NCAA seeks TV bids for 96-team tournament

[Pakuni]

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/64712

Key graphs:

The broadcasters are basing their bids on an expanded tournament field, according to a request for proposal issued by the NCAA to potential bidders late last year. A copy of the RFP was obtained by SportsBusiness Journal.

The NCAA has its sights set on expanding from a 65-team tournament to either 68 or 96 teams if it opts out of the CBS contract, according to the 12-page RFP.

In the RFP, the NCAA outlines two 96-team split formats that have an over-the-air partner teaming with a cable partner.

[KipsBayEagle]

I guess getting into the Ncaa tournament will be easier than getting into Arizona state........

[MarquetteDano]

Jeesh... jumping from 65 to 96?  Quite a jump indeed.  Can't we do it a little more slowly like from 65 to 72? Or even just 80?

[cheebs09]

Wow. One big argument for the BCS in football is that way each game in the regular season means something. In basketball they are working to do something that makes the regular season almost meaningless. We've been solid this year but obviously this has been looked at as a rebuilding year and the bubble talk is pretty constant and I find it pretty exciting. If it were 96 teams the word bubble wouldn't even be mentioned here. I hope this doesn't happen, at worst have 4 play-in games and make it 68 teams, but 96 teams seems to water down the tournament a lot.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I guess getting into the Ncaa tournament will be easier than getting into Arizona state........

Not really....it actually brings it back to levels it used to be.  In 1985, 64 teams made it and there were far fewer DI teams. 

I've been advocating for this for a long time and everything I'm hearing on the tv side in sports internally, says it's going to happen.  Maybe not immediately, but eventually.

I know our CBS deal is up after this tournament for our product with them.  The national CBS contract still has some tenure on it, but that can be scrapped by the NCAA via an out clause after this tournament.  ESPN is drooling over this, I assure you.  CBS, however, does not want to lose one of their cornerstone products.

[Blackhat]

Regular season would be essentially meaningless for most BCS schools. 

[dsfire]

There'd be a huge difference between getting an 8 seed versus being a 9 seed and having to play the first round.  Top seeds would also have significantly harder first games against at-large bids instead of the champion of the Northeast Conference.  Count me as not a fan of tourney expansion.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Regular season would be essentially meaningless for most BCS schools. 

Disagree.  The largest benefactors by percentage, will be schools from the Missouri Valley, A-10, WAC, etc.  Yes, additional BCS schools will get in, but from a percentage stand point, you will see a bigger dispersion of the pie elsewhere.   You're going to see a lot more 20+ win teams make it that schools are not going to want to play.  You'll also see more upsets because there will be more valid competition coming in.

Right now you have 40 to 45 legit teams in the tournament, the rest are conference tournament winners.  Now you'll have about 65 to 70 teams that have some legitimate quality to them and the rest are conference tournament winners.

As much as people give me crap for Utah State, those type of teams will be in the tournament and causing a lot of problems.  It's a minor miracle we won that game last year.

I know most don't see it right now, but this is going to be a lot of fun and will catch on.  There will be many detractors that will scream it's watered down, but I'm guessing that passes after 1 or 2 years at most. 

At 96 teams, it means 27.67% of DI teams make it to the NCAA tournament.  This is still one of the lowest playoff berths in sports.  Bowl games are 50%.  NFL is at 39%.  NBA is at 50%+.  NHL the same. 

The only sport that is lower is Major League Baseball at 26.67%....barely below this proposal.  I don't think anyone is saying that the MLB has too many teams in the playoffs.

[Eye]

I'd go for 68. Allows 3 more at-large teams to get in as something like 13 seeds, and gives the bottom 8 conferences the ability to claim they won an NC2A tourney game.

Perfect world for me would be 68 teams plus ESPN/ABC gets the bid. Would allow games to be placed on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU. I can understand completely why ESPN/ABC would be enthralled to get this. It'd be a week of a lot of people clamoring to get ESPNU, kind of like the NFL Network has been able to do to some degree nationally and the Miniscule 11 Network has been able to do in this part of the world.

I guess if I had to choose between 96 teams or ESPN/ABC getting the package, I'd stay with 68 teams.

Wouldn't ESPN/ABC getting the package be bad for you guys at DTV Chicos? You guys would lose a ton of marketability with your MMM package, wouldn't you?

[Pakuni]

I don't think anyone is saying that the MLB has too many teams in the playoffs.

Hi.

[TallTitan34]

I want Costas for MLB commish once Bud finally goes away.

As for a 96 team tournament that's just crazy.  Almost 1/3 of teams would be in the big dance.

Would they still have the NIT or would the tournament and tv time merge into the NCAA's?

[hdog1017]

The NCAA loves $$$$$.   

[Ari Gold]

Would they still have the NIT or would the tournament and tv time merge into the NCAA's?

96 would pretty much eliminate the need? for an NIT or any other tournament. I'm with Chicos, in suggesting that there should be an expansion, but I wonder if that will decrease the impact of a team's regular season win/loss record.

I also want to know if there would be 96 "tournament worthy" teams. Every year ESPN features somewhere around a dozen teams that were 'on the bubble' but failed to qualify. Even including those is +/-76 teams. Are there really 20 other teams that can be added that will improve the tournament.

