MUScoop

http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2010/03/19/visser-ncaa-officials-says-expansion-will-happen-likely-in/

Visser: NCAA Officials Says Expansion 'Will Happen,' Likely in '11

CBS Sports reporter Lesley Visser said NCAA officials told network representatives last week that the tournament's expansion to 96 teams "will happen most likely next year."

In an interview on the Fabulous Sports Babe radio show on ESPN 1040-AM in Tampa, Fla., Visser said Thursday the decision also would mean the elimination of the NIT tournament.

However, Big East commissioner John Marinatto told FanHouse Friday that no formal decision to expand the NCAA tournament to 96 teams has been reached.

Visser said NCAA tournament selection committee chairman Dan Guerrero and Greg Sheehan, senior vice president of basketball and business strategies for the NCAA, met with NCAA and CBS officials last week in New York. They indicated the expansion would occur "most likely next year."

"I do know this: the head of the selection committee, Dan Guerrero, who's the UCLA AD (Athletic Director), and also Greg Sheehan ... they came and spoke to our NCAA CBS seminar," Visser said. "Ninety-six will happen, most likely next year."
FanHouse TV: Why NCAA Tournament Is Fine the Way It Is

Visser said one reason for the expansion is schools would rather play in the NCAA tournament than the NIT, which currently invites 32 teams after the 65-team NCAA bracket is filled.

"They [the NCAA] also oversee the NIT," Visser said during the interview. "Well as you know, it's not the most popular event for schools to go to. Schools would rather go to the NCAA tournament.

Share  "What Greg Sheehan found when they went around speaking to university presidents, coaches and ADs -- they've been on this idea since 2004, this is not a sudden event or sudden consideration -- and they found as Greg Sheehan said and I quote him 'without exception, university presidents, ADs and coaches want to go to 96.' And it can't be more than that: 96 is the one that fits."

Marinatto, in his first year as the Big East's commissioner, said no decision has been reached about expanding the NCAA tournament.

"Since no 96-team model has formally been advanced to the membership for review and consideration, we as a conference have not formed an official league position," Marinatto told FanHouse.

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said in a Monday teleconference he's "open-minded" about expanding the NCAA tournament.

"After a lot of discussion, we have to at least be open-minded," Beebe said. "I would be negligent not to look at all opportunities and I think we do have to do that. The NCAA staff, I've encouraged them to take their show on the road, so to speak, and allow a lot of conferences to see what their thinking is.

"They've done a good job of outlining how this would work in combination with pulling the NIT tournament into the NCAA tournament."

In 1985, the NCAA tournament expanded from 48 to 64 teams. A 65th team was added in 2001 when the number of automatic bids increased from 30 to 31.

The NCAA's TV deal with CBS runs through the 2013 tournament, but the NCAA has until July 31 to opt out. CBS' current deal averages $461 million annually, but in the next three years CBS will pay an average of about $710 million, USA Today reported. If the NCAA leaves CBS, it would almost certainly go to ESPN.

"What [the NCAA] found from the university presidents, of which they represent -- it's not what we in the media think, it's what the university presidents think and that's what the NCAA must reflect what their members want and their members want expansion," Visser told the Tampa radio station.

Several Big East coaches, including Syracuse's Jim Boeheim, Villanova's Jay Wright and Georgetown's John Thompson III, said throughout this season that they support expanding the NCAA tournament. Boeheim has been the most vocal about expanding the NCAA tournament.

Marinatto said if the NCAA tournament is expanded his 16-team league could make history.

"If [expansion is] ever adopted, I believe the Big East could very well have 16 schools participate in any given year," Marinatto said.

This year, the Big East received a combined 13 bids to the NCAA and NIT tournaments, including a record eight NCAA berths.

Marquette should never miss the tournament ever again..... and that sucks.  Making it now means nothing.

Bracketology will be a joke. Try separating team 96 from 97 much less seeding them properly.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 20, 2010, 01:39:58 AM
Several Big East coaches, including Syracuse's Jim Boeheim, Villanova's Jay Wright and Georgetown's John Thompson III, said throughout this season that they support expanding the NCAA tournament. Boeheim has been the most vocal about expanding the NCAA tournament.

