96 in the NCAA Tournament

I apologize if this has already been created, and if so can you link me to the thread and close this one?

After watching the tournament, what are your thoughts of having 96 teams in the NCAA March Madness tournament?

You for it or against it?

 

It would take away from the tradition of the Dayton play-in game. I'm against it.

 

No one is really for it, not even the clowns at the NCAA who are going to approve the proposal.

 

So ridiculous. I can't even begin to describe how moronic the NCAA is for doing this crap.

 

Absolutely a bad, bad, bad idea, but money talks, so everyone is forced to listen. It's just going to be plain wrong for the bottom-feeders of the Big East - however much longer that conference holds together before the Big Ten comes poaching - fight and battle and scratch their way to finish 12th or 13th and snag the league's last at-large bid.

Tell me again how going to 96 teams is going to be good for the college game?

 

I laughed out loud at that...

 

I hate this idea.

 

As someone who especially loves the first and second rounds and who has made it a mini-tradition picking a site somewhere and going to the games, this is very un-fan friendly. You're adding a round with shitty teams and diluting the chance of cool upsets the first weekend. Hell, forget upsets, you might not even get competitive games. And depending on where they throw the games -- I've read that they're leaning on adding the round of 32 to the regional round sites -- you might only see the top seeds play once. That makes the first weekend a lot less interesting all around and not nearly as worth the price of admission, which is getting steep as it is.

 

I don't like the idea of 96, but I actually think it would lead to MORE upsets. Teams that are 15s and 16s now would be something like 23s and 24s in a 96-team tournament. So the teams that advance to face a No. 1 seed, for example, would be a better 16 seed -- and a team that already has a tournament win under its belt.

 

Two thoughts:

1. If 96 teams means more TV money, count on the tournament expanding no matter what...


2. In March 2010, can you name the 31 teams that you would have wanted to add to the field of 65 that was announced? Once I see the list of 31 teams who really deserved a shot at the national championship, I will be in a much better position to come to a conclusion as to the worthiness of that idea...

 

Oh, they'll be shitty teams, no question. But instead of your 15s and 16s being the winners of terrible conferences, they'll now be the first few teams that were left out. Think along the lines of Dayton, Mississippi State and North Carolina, instead of the SWAC and MEAC and SoCon champs.

 

That's way to many teams.

I always liked the idea of four play-in games, but personally I don't think it should be for the 16 seed. Whatever crappy mid-major that barely eeked out a conference tourney win deserves to be there. Using this year for an example, I would love to see teams like Florida and Illinois battle it out for the 13 or 14 seed.

This way, the No. 1 seeds still earn their right of playing well all year to play the worst teams in the first round, mid-majors that win their tourneys still get to dance, and teams that otherwise might get screwed get a chance to show they're worth a chance.

Everybody wins!