Big Ten commissioner saying expansion to 96 teams "probable" in 2011

[butchbadger]

I agree with most.  The regular season has already been diminished and now is basically meaningless.

For teams like Marquette or Wisconsin it would take a nearly catastrophic season not to make the tourney.  It would be bottom 2 or 3 of the Big 11 or bottom 4-5 of the Big East.

I hate this idea.  We can't get the obvious needed and public desired football playoff and now get this which nobody asked for or wants.


I am all for more mid majors but it would have been awful if undeserving teams like Minnesota, Illinois, Seton Hall or Cincinnati made the tournament.  

[reinko]

Just install a consolation bracket after the first weekend, going back to 6th grade catholic b-ball days, everyone loved the consolation bracket.  

[reinko]

I agree with most.  THe regualr has already been diminished and now is basically meaningless.

For teams like Marquette or Wisconsin it would take a catastrophic season not to make the tourney.  It would be bottom 2 or 3 of the Big 11 or bottom 4-5 of the Big East.

I hate this idea.  We can't get the obvious needed and public desired football playoff and now get this which nobody asked for or wants.

So the team that goes 24-6, gets a #3 seed in the 96 team tourney, and the team that goes 17-12 and gets a #19 seed are in the same boat.  C'mon bucko.

[caltruda]

I can't see 96 unless you guarantee every automatic bid winner gets a bye into the round of 64. The logistics also seem rather daunting. How many sites do you have for these 16 games because there's absolutely no way campuses can host these games.

Are the 16 winners re-seeded to create the field of 64? Additionally, are these 16 winners going to play three games the first week of the tournament? Then we'll get the whining from coaches similar to what happened at the Big East with the double-bye when they play a team that has momentum after its first win.

Continuing, how much money does the NCAA think it's going to get from the winning bidder with the expansion? Will it be the same per "unit" that is awarded to teams now? Will conferences be willing to accept a lesser revenue share during their down years (i.e., the Pac-10 this year with only two teams despite its three victories)?

I love college basketball, but I have a very hard time believing these additional 16 games are going to produce "quality" basketball. I understand using the word quality is subjective, but we've all watched enough college basketball to know a watchable game. As a case in point, can anyone say the current play-in game has been played at such a level where you thought the two teams were anything BUT a 16 seed (or worse)?

Like some others, I would be in favor of gradual expansion... I could see 68 or 72, with those extra games being played at Dayton and Hinkle Fieldhouse on a permanent basis that feeds into the 64. 96, however, is just too much too soon and it does diminish the accomplishment of reaching the NCAA tournament.

Just my .02

[ChicosBailBonds]

Haha, yeah. Easy to see why almost every coach wants the tourney expanded to 96.

Unless there's a rule that BCS conference teams must finish .500 or better to make the field, MU should go every year.

In a mock 96 team field, St. Johns made the tourney. You're talking about a team that finished 13th in conference by going 6-12. I would hope that even in a rebuilding/down year, MU could do the same.

If they do this right, they would not be going.  I suspect they end up doing this right.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

I think it diminishes the Tournament and before you know it all 300+ teams will be in the damn thing. If you want to go to the big dance bring a candidite for Prom Queen not a pig in lipstick.
Just how I feel

[ChicosBailBonds]

I can't see 96 unless you guarantee every automatic bid winner gets a bye into the round of 64. The logistics also seem rather daunting. How many sites do you have for these 16 games because there's absolutely no way campuses can host these games.

Are the 16 winners re-seeded to create the field of 64? Additionally, are these 16 winners going to play three games the first week of the tournament? Then we'll get the whining from coaches similar to what happened at the Big East with the double-bye when they play a team that has momentum after its first win.

Continuing, how much money does the NCAA think it's going to get from the winning bidder with the expansion? Will it be the same per "unit" that is awarded to teams now? Will conferences be willing to accept a lesser revenue share during their down years (i.e., the Pac-10 this year with only two teams despite its three victories)?

I love college basketball, but I have a very hard time believing these additional 16 games are going to produce "quality" basketball. I understand using the word quality is subjective, but we've all watched enough college basketball to know a watchable game. As a case in point, can anyone say the current play-in game has been played at such a level where you thought the two teams were anything BUT a 16 seed (or worse)?

Like some others, I would be in favor of gradual expansion... I could see 68 or 72, with those extra games being played at Dayton and Hinkle Fieldhouse on a permanent basis that feeds into the 64. 96, however, is just too much too soon and it does diminish the accomplishment of reaching the NCAA tournament.

Just my .02

Logistics are fairly easy.  You just send more teams to each already existing site, have them play on Tuesday or Wednesday (Tuesday if you're a Thurs\Sat site or Wednesday if you're a Fri\Sun site).  Winner then plays the bye team the normal slotted day as the tournament now runs (Thurs or Friday).   Kids aren't missing any more class (they all leave on Monday anyway to get to the sites), it keeps the tournament to the same 3 weeks, it allows for the bye teams to truly get an advantage since they are rested while the teams that played the first game will have played 48 hours earlier.


Elephant....was the tournament diminished when it went from 32 to 48 to 64?  I'm just asking, not trying to pick a fight. 

[muguru]

I guess I just don't understand why they want to take the greatest sporting event in America, and ruin it?? Getting into the NCAAs is something special, something you strive for all season long. Now with 96 teams in, how special is it anymore?? You also wonder what if any impact it will have on recruiting?? Will some coaches get "lazier" figuring with an expanded field they will get in the dance anyway, even if the talent level a that school, while stil good enough, isn't as god as it had been??