[AlumKCof93]

Aside from coaches and the networks, who wants this?  Has there been an outcry from fans to expand?  As with others, I'd be fine with a move to 68, though that would lead to more "play-in" games that no one watches.  But a move to 96 would lessen not only the regular season but also the first round of the tournament.  This would suck!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Hi.

Beautiful, if that little pug said it then I know it's the right call.  Thanks Pakuni!!


There will always be some gnashing at teeth on this (or anything that means change) and people will say "64 is the perfect number" (when ironically it's 65 right now).  Of course people bitched about the wild card add on for football and for baseball, and now no one bitches about it.

I'm not old enough to remember what the landscape was when it went from 32 to 48, but I'm sure there were some people then that said "32 is the perfect number".  Everyone is fixated on 64 being the perfect number.  Why? 

This is about $$$$$ and it's about opportunity. 

For those asking "who wants this"....was their an outcry to move from 32 to 48?  From 48 to 64?  Of course not, yet the NCAA and the networks delivered it to the fans, the fans embraced it and it got more popular than ever. 

Does anyone honestly think people will boycott watching the tournament?  And no, it would NOT lessen the first round of the tournament.  In fact, it would make it better in many ways if they do this right. 

The NIT goes away with all this.  It served it's purpose, but it goes bye bye.  There is very little relevancy now for it, and going to 96 kills it completely.


And quite frankly, with the spectre of conference realignment and super conferences down the road, trust me as a Marquette fan without football, we want this to happen very much!  VERY VERY MUCH!

[dsfire]

At 96 teams, it means 27.67% of DI teams make it to the NCAA tournament.  This is still one of the lowest playoff berths in sports.  Bowl games are 50%.  NFL is at 39%.  NBA is at 50%+.  NHL the same. 

The only sport that is lower is Major League Baseball at 26.67%....barely below this proposal.  I don't think anyone is saying that the MLB has too many teams in the playoffs.

NBA regular season is a joke, and most of the early bowl games are the equivalent of the NIT.  Beyond that, do you really think college basketball is directly comparable to pro sports?  The 340+ D1 basketball teams are not all on the same level, and probably 250-300 of them have no chance to win a title in any given year, invite or not.  As it stands, all but 15ish (independents and the one new conference) have reasonable chances to make the tournament either through their conference tournaments or at-large bids.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I want Costas for MLB commish once Bud finally goes away.

As for a 96 team tournament that's just crazy.  Almost 1/3 of teams would be in the big dance.

Would they still have the NIT or would the tournament and tv time merge into the NCAA's?

Barely 25% would be in the dance....only the MLB would be lower.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The NCAA loves $$$$$.   

Yes, they need it to operate.

[ChicosBailBonds]

NBA regular season is a joke, and most of the early bowl games are the equivalent of the NIT.  Beyond that, do you really think college basketball is directly comparable to pro sports?  The 340+ D1 basketball teams are not all on the same level, and probably 250-300 of them have no chance to win a title in any given year, invite or not.  As it stands, all but 15ish (independents and the one new conference) have reasonable chances to make the tournament either through their conference tournaments or at-large bids.

That's correct...the NBA is a joke as are the bowl games....and they're both at 50% + for their playoffs.  This takes it to 27.6%....we're not even close to that.

I also agree that there are differences within Division I, but there are also many more good teams than their used to be.  This gives tremendous opportunity for conferences like the A10, Mountain West, CUSA, Missouri Valley and for the future for teams like MU, Nova, G'Town, etc that could be screwed without football. 

You guys need to look longer term.  The world is changing, the college athletics world is also.

[wyoMUfan]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Some may say it is broken because of the handful of teams that miss at large bids each year because automatics are given to teams that don't stand a chance any way. I say to those teams, win one more game in the regular season and you won't be on the outside looking in.
If the field is increased the prestige will decline, it's tough enough to win 7 games in a row now were gonna add a few more. ugh

[TallTitan34]

I think 64 is perfect as there are no bye's or play-in-games.  I could care less about 2 teams who don't deserve to be in the tournament playing each other in Dayton.

The next level up to have no bye's or play-in-games would be 128 which is way too many.  The next level down would be 32 which is too few games.  Thus, in my opinion anyway, 64 is the perfect number.

[damuts222]

The next level up to have no bye's or play-in-games would be 128 which is way too many.  The next level down would be 32 which is too few games.  Thus, in my opinion anyway, 64 is the perfect number.

Agree. Chicos, yes Marquette will have a better chance of making the tournament yet all this will do is allow the bigger conferences more teams into the tournament and some of the smaller conference schools will still be left out.
 
 The first round of the tournament will have less quality games in it IMO.

[AlienWarrior]

Isn't that the same Belmont-Abbey where AL coached in Nashville?

[AlumKCof93]

What I'll find interesting is the amount of stories about coaches who will come out in favor of expansion - of course, they will.  It will ease the pressure on them to make the tournament.  What is the drawback from their perspective?

