96 in the NCAA Tournament

[Ilmago]

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?

 

[DanOregon]

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

 

[trifectarich]

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

 

[Den1983]

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

 

[noodles]

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?

 

[slappy4428]

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

I laughed out loud at that...

 

[Stoney]

I hate this idea.

 

[Roscablo]

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 ****ty 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.

 

[mb]

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.

 

[jackfinarelli]

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...

 

[mb]

Oh, they'll be ****ty 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.

 

[farmerjerome]

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!

 

[Starman]

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!

 

[farmerjerome]

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!

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

 

[old_tony]

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.

 

[suburbia]

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.

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.

 

[farmerjerome]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Oz]

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.

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.

 

[Football_Bat]

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. ****.

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.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

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.

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).