Will more kids go to lesser known programs??

[ChicosBailBonds]

I guess I just don't understand why they want to take the greatest sporting event in America, and ruin it?? Getting into the NCAAs is something special, something you strive for all season long. Now with 96 teams in, how special is it anymore?? You also wonder what if any impact it will have on recruiting?? Will some coaches get "lazier" figuring with an expanded field they will get in the dance anyway, even if the talent level a that school, while stil good enough, isn't as god as it had been??

Will more kids go to lesser known programs??

I guess I don't understand how it will be "ruined" by allowing more teams the opportunity to play in it.  Can someone explain to me how it will be "ruined"?  And while they are at it, can someone explain to me how going from 32 to 48 didn't ruin it....going from 48 to 64 didn't ruin it but going from 64 to 96 (25 years after the last expansion and more than 130 additional teams added to division I) will ruin it?

There are a lot of VERY smart people working on this that have zero intention of ruining anything.

[muhoosier260]

Expenses also drive America.....it costs money to run things, something most Americans and especially our gov't don't realize

For a second I thought this was a politics free board.
I absolutely hate this idea, if it isn't broken don't fix it NCAA!

[ChicosBailBonds]

For a second I thought this was a politics free board.
I absolutely hate this idea, if it isn't broken don't fix it NCAA!

It is and my comment wasn't about politics.  It was about economics, and basic economics at that.  You can't SPEND more than you take in (whether that's the NCAA, the US Gov't, or your household).  The NCAA has costs that must be accounted for in the future, and they are going to need to expand those revenues.  This is one way to do that.

Was it broken when it went from 32 to 48?  When it went from 48 to 64?   

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Mike Francesca was talking about it this afternoon.  He said he was told the NIT would be gone.  CBS & Turner Broadcasting have already submitted a joint bid to broadcast as well as a bid from ESPN.  CBS broadcasters would do the games on TBS & TNT.

[PGsHeroes32]

If tourney expansion is truly a must then they have to do it the way Andy Katz suggested. It is by far the best way. Expand to 68 teams. Have the last 4 in play the last 4 out and the winners of those 4 games get the 12 seeds. This also keeps the 16 seed conference winners from being punished and having to play a play in game.

[DegenerateDish]

I think what is being missed in all this isn't the postseason, but how does the structure of the regular season change if this happens.

For example, say what you will about DePaul, but tournament expansion gives them zero reason to stay in the Big East. If anything, tournament expansion should make DePaul want to get out of the Big East immediately. One could argue the same thing about MU really, if not for MU's committment to men's basketball. I know it will be argued DePaul should get out of the Big East now, but if you're DePaul, why bother getting your tail kicked by schools like Syracuse, Georgetown, UConn repeatedly (even if they do improve in the next 2 years). Teams like DePaul, Providence, and yes, Marquette, should be looking for the easiest road possible to get in to a 96 team field. Sure, with 96 teams, it should be much easier. But why risk staying in the Big East and taking it on the chin, when you could go to the A10, build a "strong enough" resume, and take the easier road.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I think what is being missed in all this isn't the postseason, but how does the structure of the regular season change if this happens.

For example, say what you will about DePaul, but tournament expansion gives them zero reason to stay in the Big East. If anything, tournament expansion should make DePaul want to get out of the Big East immediately. One could argue the same thing about MU really, if not for MU's committment to men's basketball. I know it will be argued DePaul should get out of the Big East now, but if you're DePaul, why bother getting your tail kicked by schools like Syracuse, Georgetown, UConn repeatedly (even if they do improve in the next 2 years). Teams like DePaul, Providence, and yes, Marquette, should be looking for the easiest road possible to get in to a 96 team field. Sure, with 96 teams, it should be much easier. But why risk staying in the Big East and taking it on the chin, when you could go to the A10, build a "strong enough" resume, and take the easier road.

Because the top players don't want to play in the A-10.  This will not change.

[muhoosier260]

It is and my comment wasn't about politics.  It was about economics, and basic economics at that.  You can't SPEND more than you take in (whether that's the NCAA, the US Gov't, or your household).  The NCAA has costs that must be accounted for in the future, and they are going to need to expand those revenues.  This is one way to do that.

Was it broken when it went from 32 to 48?  When it went from 48 to 64?   

back track if you must, i think everyone sees what you were really getting at. The tournament expanded to 32, 53, and then 64 teams over a period of ten years. Now we're talking about expanding an essentially perfect system (except of course for the snubbed teams) by 50% despite it being in place without without flaw for 25+ years. Also, when the NCAA tournament expanded in the 60s and 70s, the NIT had more weight than it does now. Not only is this expansion going to cheapen the NCAA tournament as many people have pointed out, but it ruins the NIT, which isn't a bad tournament for an inexperienced team or a team that just frankly isn't worthy of making the NCAA. When do the participation ribbons get handed out, does Greg Gumbel do that on selection Sunday?

[PGsHeroes32]

Why would MU want to leave the big east for an easy track? I sure as hell hope we can make a field of 96 while playing in the big east. I dont want to watch a seasons worth of games against A-10 or CUSA teams and make a field of 96 then lose. I want to watch us play marquee teams in the Big East, still make the tourney, be battle tested, keep bringing in good players and win some tourney games. The Big East also provides for meaningful wins as so many teams are quality. So if the tourney ends disappointing and you lose in round 1, you can look back on a key win or two against syracuse, uconn, pitt, nova etc... rather than dayton and temple.