[ChicosBailBonds]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Some may say it is broken because of the handful of teams that miss at large bids each year because automatics are given to teams that don't stand a chance any way. I say to those teams, win one more game in the regular season and you won't be on the outside looking in.
If the field is increased the prestige will decline, it's tough enough to win 7 games in a row now were gonna add a few more. ugh

Never understood this analogy.  My 8 track wasn't broken 25 years ago, but they decided to invent cassette tapes anyway.  Then, despite the cassette not being broken, they created the DVD.

Products can always be improved upon whether they are perceived to be broken or not.

You guys will be laughing in a few years and wondering what all the fuss was about.

[muwarrior87]

The thing I don't like about expansion is that the big conferences will just get bigger and have more power as those extra seeds will be taken up by the likes of the mid-table big conferences, MVC, A10, etc and it's unlikely to provide any more seeds to the Horizon, NEC, etc.  The rich conferences just get richer and the poor conferences don't get much out of this.  Look at the top 96 teams in terms of RPI and SOS.  The teams in that range are a lot of automatic bids as likely conference tournament winners in the Midamerican, Big Sky, and Colonial Conferences and teams like NC St., Miami, and USC...teams that are from the power conferences that deserve to be playing in an NIT type tourney since they played .500 (if that) basketball in conference.

[TJ]

If the field is increased the prestige will decline, it's tough enough to win 7 games in a row now were gonna add a few more. ugh

Currently to win the tournament takes 6 wins in a row.  The proposal of a 96 team tournament would mean only 1 extra potential game and only for teams 33-96; 1-32 would have a bye and still require only 6 wins to win the tournament.  It couldn't possibly be "a few more" games in a row until the tournament was expanded past 128 teams.

[jmayer1]

You guys will be laughing in a few years and wondering what all the fuss was about.

I disagree.  Try to go back and find me 31 teams that had a legitimate case to make the tourney last year.  This will reward a few more mid-major teams but will also allow a lot more bcs teams in as well.  I'm sure there will be a glut of bcs teams that are under .500 in conference that will make the tourney each year if it moves to 96 teams.  It will increase the $$ for the NCAA but I think it will lower the prestige of making the tourney and will make the first round of games much less enjoyable.  Do I really want to watch a 7-11 (conference) Notre Dame team play the Southland conference champion for the right to get smoked by a # 2 seed?

Of course, who knows, maybe it will work out better than I think it will, I just don't think there are 96 tourney worthy teams each year.  The NIT is generally filled with a lot of mediocre teams each year and only 3-4 (if that) teams have a real gripe that they weren't included in the NCAA field.

[MU_83_florida]

My preference would be to stay at 64 but eliminate the automatic bids (MU projected rpi 70 still on the bubble).  Watching a #1 seed vs #16 is painful and most #2 vs #15 also fail to impress.  If you cannot eliminate the automatics the best solution is to increase the bids so that the last 5 rounds are more interesting

[Glocced and Loaded]

96 would make for a lot of fat and gristle

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=8865

[IAmMarquette]

Never understood this analogy.  My 8 track wasn't broken 25 years ago, but they decided to invent cassette tapes anyway.  Then, despite the cassette not being broken, they created the DVD.

Products can always be improved upon whether they are perceived to be broken or not.

You guys will be laughing in a few years and wondering what all the fuss was about.

Tell that to the NHL, which, in the mid-nineties, was hugely popular. The league then expanded (of course, 2 lockouts didn't help anything), leaving markets like Winnipeg, Hartford, and Quebec for places like Phoenix and Carolina, with further expansion into Florida, etc. As a result, the league went from being featured on ESPN and major networks to being relegated to Versus.

"Improvement" is sometimes not all it's cracked up to be. Count me as one wary of expansion.

[TJ]

I would be for expansion to 68 or even 72.  No reason they couldn't "Play-in" all the 15 and 16 seeds.

Somthing I think would be interesting (but is not really possible in reality) - instead of having #64 play #65, they could have the "last 4 in" play the "last 4 out" for those spots. 

[MUfan12]

I would be for expansion to 68 or even 72.  No reason they couldn't "Play-in" all the 15 and 16 seeds.

I'm with ya for 68. Every year, there are maybe 4 teams in the NIT that had legitimate gripes and were just off the bubble. Let those teams in and let the 16 and 16.5 seeds battle it out. Would much rather see some good 11, 12, 13 seeds give the high seeds a run in the first couple rounds.

[TallTitan34]

I'm with ya for 68. Every year, there are maybe 4 teams in the NIT that had legitimate gripes and were just off the bubble. Let those teams in and let the 16 and 16.5 seeds battle it out. Would much rather see some good 11, 12, 13 seeds give the high seeds a run in the first couple rounds.

But then when you add the 4 teams that had gripes, the next 4 teams will have gripes.  People are always going to complain about missing the tournament.  If they expanded to 96, teams 97-100 are going to complain.  Maybe your team should have played better so it wasn't a question. 

Say Marquette is one of the last four out.  I'm not going to campaign for expanding the tournament.  I understand that if we won some of those close games we'd be in and it wouldn't be a question.

Making the tournament is an honor.  If 96 teams get in it would mean nothing to make the tournament.

[IAmMarquette]

But then when you add the 4 teams that had gripes, the next 4 teams will have gripes.  People are always going to complain about missing the tournament.  If they expanded to 96, teams 97-100 are going to complain.  Maybe your team should have played better so it wasn't a question. 