Of course they do.  Even if the team struggles they can say they made the tournament.  It really takes away from the regular season.

Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 20, 2010, 01:53:15 AM
Of course they do.  Even if the team struggles they can say they made the tournament.  It really takes away from the regular season.

Wright has actually used this exact argument in the past, I think it was on PTI last week.  Tony straight up asked him "why not push it so everyone gets in and everyone's happy?"

This brings up a very valid point.  Why stop at 96? How do you determine how many teams are "worthy" of making "the big dance"?  Heck, this year people have been talking about the weak bubble... why should we be expanding when common opinion is that the tournament was already too diluted?

I thought I heard once that they were considering the top two conference tourney winners (that is, both teams in the finals) would get an automatic bid. If so, at-large bids would only expand by 4. Of course, lots of potential at-large teams will finish in the top two in their conference tourneys freeing up these spots for others.

Bobby Knight responded to this by saying if they expand to 96, it will take an extra week and they should get rid of the conference tourneys all together.  

So, what would make more money, the conference tourneys the week before or expanding to 96 teams?

Additional Thoughts Added Later ....

If this was in place this year, North Carolina would have made it at 16/16 as they made the NIT. Not fair.

And as noted in the story above, all 16 teams from the BE could make it.  13 did this year.  Why have a conference tourney?  It's just more games to wear out your players (some have argued the BE's poor start this year is because they beat each other up the week before in the conference tourney.)

Before everyone goes off the deep end, this is not going to make the regular season worthless.

They are looking at many things, and no way in hell North Carolina would make it.  I've suggested a few thoughts as well on this to my bosses who, yes, are involved in the process to some extent.

Things like, require a minimum .500 conference record....so UNC would not get in under that scenario. 

Let this play out.  Not a done deal anyway, at least not as of a few days ago.....but as I said months ago, this is going to happen sooner or later.

The NIT is a joke now and this is one way for the NCAA to solidify the post season for them.  There's a reason they bought the NIT, and it was to kill it (IMO).

Don't forget that the NCAA has to run basically all championships with the money from the basketball contract....women's tennis, cross country, volleyball, hockey, etc, etc, etc, plus fund the NCAA.  Of course this is largely a money play but they will tweak this enough that I think you'll find the even to be as engaging as it has been in the past.  I'm sure many won't see it that way right now, but give it a chance to see what they come up with.  There will definitely be a "process".

In the long run, with the way conferences are going, this is a WONDERFUL thing for Marquette.  If the Big East were to break up and leave MU in a lesser conference, it is this type of opportunity that allows for basketball only schools that are willing to put in the resources to stay meaningful.  The additional slots, will NOT be taken up primarily by the BCS conferences in my opinion.  I think you'll see of the 32 extra spots, about 55% going to non-BCS conferences like the Mtn West, A-10, CUSA, etc.

Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 20, 2010, 01:53:15 AM
Of course they do.  Even if the team struggles they can say they made the tournament.  It really takes away from the regular season.

Yes, but isn't it curious that those three said this when they almost always make it anyway?  Bo Ryan also supports it and the Badgers always make it.  Seems to me, the teams that are on the cusp and missing out constantly would be the ones most in support of it.

If they do this right, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they do, you will see more upsets than ever before with the new tournament.  You will also see parity get even more widespread because kids will now be willing to play for more and more teams that they would not have considered playing for in the past.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 20, 2010, 02:39:36 AM
In the long run, with the way conferences are going, this is a WONDERFUL thing for Marquette.  If the Big East were to break up and leave MU in a lesser conference, it is this type of opportunity that allows for basketball only schools that are willing to put in the resources to stay meaningful.  The additional slots, will NOT be taken up primarily by the BCS conferences in my opinion.  I think you'll see of the 32 extra spots, about 55% going to non-BCS conferences like the Mtn West, A-10, CUSA, etc.

