64 vs 96

[CJF]

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.

I agree with you. It is a bad idea.

[Surfah]

This is such a horrible idea. The last 20 winners of the NC have gone to the 4the 4th seed or higher. A 16 has never beaten a 1. Yet we're going to continue to dilute the product for the sake of money. Stupid. Going to the dance is special. It means something. Kind of like going to a bowl game was special before making anyone with a .500 record bowl eligible and their being a million bowls before and after New Year's. Stretching the field to 96 will also hurt the regular season tremendously. I think some people are for expansion because this will mean more mid-majors will have access to the tournament. And while I think there will be more on whole, really the first teams added to this expanded field are the 7th, 8th, 9th place teams in the ACC and the 9th, 10th, and 11th teams in the Big East. And as DDD said, who is going to watch all of these "play-in games" to the real tournament? The NIT is meaningless. Adding that field to the NCAA tournament will hurt the image and exclusivity of it. Also, we will see teams follow the Stew Morrill model of scheduling which I think is unfortunate.

[scottie]

I didn't know the reasoning behind the "play-in" game between seeds 64 and 65, always thought it was completely pointless, so I Googled it:

The game was conceived after the Mountain West Conference, which had been formed in 1999 following the split of the Western Athletic Conference, was given an automatic bid for its conference champion, which made it the 31st conference to receive an automatic berth into the men's tournament. Unlike the women's tournament, which accommodated this change by eliminating an at-large bid to keep their field at 64 teams, the organizers of the men's tournament elected to keep their at-large entries at 34. In order to eliminate one of the teams to have a 64-team bracket, it became necessary for another game to be played between the two lowest-ranked teams among the automatic bid leagues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Opening_Round_game

Way to go MWC.

[cougjunkie]

So if they expand to 96 that means NOrth Carolina makes the tournament. That wouldnt be ridiculous would it.

[Fiyero]

Sunday night, Digger Phelps said that Illinois and Miss St whining about not making the dance is rediculous because the whole point is to crown a champion, and neither of those teams were good enough to win three games and make the Elite Eight, let alone win six games and take the crown. The crux of their argument is "we deserve the honor of being named," but the dance is not about handing out ribbons to those who are kind of good, but handing out one championship plaque to one team.

[TripletDaddy]

...whining....rediculous....the whole point is to crown a champion....The crux of their argument is "we deserve the honor of being named," but the dance is not about handing out ribbons to those who are kind of good, but handing out one championship plaque to one team.

[Fiyero]

Well played, DDD. Football teams 3 and 4 not being allowed to play for the title (even when undefeated) is very comparable to hoops teams 66 and 67 not being allowed to play for the round of 32.

BTW I heard that USC had zero losses in last week's P-10 tourney, is that true?

[jay santos]

Something just tells me that after they go to 96 and March Madness is still the best thing ever that 20 years from now 96 will seem like the perfect number and people will look back and say "remember how everyone made a fuss about going to 96 and thought it would ruin the tournament? wasn't that silly?" (run on sentence alert)

[Indy Coug]

Something just tells me that after they go to 96 and March Madness is still the best thing ever that 20 years from now 96 will seem like the perfect number and people will look back and say "remember how everyone made a fuss about going to 96 and thought it would ruin the tournament? wasn't that silly?" (run on sentence alert)

Not bloody likely.

[jay santos]

Not bloody likely.

Don't you think the exact arguments they're making against going to 96 were made against going to 64 and before that going to 48, etc.?

I have pretty low energy about this. Trying to pass the time on a boring afternoon. But the more I think about this, the more I think it's not that big of a deal. And I even start to join the "more is merrier camp". Wouldn't you rather be spending today and tomorrow talking about the buzzer beater SDSU made over UCONN to move them into the round of 64 or the Florida/St. Louis game where we waited for the winner to meet us? You get all of the Majerus hatred going on CB. Come on. Not bloody likely?

[Indy Coug]

Don't you think the exact arguments they're making against going to 96 were made against going to 64 and before that going to 48, etc.?

I have pretty low energy about this. Trying to pass the time on a boring afternoon. But the more I think about this, the more I think it's not that big of a deal. And I even start to join the "more is merrier camp". Wouldn't you rather be spending today and tomorrow talking about the buzzer beater SDSU made over UCONN to move them into the round of 64 or the Florida/St. Louis game where we waited for the winner to meet us? You get all of the Majerus hatred going on CB. Come on. Not bloody likely?

The move from 48 to 64 didn't create an additional round in the tournament and all of the associated logistical issues that a 7th round would present, especially given the 2 rounds per week setup.

The tournament is already too bloated. 48 teams = 12 seeds and that's more than you need.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

64 is perfect. Once in a blue moon a 15th seed will beat a #2 seed and it's one of the more exciting things in sports to see. Kiss that goodbye because there's going to be a play in round that includes these kind of games. As is usually the case, the 15th seed can surprise the #2 seed in the first round but will then lose in the second round. I think we'll hardly ever see #2-4 seeds get beat again by a #15-#13 seeds if they have a play in round.

And I would be even more against more expansion if they use it as a means to get the Mississippi States and Illinois like teams into the tourney. If they want to give them to teams from small conferences who either get upset in their conference tourney or have come close to a regular season conference championship, then I wouldn't mind as much. The fact that UTEP was even on the bubble in the first place was pretty stupid, they deserved to go to the tournament.

[All-American]

Opposed to 96, and here's why.

The best part of the tournament are the upsets. Every year, you wonder which of the 12s will knock off the 5, or whether a 14 will be able to slip past a 3. If you make seeds 9 through 16 play another game, it will be that much more difficult for them to regroup and pull off an upset against seeds 1-8. The tournament will be less awesome.

Sometimes, when the goose is laying golden eggs, it's best to let it be.

[All-American]

And I don't feel really bad about teams being left out of the 65 team tournament. The odds of them winning the first game are small enough. The chances of them winning the second or third are negligible. I just can't be made to care about a team that was on the bubble and got left out.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

And I don't feel really bad about teams being left out of the 65 team tournament. The odds of them winning the first game are small enough. The chances of them winning the second or third are negligible. I just can't be made to care about a team that was on the bubble and got left out.

I don't feel bad for the Mississippi States that don't give a crap about playing well consistently during the regular season. I do feel bad about a small conference team that dominates the regular season and then gets upset during the conference tourney.

It's not like the small conference team can win the whole thing, but it provides them the chance to play one the big boys and score an upset. Upsetting a highly seeded team is akin to winning a big bowl game in football. BYU fans always remember the Cotton Bowl and Utah always remember the Sugar Bowl, neither game had the national championship on the line. Also, scoring upsets in the tourney allows a team to gain national prominence, like Butler or Gonzaga.