Say Marquette is one of the last four out.  I'm not going to campaign for expanding the tournament.  I understand that if we won some of those close games we'd be in and it wouldn't be a question.

Making the tournament is an honor.  If 96 teams get in it would mean nothing to make the tournament.

Agree with all of the above, particularly the bolded portion. Well said, Titan.

[MUfan12]

But then when you add the 4 teams that had gripes, the next 4 teams will have gripes.  People are always going to complain about missing the tournament.  If they expanded to 96, teams 97-100 are going to complain.  Maybe your team should have played better so it wasn't a question. 

Say Marquette is one of the last four out.  I'm not going to campaign for expanding the tournament.  I understand that if we won some of those close games we'd be in and it wouldn't be a question.

Making the tournament is an honor.  If 96 teams get in it would mean nothing to make the tournament.

I don't disagree with anything you said, especially at 96. It's way too much.

There is something to be said for the increase in D1 programs relative to at large spots, which has shrunk with more auto bids from new conferences popping up.

If there is expansion, I'd prefer 68 for the reasons I said above. A modest expansion would keep the best of the current format without cheapening it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oh please.   Did people say it means NOTHING to make the tournament when it went from 32 to 64.  Good grief.  Of course not.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I disagree.  Try to go back and find me 31 teams that had a legitimate case to make the tourney last year.  This will reward a few more mid-major teams but will also allow a lot more bcs teams in as well.  I'm sure there will be a glut of bcs teams that are under .500 in conference that will make the tourney each year if it moves to 96 teams.  It will increase the $$ for the NCAA but I think it will lower the prestige of making the tourney and will make the first round of games much less enjoyable.  Do I really want to watch a 7-11 (conference) Notre Dame team play the Southland conference champion for the right to get smoked by a # 2 seed?

Of course, who knows, maybe it will work out better than I think it will, I just don't think there are 96 tourney worthy teams each year.  The NIT is generally filled with a lot of mediocre teams each year and only 3-4 (if that) teams have a real gripe that they weren't included in the NCAA field.

Well that all comes back into the eye of the beholder on who is a "legitimate case" to be in the tournament.

But let's spin it another way, the current format has 20+ teams that really don't belong at all.  They are conference tournament winners, in some cases taking away a bid from the true conference season winner....that alone allows this format to rectify that error.  Nothing worse than a team winning their conference season over 4 months and having one bad night and it all goes to crap.


But finding another 32 teams I don't think is that hard and it allows for the smaller conferences to get their due....for last year, here is whom I would have taken

No particular order....there would be plenty of teams below that teams would not want to play because they could be knocked off.  Most of the schools below are not from BCS conferences

Creighton 27-7
Kansas State 22-11
Davidson 27-7
Old Dominion 25-9
George Mason 22-10
Florida 25-9
St. Mary's 28-6
Tulsa 25-10
Rhode Island 23-10
San Diego State 26-9
Baylor 24-14
UAB 22-11
Stanford 20-13
Penn State 27-10
Illinois State 24-9
Vanderbilt 19-11
Providence 19-13
Nevada 21-12
UTEP 23-13
New Mexico 22-11
Duquesne 21-12
Belmont 20-12
UNLV 21-10
Vermont 24-8
UW Green Bay 22-10
Niagara 26-8
Kentucky 22-13
Houston 21-10
Notre Dame 21-14
South Carolina 21-9
College of Charleston 26-8

[MUsoxfan]

Well that all comes back into the eye of the beholder on who is a "legitimate case" to be in the tournament.

But let's spin it another way, the current format has 20+ teams that really don't belong at all.  They are conference tournament winners, in some cases taking away a bid from the true conference season winner....that alone allows this format to rectify that error.  Nothing worse than a team winning their conference season over 4 months and having one bad night and it all goes to crap.


But finding another 32 teams I don't think is that hard and it allows for the smaller conferences to get their due....for last year, here is whom I would have taken

No particular order....there would be plenty of teams below that teams would not want to play because they could be knocked off.  Most of the schools below are not from BCS conferences

Creighton 27-7
Kansas State 22-11
Davidson 27-7
Old Dominion 25-9
George Mason 22-10
Florida 25-19
St. Mary's 28-6
Tulsa 25-10
Rhode Island 23-10
San Diego State 26-9
Baylor 24-14
UAB 22-11
Stanford 20-13
Penn State 27-10
Illinois State 24-9
Vanderbilt 19-11
Providence 19-13
Nevada 21-12
UTEP 23-13
New Mexico 22-11
Duquesne 21-12
Belmont 20-12
UNLV 21-10
Vermont 24-8
UW Green Bay 22-10
Niagara 26-8
Kentucky 22-13
Houston 21-10
Notre Dame 21-14
South Carolina 21-9
College of Charleston 26-8

Maybe that's who you would have taken, but the committee would likely load up on mediocre BCS teams.  The little guys still get left out.   I'm in favor of keeping it the exact same way, less the automatic bids from conference tourney champions.  Conference regular season champs should get it. 