Chicos ....

Right now something like 5 to 10 non-power conference teams get at-large bids in any given year.  If the NCAA goes to 96 teams, this could go to 30 or 40 spots for non-power conference teams.  Under this scenario, could you see a team like MU considering going back to being independent?  Does this lessen the need to even be in a conference?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 20, 2010, 02:47:02 AM
Chicos ....

Right now something like 5 to 10 non-power conference teams get at-large bids in any given year.  If the NCAA goes to 96 teams, this could go to 30 or 40 spots for non-power conference teams.  Under this scenario, could you see a team like MU considering going back to being independent?  Does this lessen the need to even be in a conference?

Correct, but look at the NIT bids this year....the "next 32" as it were.  18 of the 32 were from non BCS conferences.  14 were from BCS conferences.

This is why I'm not sure I buy the argument that all power conferences will eat up the bids.  If anything, some of the NIT bids that go to the BCS programs are probably done so just to sell tickets...I'd argue that the 18 number would actually increase to 20 or 22 if UNC and a couple of others were left out of the NIT as they should have been.

As for your question, I don't see where being an independent is financially viable.  The television deals are with conferences and the sharing of that revenue.  An independent just doesn't carry the heft to get a deal like that to make it manageable from the revenue perspective.

By the way, one writer did a proposed bracketing of the 96 teams if it were done this year.  MU would have had a bye.  He took the straight NIT teams and put them in, which I don't think will happen....I don't believe a 6-12 St. John's should be in the NCAA, but we'll see how the expansion works.



EAST (Syracuse Regional)
New Orleans

Tuesday (March 16)

Game 1 - No. 9 Wake Forest vs. No. 24 Jacksonville
Game 2 - No. 12 Cornell vs. No. 21 Montana
Game 3 - No. 13 Virginia Tech vs. No. 20 Northeastern
Game 4 - No. 16 Seton Hall vs. No. 17 Wofford

Thursday (March 18)

Game 5 - No. 1 Kentucky vs. Seton Hall/Wofford winner
Game 6 - No. 8 Texas vs. Wake Forest/Jacksonville winner
Game 7 - No. 4 Wisconsin vs. Virginia Tech/Illinois State winner
Game 8 - No. 5 Temple vs. Cornell-Montana winner

Saturday (Mar. 20)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner
San Jose

Wednesday (March 17)

Game 1 – No. 15 Wichita State vs. No.18 William & Mary
Game 2 – No. 10 Missouri vs. No. 23 East Tennessee State
Game 3 – No. 11 Washington vs. No. 22 Morgan State
Game 4 – No. 14 UAB vs. No. 19 Illinois State

Friday (March 19)

Game 5 – No. 2 West Virginia vs. Wichita State/William & Mary winner
Game 6 – No. 7 Clemson vs. Missouri/East Tennessee winner
Game 7 – No. 3 New Mexico vs. UAB/Illinois State winner
Game 8 – No. 6 Marquette vs. Washington/Morgan State winner

Sunday (March 20)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner
SOUTH REGION (Houston)
Jacksonville

Wednesday (Mar. 17)

Game 1 – No. 9 Louisville vs. No. 24 Stony Brook
Game 2 – No. 12 Utah State vs. No. 21 Weber State
Game 3 – No. 13 Arizona State vs. No.20 Robert Morris
Game 4 – No. 16 UConn vs. No. 17 Siena

Friday (Mar. 19)

Game 5 – No. 1 Duke vs. UConn/Siena winner
Game 6 – No. 8 California vs. Louisville/Stony Brook winner
Game 7 – No. 4 Purdue vs. Arizona State/Robert Morris winner
Game 8 – No. 5 Texas A&M vs. Utah State/Weber State winner

Sunday (Mar. 21)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner
Providence

Tuesday (Mar.16)

Game 1 – No. 15 Dayton vs. No. 18 Tulsa
Game 2 – No. 10 St. Mary's vs. No. 23 Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Game 3 – No. 11 Old Dominion vs. No. 22 Winthrop
Game 4 – No. 14 Rhode Island vs. No. 19 Sam Houston State

