that you had to have an overall winning record to make it.

Ok, I exaggerated a bit. St. John's finished 13th in the BE and is 67 on that list.

[beefytee]

I think this is a bad assumption. Look at this list.

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

Teams 45 - 80 are the teams we're talking about. A lot of midmajor teams there. And I think they'd probably have a rule that you had to have an overall winning record to make it.

Has anyone drawn up a mock bracket to show what it would look like?

I'd be interested in that.

So far I'm not convinced that expanding it isn't just diluting it.


Having followed hockey all my life, there was a time when just about every team made the playoffs.

I'm happy that with expansion that has changed. The regular season has to mean something.

[WashingtonCoug]

I think having 96 teams is ridiculous for the same reason, it's ridiculous to have 50 bowl games out there. Where is the reward if everyone gets into the post season? Post season should be reserved as a reward for teams that had a great year, not just a mediocre year.

[smokymountainrain]

Ok, I exaggerated a bit. St. John's finished 13th in the BE and is 67 on that list.

That St John's might make such a tournament is argument enough as to why it shouldn't happen.

[TripletDaddy]

Up until about 15 years ago or so it was a field of 48. Top seeds had a bye. There is a chance you would have teams with overall losing records.....conference tournament winners, but there are close to 300 D-1 basketball programs. 96 would mean you're still taking winning programs. Only way I could get behind a field of 96 is if the conference tournaments were removed and the automatic bids went to regular season champions. Shared or outright. I think it is a bad idea overall to expand.

Right, but my question more fully-posed is asking how 96 teams would work in the sense of fan interest.

What we are basically talking about it combining the NIT with the NCAA tournament and making it one huge tournament, with the NIT portion happening a couple of days earlier.

There is a reason the NIT receives such poor viewership....all the good teams are playing elsewhere. Would America tune in today to watch two 15-17 loss teams play each other? I suppose gamblers might. I would pass until the field was narrowed a bit, so expansion wouldn't do much for my viewership.

I feel the same about football bowl proliferation. I don't come close to watching all the bowls. Most of them have zero appeal for me.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I like the tournament the way it is now. I am in the afraid of change group.