I cringe when I think about the possibility of 10 Big Televen teams in or 12 Big East teams

[muwarrior69]

Currently to win the tournament takes 6 wins in a row.  The proposal of a 96 team tournament would mean only 1 extra potential game and only for teams 33-96; 1-32 would have a bye and still require only 6 wins to win the tournament.  It couldn't possibly be "a few more" games in a row until the tournament was expanded past 128 teams.

Actually if they seed the teams like they do now a 9 would play a 24, a 10 would play a 23 and so forth, which means a 1 would play a 9 or a 24. I think a 1 would play a 9 more often than a 24 making an upset of a 1 seed more likely in the 2nd round than a 1 being upset by a 16 as it is now. Just another reason I like a 96 team expansion.

[boyonthedock]

the winner of a 9/24 matchup would play the eight seed. the 16/17 winner would play the one seed. but those teams would be better as the joke conference champions would be chilling down in the 24 area with a team similar to ND or Vanderbilt in the 16/17 area.

[jmayer1]

Well that all comes back into the eye of the beholder on who is a "legitimate case" to be in the tournament.

But let's spin it another way, the current format has 20+ teams that really don't belong at all.  They are conference tournament winners, in some cases taking away a bid from the true conference season winner....that alone allows this format to rectify that error.  Nothing worse than a team winning their conference season over 4 months and having one bad night and it all goes to crap.


But finding another 32 teams I don't think is that hard and it allows for the smaller conferences to get their due....for last year, here is whom I would have taken

No particular order....there would be plenty of teams below that teams would not want to play because they could be knocked off.  Most of the schools below are not from BCS conferences

Creighton 27-7
Kansas State 22-11 (9-8 conf record)
Davidson 27-7
Old Dominion 25-9
George Mason 22-10
Florida 25-10
St. Mary's 28-6
Tulsa 25-10
Rhode Island 23-10
San Diego State 26-9
Baylor 24-14 (8-12)
UAB 22-11
Stanford 20-13 (7-13)
Penn State 27-10
Illinois State 24-9
Vanderbilt 19-11 (8-9)
Providence 19-13
Nevada 21-12
UTEP 23-13
New Mexico 22-11
Duquesne 21-12
Belmont 20-12
UNLV 21-10 (9-8)
Vermont 24-8
UW Green Bay 22-10
Niagara 26-8
Kentucky 22-13 (9-9)
Houston 21-10
Notre Dame 21-14 (9-11)
South Carolina 21-9
College of Charleston 26-8

Yes, a few teams each year get knocked off each year in their conference tourneys, but that's why it's a tournament.  Just as a few good teams get knocked off in the opening round of the NCAAs.  Last year 15 of the 32 teams in the NIT were from BCS conferences, I'm not sure why you think that if the NCAA expanded it would be much different (you picked 10/32).  Just a cursory look at the BCS schools you selected shows that just being mediocre or slightly below mediocre will then get you into the big dance.  Theoretically, MU could have gotten into the dance this year in a 96 team field only having beaten DePaul x 2 (rpi of 137), Prov x 2 (98), Rutgers (120), St Johns (73), and Notre Dame (70).  That would have given them 7 wins going into the BET and put them squarely on the bubble.  If that isn't mediocre then I don't know what is.  I don't consider either of the MU teams after the years following the Final 4 good teams, but they most likely would have gotten bids under a 96 team format.

At the end of they day, this will probably happen as it's all about money, but when the field expanded from from 16 to 32 to 40 to 48 to 53 to 64 to 65, there were still a lot of BCS teams that were 4/5 games over .500 in their conference and not getting in.  Each time the tourney has expanded it has done so incrementally (except in the very early years).  Why would they expand it so dramatically this time?  Why not move it up to 72 and see how that goes?

There has been expansion in NCAA basketball but it has come from the lower ranks.  Schools that have nearly zero chance of ever winning the tournament.  Expanding the tournament to 96 will lessen the prestige and make selection Sunday and the first few rounds of the tournament much less compelling.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Maybe that's who you would have taken, but the committee would likely load up on mediocre BCS teams.  The little guys still get left out.   I'm in favor of keeping it the exact same way, less the automatic bids from conference tourney champions.  Conference regular season champs should get it. 

I cringe when I think about the possibility of 10 Big Televen teams in or 12 Big East teams

I don't think so, why do you think they would load up on the BCS teams?  The NCAA is already facing issues with the BCS and exclusion of other conferences for the football money, if anything the expansion of the NCAA tournament allows them to show their member institutions that they are doing something for the smaller conferences.

The tournament sells out, the ratings are solid.  They don't need to add more BCS schools to push the tournament success in terms of eyeballs.  In other words, it's not like bowl games where they pick a team with a worse record that "travels well" to fill their stadium because that's not at issue here.

[TJ]

I don't think so, why do you think they would load up on the BCS teams?  The NCAA is already facing issues with the BCS and exclusion of other conferences for the football money, if anything the expansion of the NCAA tournament allows them to show their member institutions that they are doing something for the smaller conferences.

The tournament sells out, the ratings are solid.  They don't need to add more BCS schools to push the tournament success in terms of eyeballs.  In other words, it's not like bowl games where they pick a team with a worse record that "travels well" to fill their stadium because that's not at issue here.