Thursday (Mar. 18)

Game 5 – No. 2 Villanova vs. Dayton/Tulsa winner
Game 6 – No. 7 Richmond vs. St. Mary's/Arkansas-Pine Bluff winner
Game 7 – No. 3 Baylor vs. Rhode Island/Sam Houston State winner
Game 8 – No. 6 Notre Dame vs. Old Dominion/Winthrop winner

Saturday (Mar. 20)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner
MIDWEST REGION (St. Louis)
Oklahoma City

Tuesday (Mar. 16)

Game 1 – No. 9 Northern Iowa vs. No. 24 Quinnipiac
Game 2 – No. 12 Mississippi State vs. UC Santa Barbara
Game 3 – No. 13 Cincinnati vs. No. 20 Ohio
Game 4 – No. 16 North Carolina vs. No. 17 St. John's

Thursday (Mar. 18)

Game 5 – No. 1 Kansas vs. North Carolina/St. John's
Game 6 – No. 8 UNLV vs. Northern Iowa/Quinnipiac winner
Game 7 – No. 5 Michigan State vs. Mississippi State/UC Santa Barbara winner
Game 8 – No. 4 Maryland vs. Cincinnati/Ohio winner

Saturday (Mar. 20)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Milwaukee

Wednesday (Mar. 17)

Game 1 – No. 15 South Florida vs. No. 18 Texas Tech
Game 2 – No. 10 Georgia Tech vs. No. 23 Troy
Game 3 – No. 11 San Diego State vs. No. 22 Lehigh
Game 4 – No. 14 New Mexico State vs. No. 19 Houston

Friday (Mar. 19)

Game 5 – No. 2 Ohio State vs. South Florida/Texas Tech winner
Game 6 – No. 7 Oklahoma State vs. Georgia Tech/Troy winner
Game 7 – No. 3 Georgetown vs. New Mexico State/Houston winner
Game 8 – No. 6 Tennessee vs. San Diego State/Lehigh winner

Sunday (Mar. 21)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs.Game 8 winner
WEST REGIONAL
Buffalo

Wednesday (Mar. 17)

Game 1 – No. 9 Florida State vs. No. 24 Jackson State
Game 2 – No. 12 UTEP vs. No. 21 Oakland
Game 3 – No. 13 Illinois vs. No. 20 Coastal Carolina
Game 4 – No. 16 Kent State vs. No. 17 N.C. State

Friday (Mar. 19)

Game 5 – No. 1 Syracuse vs. Kent State/NC State winner
Game 6 – No. 8 Gonzaga vs. Florida State/Jackson State winner
Game 7 – No. 4 Vanderbilt vs. Illinois/Coastal Carolina winner
Game 8 – No. 5 Butler vs. UTEP/Oakland winner

Sunday (Mar. 21)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner
Spokane

Tuesday (Mar. 16)

Game 1 – No. 15 Memphis vs. No. 18 Murray State
Game 2 – No. 10 Florida vs. Vermont
Game 3 – No. 11 Minnesota vs. North Texas State
Game 4 – No. 14 Mississippi vs. No. 19 Nevada

Thursday (Mar.18)

Game 5 – No. 2 Kansas State vs. Memphis/Murray State winner
Game 6 – No. 7 BYU vs. Florida/Vermont winner
Game 7 – No. 3 Pitt vs. Mississippi/Nevada winner
Game 8 – No. 6 Xavier vs. Minnesota/North Texas winner

Saturday (Mar. 20)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 20, 2010, 02:51:37 AM
As for your question, I don't see where being an independent is financially viable.  The television deals are with conferences and the sharing of that revenue.  An independent just doesn't carry the heft to get a deal like that to make it manageable from the revenue perspective.

Makes sense

With 96 teams, does this mean that all conference re-alignment will be done for football considerations only?  Why would the BE football schools stay if they are going to get into the tourney in bball?

