NCAA comments on 96 team field....video

[MarquetteDano]

If you go to 72 teams, that means 9 teams per sites (today there are 8 teams).  This means 1 team gets a bye, or another way to put it, there is one play in game.  So this means you're going to have fans come out to these sites for one game and then come back 2 days later for 4 games.  Not going to happen.  The play-in game right now works for Dayton because every year they have that one game, but revolving it around from year to year at these sites is likely going to kill attendance for that one day.  Won't happen IMO.   

How about 80 teams?  That would be two more games at each site.  Admittedly, it is not four games but 2 is better than 1.  Even 88 teams is better than 96.  That would mean three games at each site.  I understand they have to balance the logistics, attendance, tv, money, etc.. but why can't they find a middle ground?

[GGGG]

How about 80 teams?  That would be two more games at each site.  Admittedly, it is not four games but 2 is better than 1.  Even 88 teams is better than 96.  That would mean three games at each site.  I understand they have to balance the logistics, attendance, tv, money, etc.. but why can't they find a middle ground?

Why would 88 be better than 96?

[MarquetteDano]

Why would 88 be better than 96?

88 is better than 96 in the same way that 96 is better than 256 (logistics aside).  A lot people do not want to see a diluted tournament and ensure making the tourney to be an important accomplishment.  I just don't get the 50% increase overnight.  Every eight teams you add dilutes it further.

[M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS]

<sigh>

Sometimes it's like banging your head against a wall.

Exactly...
Teams can go undefeated in the regular season, from a major conference in football.  And still not have a chance at the national championship.  That actually could happen.  Not like the scenario you layed out in hoops where a team could lose every game and still make it to the championship.  I cant agree that a sport where only 16% or so of its teams have a chance to play for anything substantial during the regular season would have a more meaningful regular season.  If you want to say that those top 16 or so teams have a more meaningful regular season, then I would agree.

[State Street Warrior]

Exactly...
Teams can go undefeated in the regular season, from a major conference in football.  And still not have a chance at the national championship.  That actually could happen.  Not like the scenario you layed out in hoops where a team could lose every game and still make it to the championship.  I cant agree that a sport where only 16% or so of its teams have a chance to play for anything substantial during the regular season would have a more meaningful regular season.  If you want to say that those top 16 or so teams have a more meaningful regular season, then I would agree.

Not only could it happen, it has happened. In 2004 Auburn went undefeated, won their bowl game ended 13-0 but because there were 2 higher ranked undefeated teams Auburn still finished #2 behind #1 USC.  If my memory is right some company offered the two schools a boatload of money to play after the bowl games ended and the BCS stepped in.  That also isn't taking into account teams like Utah and Boise State who have gone undefeated and beaten the big 6 team they played.

[GGGG]

I'm not arguing what system is better for determining a champion.

I am arguing that college football's regular season is more relevant.  My solution for college football is to have a playoff limited to conference champions...because that would keep the integrity of the regular season and still allow everyone to have a chance.

[GGGG]

88 is better than 96 in the same way that 96 is better than 256 (logistics aside).  A lot people do not want to see a diluted tournament and ensure making the tourney to be an important accomplishment.  I just don't get the 50% increase overnight.  Every eight teams you add dilutes it further.

So is 32 better than 64?  Is 16 better than 32?

[MarquetteDano]

So is 32 better than 64?  Is 16 better than 32?

Haven't really thought about it because I know the NCAA will never go back to 32 or 16.  We have 65 today and we know they are trying to increase that number.  We know logistics says that only certain combinations makes sense.  They are starting their P.R. campagin for 96.

I think if we did a poll here and many other college b-ball boards fans could probably deal with an increase.  However, I think the majority would prefer a smaller increase than letting in 32 more teams.  Thank God for logistics because they would have to add sites or weeks to the cbb calendar if they went beyond 96.

I am NOT going to be an alarmist and say that 96 ruins college basketball; or it makes the regular season completely worthless.  However, they wouldn't be starting this P.R. campaign if they didn't fear some sort of a backlash.  They could do a lot to reduce that by finding some middle ground here.  I am saying my preference is 80 or so versus 96.  I think the majority of fans would agree.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How about 80 teams?  That would be two more games at each site.  Admittedly, it is not four games but 2 is better than 1.  Even 88 teams is better than 96.  That would mean three games at each site.  I understand they have to balance the logistics, attendance, tv, money, etc.. but why can't they find a middle ground?

88 is certainly better than 80....I'm fine for anything above 80 but prefer 88 or 96 due to the growth of college basketball DI.  I don't see how it makes financial or ratings success to do anything less than 3 additional games per site.

You need content (games) in volume to make this work at the arenas and the broadcasters.  Not sure 80 teams delivers enough additional games to make the financial argument work.