The Selection Committee hasn't exactly been backing that theory up recently.

[TheButlerDidIt]

According to Joe Lunardi, these 20 teams are on his bubble. 11 of them are from BCS conferences. Let's say the tournament expands to 96. Based off of Lunardi's model using this year's numbers to date, 85 slots would be accounted for. Let's just assume the remaining 11 spots would go to the remaining highest rpis. Six of those teams would be BCS schools and one would be super mid-major Memphis. Georgia has a losing record, so they probably wouldn't be taken. I know this data isn't complete, but it could give an idea as to what a field may look like. I love tournaments, so I say the more basketball, the better.

Louisville .5985 14-8 5
Seton Hall .5760 12-7
Marquette .5756 13-8
Wichita St. .5922 18-4
Florida .5790 15-6
Illinois .5588 14-8
Virginia .5536 13-6
North Carolina .5646 13-8
Dayton .6001 15-6
William & Mary .5839 14-6
San Diego St. .6014 13-6
VCU .5772 15-5
Minnesota .5774 13-8
Tulsa .5745 16-4
South Carolina .5745 13-8
Arizona St. .5543 15-7
Utah St. .5800 15-6
Virginia Tech .5679 16-4
Northeastern .5795 14-8
South Florida .5820 14-7 

Teams with next highest rpis:

Texas Tech
Northwestern
Washington
Nevada
Harvard
Notre Dame
Western Carolina
St. John's
Louisiana Tech
Memphis
Georgia

[Moe]

Oh please.   Did people say it means NOTHING to make the tournament when it went from 32 to 64.  Good grief.  Of course not.

That is because it never went from 32 to 64.  It was a slow process:

# 1939–1950: eight teams
# 1951–1952: 16 teams
# 1953–1974: varied between 22 and 25 teams
# 1975–1978: 32 teams
# 1979: 40 teams
# 1980–1982: 48 teams
# 1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
# 1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
# 1985–2000: 64 teams
# 2001—present: 65 teams

[TallTitan34]

Oh please.   Did people say it means NOTHING to make the tournament when it went from 32 to 64.  Good grief.  Of course not.

If the top third of college basketball were to make the tournament it wouldn't mean crap to get in. 

If they went to 96 teams there would be no reason what-so-ever for Marquette to miss the tournament ever again.  The Marquette teams of 2004 and 2005 would be in the tournament and that would be a complete joke.

Missing the NCAA tournament would be like missing the NIT.  Personally, I like earning a spot in the NCAA tournament.

[damuts222]

If the top third of college basketball were to make the tournament it wouldn't mean crap to get in. 

If they went to 96 teams there would be no reason what-so-ever for Marquette to miss the tournament ever again.  The Marquette teams of 2004 and 2005 would be in the tournament and that would be a complete joke.

Missing the NCAA tournament would be like missing the NIT.  Personally, I like earning a spot in the NCAA tournament.

  I agree with this. If you look at the sports that allow TOO many teams to make it to the playoffs (NBA, NHL for example) it takes away from the regular season as well as the playoffs. Who watches the first round of the playoffs in those sports, generally the #1 seed sweeps the #8 seed, its a waste. It will be different in the NCAA yes, but I think the tourney is fine the way it is.

[TJ]

That is because it never went from 32 to 64.  It was a slow process:

# 1939–1950: eight teams
# 1951–1952: 16 teams
# 1953–1974: varied between 22 and 25 teams
# 1975–1978: 32 teams
# 1979: 40 teams
# 1980–1982: 48 teams
# 1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
# 1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
# 1985–2000: 64 teams
# 2001—present: 65 teams

A modest expansion to 68 or even 72 teams would be perfect, based on that history.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-march-madness%20-with-96-teams-done-deal-27742


On a side note, we are NOT hearing this is a done deal.  We actually had a meeting yesterday to chat about it, nothing formal.  But, just passing on what what source is saying....how credible, no idea.

[dsfire]

Think Czabe said this morning that it was just in an investigatory stage and they'd be taking it slow.  I'd be surprised if it's anywhere close to a done deal (and sounds like you would be too).

[ChicosBailBonds]

The Selection Committee hasn't exactly been backing that theory up recently.

That's exactly my point, by expanding the field, they will go to more non-BCS schools.  The missing teams, by and large, are from non BCS conferences. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

That is because it never went from 32 to 64.  It was a slow process:

# 1939–1950: eight teams
# 1951–1952: 16 teams
# 1953–1974: varied between 22 and 25 teams
# 1975–1978: 32 teams
# 1979: 40 teams
# 1980–1982: 48 teams
# 1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
# 1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
# 1985–2000: 64 teams
# 2001—present: 65 teams

That is correct, but using this logic, you would be ok then from going from 64 to 80 and then a few years later to 96, as long as it's slow?

LOL

The bigger point is that the tournament has expanded forever and it hasn't done anything but make the tournament better and better every time.