This would mean the BE breaks up and the non-football catholic schools re-align into a National Catholic conference and add Xavier, Dayton, etc as we have discussed many times before.

I'll be honest, that looks an awful lot like the card for a Saturday afternoon in December, not the NC2A tournament. The tournament is getting to the point where it's the undoubted second-biggest sporting event in the yearly calendar for a lot of sports fans, and expanding the tournament would provide a severe blow to that popularity.

I think the number of automatic bids, owing to the number of conferences, is just crazy. If you leave aside the fact that probably 6-10 of the conference tournament winners "deserve" to be there (are truly in the top 65 in terms of talent), the tournament is essentially between about 45 serious teams.

So, I don't have a problem with expanding the tournament. But by 34 teams or whatever is crazy ... you're basically adding 75% more "legitimate" teams among at-large bids.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 20, 2010, 03:06:59 AM

This would mean if the BE breaks up and the non-football catholic schools re-align into a National Catholic conference  and add Xavier, Dayton, etc as we have discussed many times before.

Actually I would prefer the American Catholic Conference (ACC)

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 20, 2010, 03:06:59 AM
This would mean the BE breaks up and the non-football catholic schools re-align into a National Catholic conference and add Xavier, Dayton, etc as we have discussed many times before.

(http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/uploaded_images/AwJeezNotThisSheetAgain-763108.jpg)

Disagree that it would be a blow to popularity.  Purists may be upset, but they aint turning the TV off.

I know the tickets are two game sessions, so that explains some of it, but I saw A LOT of empty seats over the last two days.  Does the NCAA figure they're going to be able to draw money for Tuesday afternoon games between Utah State and Weber State?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 20, 2010, 01:39:58 AM
http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2010/03/19/visser-ncaa-officials-says-expansion-will-happen-likely-in/


Visser said one reason for the expansion is schools would rather play in the NCAA tournament than the NIT, which currently invites 32 teams after the 65-team NCAA bracket is filled.

"They [the NCAA] also oversee the NIT," Visser said during the interview. "Well as you know, it's not the most popular event for schools to go to. Schools would rather go to the NCAA tournament.

Well no kidding they would rather go to the NCAA tourney rather than the NIT. I'd also rather play on the men's basketball team than intramurals, but that doesn't mean the NCAA should grant teams more scholarships and Buzz should give me a spot. I think this takes a lot of excitement out of the tournament and regular season. If we use just the NIT teams, wouldn't that mean 13 out of the 16 Big East teams made it? Cincy, UConn, Seton Hall, USF, St. John's? That is just too many and we should never miss the tournament again. Saying 5 straight Tournament appearances wouldn't mean anything anymore.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 20, 2010, 09:03:56 AM
Disagree that it would be a blow to popularity.  Purists may be upset, but they aint turning the TV off.

I've started taking time off from work to watch the first two rounds because A) I have the vacation time built up and B) I really like Basketball Christmas. I'm not doing this to watch games between chump teams that have no chance of winning.

And I'm REALLY sick of hearing the "It will help protect the coaches' jobs" excuse from people.  WRONG.  This is just going to get people fired faster.  13 of 16 BE teams get in?  If you finish 14-16 two years in a row in the BE, you're getting fired now.

And the "X% of college football teams get into the post season" excuse doesn't hold up, either.  2 teams get to play for the championship (one that the NCAA doesn't actually recognize, btw), and everyone else plays in exhibition games.  And the teams in the bottom rung games lose money in the process.

Quote from: Brewtown Andy on March 20, 2010, 09:07:34 AM
I've started taking time off from work to watch the first two rounds because A) I have the vacation time built up and B) I really like Basketball Christmas. I'm not doing this to watch games between chump teams that have no chance of winning.

And undoubtedly, the "Tuesday/Wednesday" rounds would have less viewership than the other days.   The remainder of the days would have the same.  That's a net gain of eyeball-hours, how ever you slice it.

Quote from: Brewtown Andy on March 20, 2010, 09:05:15 AM
I know the tickets are two game sessions, so that explains some of it, but I saw A LOT of empty seats over the last two days.  Does the NCAA figure they're going to be able to draw money for Tuesday afternoon games between Utah State and Weber State?

