1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

96 in the NCAA Tournament

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Ilmago, Apr 8, 2010.

  1. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Why stop at 96, why not go to 128? For that matter, 256. Add on a round of play-in games, and everybody (all 347 teams) is in -- even the 1-28 and 1-30 teams.

    Everybody gets cookies!! Woohoo!
     
  2. farmerjerome

    farmerjerome Active Member

    Seriously? SERIOUSLY?! So now they have to win one game? You are setting the bar far too high.
     
  3. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    The best part of the first-round games is the chance that a 15 will beat a 2 or a 14 a 3, a 13 a 4, a 12 a 5, etc.

    So now a 13 is going to first have to play a 20 two days earlier. Then, even if it wins, it won't have had any time to scout and prepare for the 4, which will now add rest to its huge advantage.

    This plan will ruin what was the first two days of the tournament and turn teams that survive the first two days of the new tournament in to sacrificial lambs.

    It also makes the difference between getting in as a 9 so much drastically different than an 8.

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
     
  4. suburbia

    suburbia Active Member

    Except that the major conference teams are the ones who pay the freight. The NCAA powers-that-be don't want to cut out those teams. If they were really willing to do so, they wouldn't have even bothered creating the play-in game at all when the Mountain West split from the WAC. They would have just taken away an at-large bid and kept the field at an even 64.
     
  5. farmerjerome

    farmerjerome Active Member

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I thought that with my little idea, six or eight more 'majors' would get the chance to dance, depending how you look at it. I never thought it was fair when the play-in game was introduced that some smaller team that actually won their conference could get shafted before the Thursday games in favor of some mediocre 21-win team from the SEC.
     
  6. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Yep. A woefully underseeded team like Northern Iowa (ranked all year, RPI 17) would be among those at the center of the new bubble debate -- who should get byes? In this year's tournament, UNI would've had to beat Lehigh in a 9-24 game to get to UNLV, then KU.
     
  7. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    What I dislike about it is, what'll happen is, you've got two midweek days of 9-seeds playing 24-seeds before the top 8 seeds jump in.

    Who. Gives. A. Shit.

    It's like being force-fed the NIT, which in a way, half of it is.

    If the NCAA must go to 96, the best way is to have 16 play-in games at 4 sites (Dayton can continue to be one of the sites). Keep the subregionals/pods separate and keep them the same.

    Better yet, postpone the start of the round of 64 a week so we can keep our brackets.
     
  8. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Yeah, but who cares if a 16-seed North Carolina plays a No. 1 seed Syracuse after beating No. 24 seed Vermont?

    People watch the No. 1 vs. No. 16 because of the David vs. Goliath factor. Watching Goliath vs. a crappy Goliath isn't much fun.

    The BCS schools that normally wouldn't get into the tournament will get the higher seeds, shoving down the Northern Iowas.

    NCAA is a bunch of fools, and hypocrites too. They complain that they don't want a football playoff because the kids will miss classes (during winter break, no less). Yet, they want to make teams spend more time on the road (even if it is for an extra day or two).
     
  9. forever_town

    forever_town Well-Known Member

    I'm still against that, let alone this crazy expansion.

    I think they should reduce the NCAA Tournament to 32 teams. Only conference tournament champions should get in.
     
  10. Roscablo

    Roscablo Well-Known Member

    I've actually read that the NCAA is leaning toward having that round on Thursda-Friday just like the old opening round was and then the round of 64 will be Saturday-Sunday where the round of 32 used to be. The third round would be played Tuesday-Wednesday before the regionals. They want to add to the tourney, but they don't want to add time to it.

    That's why I think it is not fan-friendly. It wrecks the first weekend with a round most people probably could give two shits about and then you only get to see the top seeds once. That's also going to be tourney basketball every other day for a week and a half. Are people going to lose interest? Are the teams going to be able to survive that kind of push? I think it lessens the appeal and the quality of basketball all around.

    If they played the new first round a week before the round of 64 it might not be that bad, but they are cramming too much in.
     
  11. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    It's going to happen folks. I'm already resigned to it.
     
  12. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    As much as I hate the idea of expanding the NCAA Tournament, the only worse idea is to make it fewer than 64 teams.

    Dont. Fuck. With. The. Tournament.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page