I had a nice conversation with Dan Patrick about this earlier today.  Should be fun to watch it unfold.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, a few teams each year get knocked off each year in their conference tourneys, but that's why it's a tournament.  Just as a few good teams get knocked off in the opening round of the NCAAs.  Last year 15 of the 32 teams in the NIT were from BCS conferences, I'm not sure why you think that if the NCAA expanded it would be much different (you picked 10/32).  Just a cursory look at the BCS schools you selected shows that just being mediocre or slightly below mediocre will then get you into the big dance.  Theoretically, MU could have gotten into the dance this year in a 96 team field only having beaten DePaul x 2 (rpi of 137), Prov x 2 (98), Rutgers (120), St Johns (73), and Notre Dame (70).  That would have given them 7 wins going into the BET and put them squarely on the bubble.  If that isn't mediocre then I don't know what is.  I don't consider either of the MU teams after the years following the Final 4 good teams, but they most likely would have gotten bids under a 96 team format.

At the end of they day, this will probably happen as it's all about money, but when the field expanded from from 16 to 32 to 40 to 48 to 53 to 64 to 65, there were still a lot of BCS teams that were 4/5 games over .500 in their conference and not getting in.  Each time the tourney has expanded it has done so incrementally (except in the very early years).  Why would they expand it so dramatically this time?  Why not move it up to 72 and see how that goes?

There has been expansion in NCAA basketball but it has come from the lower ranks.  Schools that have nearly zero chance of ever winning the tournament.  Expanding the tournament to 96 will lessen the prestige and make selection Sunday and the first few rounds of the tournament much less compelling.

 

Simple, because the NIT is about TICKET revenue, which means it's advantageous for the NIT to purposely select large, BCS schools where they have the most chance to sell tickets and earn revenue.  Even under this situation, you still had more non BCS than BCS.  With the NCAA tournament, however, the games are all sold out so the NCAA is under no pressure from a ticket selling proposition to do this.

As far as the zero possibility of winning the tournament, well we could say that about about 50 of the 65 teams right now.  Why not just go back to a 16 team field then?

Finally, I originally advocated for 80 teams and would still be very happy with that.  Unfortunately it makes it difficult to run the tournament at that number.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If the top third of college basketball were to make the tournament it wouldn't mean crap to get in. 

I agree...that's why this proposal only takes the top 27% so we're good, it's not the top 1/3.

 

[MUsoxfan]

That's exactly my point, by expanding the field, they will go to more non-BCS schools.  The missing teams, by and large, are from non BCS conferences. 

They won't. If they wanted the little guy in, they'd make more an effort to get them in. When in doubt, they lean towards mediocre BCS teams. I don't see how that trend won't continue

[ChicosBailBonds]

They won't. If they wanted the little guy in, they'd make more an effort to get them in. When in doubt, they lean towards mediocre BCS teams. I don't see how that trend won't continue

I will put up big cash right now on this one.  I'll bet the first 5 years of an expanded tournament, you will see more non-BCS teams chosen than BCS teams.  The reason is simple, there will still be tremendous pressure not to take schools with conference records that are poor.  That alone will eliminate a tremendous number of schools from consideration.  They aren't going to take a 19-10 BCS school with 7-11 conference record over a WAC school that is 23-8 and finished 10-6 in conference.   The majority of schools with 20+ wins left that are not selected are non-BCS schools.  This is where most of these bids will come from.  I'd say 65% to 35%

EDIT:  Assuming it goes to more than 80 teams.  If it expands to just 68, then I agree with you....but the bigger than expansion, the more the non-BCS schools will benefit.

[IAmMarquette]

I had a nice conversation with Dan Patrick about this earlier today.

Wow Chicos, you're starting to sound just like TC. Do you think Mike McCarthy and/or Tony LaRussa have a take on it?

[TJ]

That's exactly my point, by expanding the field, they will go to more non-BCS schools.  The missing teams, by and large, are from non BCS conferences.  

I suppose that if they added 32 teams they would have to hit a few mid-majors eventually.

If they were to go with modest expansion to 72, however, based on NIT seed, the next teams in could have been Auburn, Florida, Creighton, San Diego St, St. Mary's, Penn St, & Notre Dame.  Sure that's 3 more mid-majors, but it's 4 more BCS schools.

Edit: I see you're already addressed this a couple posts above.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow Chicos, you're starting to sound just like TC. Do you think Mike McCarthy and/or Tony LaRussa have a take on it?

McCarthy no, LaRussa...definitely.   

Dan Patrick works for us now.....he's against the tournament expansion initially, but he also said he didn't have the details of how it would work. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not a big surprise

http://web.sny.tv/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100204&content_id=8020680&oid=2&vkey=21

[ChicosBailBonds]

Bo Ryan for it as well


http://wisconsin.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=&script=content.asp&cid=1048727&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=

I suspect most coaches will be for this

[IAmMarquette]

Lunardi weighs in...

Are we excluding a national champion?

There is no good basketball reason to expand the current 64/65-team field. Unlike in major college football, no team with a legitimate chance to compete for the national championship is excluded from the existing format. Are teams that are capable of advancing a round or two occasionally passed over? Absolutely. But look at any of our "First Four Out" lists over the years and tell me if you see any potential national champions. Didn't think so.