Yes, certainly if Stew is still coaching.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 20, 2010, 10:16:19 AM

Yes, certainly if Stew is still coaching.

It's not every day you get to watch a legend.

Quote from: Brewtown Andy on March 20, 2010, 09:07:34 AM
I've started taking time off from work to watch the first two rounds because A) I have the vacation time built up and B) I really like Basketball Christmas. I'm not doing this to watch games between chump teams that have no chance of winning.

You probably will see MORE upsets under the new system than the current one.

Northwestern will be happy.  ;D

Out of curiosity, would they expand the women's tournament also?

I find it ironic that the NCAA can be willing to move the basketball tournament to 96 teams, which will add 1-week to the season...for the simple reasons: "teams want to play in the NCAA, not the NIT," many coaches advocate moving the field to 96, etc...................YET...................................The NCAA continues to defend the BCS process for college football, and cannot form an 8 or 16 team playoff - even though freakin'
Congress has considered mandating such an action.  Fans want it.  Schools want it.  But the NCAA doesn't??  The NCAA has used the excuse that forming a college football playoff system would take the kids out of school too much.  I mean seriously, NCAA?? There are 12-13 football games per year, and what, 34 basketball games per year?  It all comes down to money and the sleazy NCAA only wants expansion of basketball for money purposes, and wants to retain the current bowl system/BCS for money reasons.  

It is just a shame that they can't come to a middle ground on this one.  Maybe 72 teams or 80 teams?

If there is any expansion they had better give an automatic bid to the regular season winner of a conference.  Too many times we miss the best team in a smaller conference because they lost a close one in their conference tourney.

Quote from: Ners on March 20, 2010, 11:30:05 AM
I find it ironic that the NCAA can be willing to move the basketball tournament to 96 teams, which will add 1-week to the season...for the simple reasons: "teams want to play in the NCAA, not the NIT," many coaches advocate moving the field to 96, etc...................YET...................................The NCAA continues to defend the BCS process for college football, and cannot form an 8 or 16 team playoff - even though freakin'
Congress has considered mandating such an action.  Fans want it.  Schools want it.  But the NCAA doesn't??  The NCAA has used the excuse that forming a college football playoff system would take the kids out of school too much.  I mean seriously, NCAA?? There are 12-13 football games per year, and what, 34 basketball games per year?  It all comes down to money and the sleazy NCAA only wants expansion of basketball for money purposes, and wants to retain the current bowl system/BCS for money reasons.  

I think you're confusing things.  Think about who controls the football money vs the basketball money.  One is the NCAA the other is not.

Let me put it another way, the BCS is not controlled by the NCAA.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 20, 2010, 11:30:18 AM
It is just a shame that they can't come to a middle ground on this one.  Maybe 72 teams or 80 teams?

If there is any expansion they had better give an automatic bid to the regular season winner of a conference.  Too many times we miss the best team in a smaller conference because they lost a close one in their conference tourney.

That still may happen.  It could be a gradual expansion, but if I were a betting man I'd say it goes to 96.

Just stupid. We basically don't have to play the regular season cuz everyones gunna make it. On a serious note, teams won't be playing near as hard (bubble teams or in conf, tourny) because they'll already be in it.

Quote from: jwalsh on March 20, 2010, 12:21:20 PM
Just stupid. We basically don't have to play the regular season cuz everyones gunna make it. On a serious note, teams won't be playing near as hard (bubble teams or in conf, tourny) because they'll already be in it.

That statement is stupid.  Do college football teams not play hard?  Since 50% of them are in a bowl game?  This would mean 27% would make the NCAA tournament, yet somehow those college football teams still manage to play hard.

Quote from: KC2016 on March 20, 2010, 11:28:33 AM
Out of curiosity, would they expand the women's tournament also?

They can barely find 64 respectable teams to put in the UConn Invitational, er I mean women's NCAA tournament. I can't imagine how bad 96 for the women's tournament would look.