[MarquetteDano]

88 is certainly better than 80....I'm fine for anything above 80 but prefer 88 or 96 due to the growth of college basketball DI.  I don't see how it makes financial or ratings success to do anything less than 3 additional games per site.

You need content (games) in volume to make this work at the arenas and the broadcasters.  Not sure 80 teams delivers enough additional games to make the financial argument work.

Of the positives of increasing the tournament, I would assume they would make the regular season champions of a conference automatic bids.  That would be fantastic as it would actually make the regular conference season even more important for about 20 conferences out there.  I really like that as I am sick of a small conference team proving themselves the whole season and playing in the NIT because they lost on a last second shot in their conference tourney.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Of the positives of increasing the tournament, I would assume they would make the regular season champions of a conference automatic bids.  That would be fantastic as it would actually make the regular conference season even more important for about 20 conferences out there.  I really like that as I am sick of a small conference team proving themselves the whole season and playing in the NIT because they lost on a last second shot in their conference tourney.

My two cents, which I shared with my bosses who have been involved in the RFP process.

No team with a conference record worse than 2 games under .500 should get in.  (i.e. 8-10 would or 7-9 would make it, but not 7-11 or 6-10).  If you want to make it stricter, require a .500 record or better in conference, much like the bowls require a minimum of 6 FBS wins to become bowl eligible.

It gets tricky with the conference regular season winners because if you grant them automatic entry then I'd advocate killing the conference tournaments.  The reason of this is that it's too easy for a regular season champion to tank it to allow more of their conference brethren into the tourney.   But, yes, I would prefer having the regular season champion in the tournament....kill the conference tourney.

Include a graduation rate rider for seeding.  Yes, this is way outside the box, but what the hell.  If you have less than 50% graduation rates, it will affect your seeding in the tournament.

[jmayer1]

Adding 8 teams does not fit nicely into each location like some of the higher numbers, but they could easily play 4 games in one location (Dayton for example) on Tuesday and 4 games at another location on Wednesday.  Then have the Tuesday teams play on Thursday and the Wednesday teams play on Friday.  I don't think that would be too difficult.

I like the idea of teams having to be within at least two wins of .500 in conference but you are still looking at a lot of "BCS" teams that would get in I believe.

However, I doubt conference tournies are going anywhere.  They way make way too much money (what this whole expansion thing is about anyway) for the conferences to stop having them.

At the end of the day, I don't think any teams are left out of the tourney that have a legitimate shot to win the tile (Nova was the highest seed at 8 to win) and that is the real point of the tournament, to crown the best (or hottest I guess) team.  They have never had such a large expansion before, I don't know why they would now either.

Happy Easter to you and yours as well Chicos.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Adding 8 teams does not fit nicely into each location like some of the higher numbers, but they could easily play 4 games in one location (Dayton for example) on Tuesday and 4 games at another location on Wednesday.  Then have the Tuesday teams play on Thursday and the Wednesday teams play on Friday.  I don't think that would be too difficult.

I like the idea of teams having to be within at least two wins of .500 in conference but you are still looking at a lot of "BCS" teams that would get in I believe.

However, I doubt conference tournies are going anywhere.  They way make way too much money (what this whole expansion thing is about anyway) for the conferences to stop having them.

At the end of the day, I don't think any teams are left out of the tourney that have a legitimate shot to win the tile (Nova was the highest seed at 8 to win) and that is the real point of the tournament, to crown the best (or hottest I guess) team.  They have never had such a large expansion before, I don't know why they would now either.

Happy Easter to you and yours as well Chicos.

The problem with that scenario is that the NCAA won't get the television money and the networks won't get the ratings (= $$$$).  The NCAA has some serious revenue concerns they have to cover in the next decade, a big reason why they are doing this.  Adding only a few teams means only a few games which won't yield the content that elicits the money they need.

[jmayer1]

The problem with that scenario is that the NCAA won't get the television money and the networks won't get the ratings (= $$$$).  The NCAA has some serious revenue concerns they have to cover in the next decade, a big reason why they are doing this.  Adding only a few teams means only a few games which won't yield the content that elicits the money they need.

Yep, obviously less games means less money and that's what it (and pretty much everything) comes down to.  I just think that it (72 teams) would have worked, but it seems like a moot point since the 96 team tourney seems to be all but a done deal.  Maybe I'm wrong, and hopefully I am, but I don't believe this yields a better product; at least not in the next 5-10 years.  However, maybe over time, this will allow some of those teams that get in due to the bigger field to put a better team on the court due to increased revenue, visibility..etc and bring a little more parity between the "BCS" schools and the "mid-majors" (especially if MU eventually gets cast into the latter if the BE breaks up/loses some top teams).