A real bracket buster: 96-team NCAA tourney?

Don't know, what was it?

But if your point is that a conference bottom feeder is capable of making a run, I agree it's possible, but I don't particularly think that's a good thing. The only major conference bottom feeders that would be capable of doing that are teams with big time talent that underachieved all year and then decided to turn it on in the post season. That's not the kind of Cinderella that I'd like to see rewarded.

An underachieving team that fails to even finish near the top half of its conference doesn't deserve a post season shot at the national championship.

 

Could be wrong but think Arizona was fifth or sixth in the PAC 10 that year. There have been other teams, too, that have had horrible conference records and still made it deep into the tourney. Carolina and Wisconsin were both eight seeds in 2000 and reached the Final Four. When Florida won it in '06 their conference record wasn't that great, but they won the SEC tourney and got a three seed.

Even though a Mid Major like George Mason or Wisconsin-Milwaukee can come out of nowhere, teams with average records from power conferences usually do better in the tourney than the best teams from smaller ones. If College of Charleston nearly goes unbeaten in their league it doesn't mean they could go 9-7 or 8-8 if they played in the ACC. The Big East has been so deep the past couple years that it's completely possible to get in the tournament with a bad seed and go on a run. Since the league is so good a run by a low-seeded team isn't a fluke.

 

The NCAA ought to be working on a plan to narrow the divide between the haves and the have-nots, both in football and basketball. But that would require common sense and evidently that's not a requirement there.

Yep, 65 was an idiotic idea. So I don't know what you call 96.

 

Reducing the # of scholarships has done a decent job of leavening in football.
It would be hard to engineer much further improvement without putting teeth
into actual by-God academic requirements which would require the likes of
Florida State and Texas Tech to actually shape up or ship out. Not holding my breath.

 

Scholarships need to be whacked again or the Arkansas States and Florida Internationals of the world need to drop down a level. For them to be classified on the same level as Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, etc., is a joke.

 

The NCAA Tournament was perfect at 64 teams.

Even the play-in game cheapens it.

It's perfect, stop fucking with it.

 

If it ain't broke, break it.

 

The move to 96 would be stupid.

- Someone will bark about a bubble whether it's 32, 64, 96, 128 or 300 teams. Someone will always be on the bubble.

- I question if this would give more worthy mid-majors a chance, or simply allow more fringe power conference programs in. The same ones far below .500 ... and while the Big East, Big Ten, ACC and so on might be more difficult leagues to work through, what makes anyone think that those programs in the bottom quarter of those league standings will suddenly catch fire in March?

- Shaky enough that the so-called "student-athletes" are missing the class time they are. So the solution is ... to miss more classes?

- Does the NCAA really think this will cause them to further spike rights fees?

 

Eleven scholarships is more than enough. Teams could easily live with 10, and 2-3 walkons. That way if you lose 1 or 2 via a poor APR, it really costs you.

And giving far more weight to road wins that home wins (even more than at the present) in the RPI would be a great adjustment and stop rewarding teams like Syracuse, etc., that never play a non-league road game.

(And 15 scholarships for women's programs is an absolute embarrassment).

 

I'm having trouble finding the link/source, maybe it was Pat Forde or Jason King who wrote it, but this was mentioned:

1) Regular season conference champs from all conferences (Thus the regular season would STILL mean something, but conferences with divisions would have to decide factor who gets bid).
2) Conference tourney champs.
3) If team sweeps regular season and tourney titles, tourney runner-up also gets bid (thus two teams per conference get in; In case of Ivy League, runner-up moves on).
4) Tourney would keep 8 sites. Wednesday-Friday-Sunday at 4 sites and Thursday-Saturday-Monday at 4 sites. W-F-S sites would be Thursday-Saturday for Sweet 16/Elite 8 and T-S-M sites would be Friday-Sunday for Sweet 16/Elite 8.

Not sure if the 96-team bracket was on one sheet of letter paper, but it seems doable.

 

How is it that college sports are so popular with a bunch of screw-ups running things?

 

I'm just glad this is happening after most NCAA pools moved online. I'd hate to be the schmo running the office pool having to keep track of everybody's 96-team bracket.