Quote from: Tom Crean's Tanning Bed on March 20, 2010, 12:31:21 PM
They can barely find 64 respectable teams to put in the UConn Invitational, er I mean women's NCAA tournament. I can't imagine how bad 96 for the women's tournament would look.

No kidding.

Quote from: Brewtown Andy on March 20, 2010, 09:12:04 AM
And I'm REALLY sick of hearing the "It will help protect the coaches' jobs" excuse from people.  WRONG.  This is just going to get people fired faster.  13 of 16 BE teams get in?  If you finish 14-16 two years in a row in the BE, you're getting fired now.

This statement couldn't be more wrong. Do you think Norm Roberts would have gotten fired if St. John's were playing in the NCAA Tournament right now? Besides, if a coach is finishing in the bottom three in the BE, he's going to be out regardless.

If they expand, they should give the bottom teams only one night off or make them play back-to-back games.  There has to be a clear advantage to the teams with the best record like the NFL does it.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 20, 2010, 12:58:48 PM
This statement couldn't be more wrong. Do you think Norm Roberts would have gotten fired if St. John's were playing in the NCAA Tournament right now?

What about the other 200 schools who aren't getting in the NCAA tournament?

Quote from: Brewtown Andy on March 20, 2010, 01:09:55 PM
What about the other 200 schools who aren't getting in the NCAA tournament?

Actually the other 250+ schools

So, will the quality of play be better in the 96 team field than it has been in the brutally bad NIT?  Good for media revenue, bad for the hoops fan.  No way do conferences give up their tourneys.  Expect them to start their conference play earlier, however, to intermix with OOC.  Conference play crunch hype will mean less as the bubble will collapse, so better match-ups earlier in the season.

Yup Northwestern will finally get a tourney bid. Im really impartial towards this, as it clearly takes away from the accomplishment but on the other hand it keeps MU in the tourney for years like next year when we could very well be down or also be great. So its kinda got a plus and minus too it.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 20, 2010, 02:22:07 PM
So, will the quality of play be better in the 96 team field than it has been in the brutally bad NIT?  Good for media revenue, bad for the hoops fan.  No way do conferences give up their tourneys.  Expect them to start their conference play earlier, however, to intermix with OOC.  Conference play crunch hype will mean less as the bubble will collapse, so better match-ups earlier in the season.

Yes, the play will be better.  For several reasons.  The NIT is a letdown, teams have cashed it in and some don't even bother to show up.

Plus, if they do this right, some of those teams in the NIT currently won't even get a shot at this thing....UCONN, UNC, etc.  It will be the 23, 24, 25 win teams from smaller conferences that will be out to prove they belong and will bring everything they can in a national tournament.

Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on March 20, 2010, 02:28:13 PM
Yup Northwestern will finally get a tourney bid. Im really impartial towards this, as it clearly takes away from the accomplishment but on the other hand it keeps MU in the tourney for years like next year when we could very well be down or also be great. So its kinda got a plus and minus too it.

Ironically, in that examination I posted last night of 96 teams seeded....the last team out was Northwestern.  At least per that sportswriter's thinking, NU still doesn't make it.   ;D

After sitting through the incredibly boring and mismatched Ohio State/UCSB game yesterday and watching the massive exits at halftime, expanding the field is definitely the way to go.............it was like sitting through a glorified high school game....

hmmmm. NCAA contract is up soon.

More games More $$. ESPN might as well just run the world. They're the only ones who could/would jump at this.

More games, 3 stations to broadcast on.

The NCAA is all about making money. They could give a #%$^ about the kids who bust their tails to make it as successful as it is.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 20, 2010, 02:36:39 PM

Ironically, in that examination I posted last night of 96 teams seeded....the last team out was Northwestern.  At least per that sportswriter's thinking, NU still doesn't make it.   ;D

Okay here's a question... assuming that it has always been 96 teams since 1990, what years would we have NOT made the tourney?

Quote from: MikeyT42 on March 20, 2010, 02:46:37 PM
hmmmm. NCAA contract is up soon.

