NCAA seeks TV bids for 96-team tournament

[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.