First, let's change the play-in game

I have opposed expansion for the obvious basketball reasons. To me, the only competitive advantages are found in two or four additional doubleheaders among so-called "bubble" teams in place of the current opening round. Let's stop arguing about Arizona and St. Mary's and simply have them fight it out on a neutral court. Winners go into the main bracket as 11-12 seeds, and no automatic qualifiers are banished to Dayton without enjoying the full NCAA tournament experience.

Here's my deal-breaker: Every regular-season champion has to be an automatic qualifier in any mega-expansion proposal. The NCAA made such a provision when it took over the NIT and, by folding that 32-team field into a bigger championship format, should keep to that line of thinking. Otherwise, instead of going from eight or nine Big East teams to 10 or 11, we'd be looking at 12 to 13 (which is way too many by any measure). I think there's also a way to tie conference tournament results to eventual NCAA seeding, but I haven't had time to think it through.

Better yet, if it ain't broke …

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=ncbexperts

[willie warrior]

I'd go for 68. Allows 3 more at-large teams to get in as something like 13 seeds, and gives the bottom 8 conferences the ability to claim they won an NC2A tourney game.

Perfect world for me would be 68 teams plus ESPN/ABC gets the bid. Would allow games to be placed on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU. I can understand completely why ESPN/ABC would be enthralled to get this. It'd be a week of a lot of people clamoring to get ESPNU, kind of like the NFL Network has been able to do to some degree nationally and the Miniscule 11 Network has been able to do in this part of the world.

I guess if I had to choose between 96 teams or ESPN/ABC getting the package, I'd stay with 68 teams.

Wouldn't ESPN/ABC getting the package be bad for you guys at DTV Chicos? You guys would lose a ton of marketability with your MMM package, wouldn't you?

One thing that would enhance ESPN would be putting ESPNU in high Def

[TheButlerDidIt]

ESPNU is HD now. I think it was a relatively recent development.

[connie]

Sometimes more of a good thing is not better.  This is one of those times.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sometimes more of a good thing is not better.  This is one of those times.

Except that since we've never done it, how would we know? 

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Chicos,

Is there an assumption that all 96 games will be televised, or at least if they are televised will draw enough TV revenue to make sense?

Are people really sure that watching this year's DePaul play St. Mary's is going to generate enough TV rev to make it worthwhile?

[jmayer1]

Except that since we've never done it, how would we know?  

You could make that argument for just about anything.  The NCAA has never expanded it by such a large margin, why do it this time?  If they want to expand, do it in small increments, like has been done in the past.

It's laughable that college football was used as a comparison in that article (by Jay Wright).  Yes, almost 50% of those teams get in and it's an absolute joke.  I don't think you want to start comparing the best postseason tournament in all of sports to the worst postseason situation in all of sports.  It's not surprising that coaches are in favor of it, obviously it will make getting into the tournament a lot easier.

[MarquetteNation]

Instead of a tournament...there should be five high profile games.  Six of the teams could be the major conference champions while the other four could be selected at large by a selection committee.  The NCAA could generate interest by manufacturing four marquee matchups in various locations while the championship game would be the first and second ranked teams (as determined by both computer statistics and the associated press).

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos,

Is there an assumption that all 96 games will be televised, or at least if they are televised will draw enough TV revenue to make sense?

Are people really sure that watching this year's DePaul play St. Mary's is going to generate enough TV rev to make it worthwhile?

No question all 96 games would be televised, that's where the money comes in.  The packages will be done in advance, so the broadcasters aren't going to be paying for DePaul vs St. Mary's, they're paying for the entire thing. 

Pretty easy to setup from a tv perspective.  You're talking two extra days at most, but they could configure it differently if they wanted to.  It depends on how they wish to divide it up.

Personally, I think they are going to go to a middle number like 80 before they go to 96.  But we'll see.

The coaches want it, the NCAA wants it, the schools want it, the networks want it.....the fans will come around, they always do.  And people will laugh 10 years from now and wonder what the big deal was.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You could make that argument for just about anything.  The NCAA has never expanded it by such a large margin, why do it this time?  If they want to expand, do it in small increments, like has been done in the past.

It's laughable that college football was used as a comparison in that article (by Jay Wright).  Yes, almost 50% of those teams get in and it's an absolute joke.  I don't think you want to start comparing the best postseason tournament in all of sports to the worst postseason situation in all of sports.  It's not surprising that coaches are in favor of it, obviously it will make getting into the tournament a lot easier.

So many things were seen as laughable at one point.....Ron Burgandy help us out.   

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/_VRKKSr669U" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/_VRKKSr669U</a>

[GGGG]

You could make that argument for just about anything.  The NCAA has never expanded it by such a large margin, why do it this time?  If they want to expand, do it in small increments, like has been done in the past.

It's laughable that college football was used as a comparison in that article (by Jay Wright).  Yes, almost 50% of those teams get in and it's an absolute joke.  I don't think you want to start comparing the best postseason tournament in all of sports to the worst postseason situation in all of sports.  It's not surprising that coaches are in favor of it, obviously it will make getting into the tournament a lot easier.

I don't view the bowl season as an absolute joke.  No one pretends that the New Orleans Bowl is on par with the Rose Bowl.  It is just a way for fans to watch their team again.  As someone who loves college football, the more games the better.