More games More $$. ESPN might as well just run the world. They're the only ones who could/would jump at this.

More games, 3 stations to broadcast on.

The NCAA is all about making money. They could give a #%$^ about the kids who bust their tails to make it as successful as it is.

Money is a fact of life.  It takes money to run college sports.  The NCAA is NOT all about making money and if you knew Myles Brand you would know that to be the case in a heartbeat.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 20, 2010, 02:47:34 PM

Okay here's a question... assuming that it has always been 96 teams since 1990, what years would we have NOT made the tourney?

Not make it
1991 O'Neill's 2nd year 11-18 record
1992 O'Neill's 3rd year 16-13 record
1999 Deane's last year  14-15
2000 Crean's first year 15-14
2001 Crean's second year 15-14



The only years where we would have made it since 1990 that we didn't, IMO, would be 1995 (NIT final year).  1998 would be close.  2004 would be close

2005 we finished 7-9 in CUSA after the Diener injury...if they were going with my rule that you need a minimum .500 conference record, that would exclude them. 

I'm just worried how I would fill out my bracket.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 20, 2010, 02:55:56 PM

Not make it
1991 O'Neill's 2nd year 11-18 record
1992 O'Neill's 3rd year 16-13 record
1999 Deane's last year  14-15
2000 Crean's first year 15-14
2001 Crean's second year 15-14



The only years where we would have made it since 1990 that we didn't, IMO, would be 1995 (NIT final year).  1998 would be close.  2004 would be close

2005 we finished 7-9 in CUSA after the Diener injury...if they were going with my rule that you need a minimum .500 conference record, that would exclude them. 

Sounds about right.  I would say we would have made it in 2004. Not so sure about '98 & '05

Quote from: bringbackwarriors on March 20, 2010, 02:57:54 PM
I'm just worried how I would fill out my bracket.

Modern technology will solve this huge question.   ;D

Quote from: notkirkcameron on March 20, 2010, 08:54:31 AM
(http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/uploaded_images/AwJeezNotThisSheetAgain-763108.jpg)

+1,786,535.6

Chicos, you can't possibly believe this wouldn't take away from the regular season.

Part of the fun this year was watching Marquette battle for a NCAA spot.  Those three OT wins on the road. The Louisville blowout.  part of the excitement of all of those games was watching Marquette battle for their NCAA lives.  With 96 teams making the dance, the outcome of those games wouldn't have mattered.

I like not knowing if MU will make the tournament.  I like having MU fight to get in.  The day Northwestern makes the NCAA tournament is the day that it means nothing to be in the big dance.

Sorry Talltitan, I don't think it takes away from it.

I thought we were about competing for Big East championships....if so, then why would it take away from that goal?

Since it's also about seeding, why wouldn't you play your best all year long to get the best seed possible?

Are you suggesting that we just go into a season on cruise control?

As several of us have done, we looked back at the past 20 years and with the  inclusion of 32 more teams, I only see one additional year we would have gotten in.

So we'll have to agree to disagree....the regular season isn't meaningless in college football despite having 50% of their teams in the post season.  It won't be here either with only 27% being invited.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 21, 2010, 12:06:28 AM
Are you suggesting that we just go into a season on cruise control?

Yes, I think several teams will go on cruise control because they know whatever happens, that they will be in the tournament.  Coaches will mail it in as well.

A team slightly above .500 doesn't deserve to be in if that's the criteria. 

In the end though it will make money and that's all that matters.

Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 21, 2010, 12:20:04 AM
Yes, I think several teams will go on cruise control because they know whatever happens, that they will be in the tournament.  Coaches will mail it in as well.

A team slightly above .500 doesn't deserve to be in if that's the criteria. 

In the end though it will make money and that's all that matters.

I think a team that does that will not be rewarded for the NCAAs and risks not making it.  Remember, my rule would be you have to be above .500 in your conference, not just overall.  This expansion is largely going to help the non BCS conferences so the BCS teams better play hard to the end or they won't be making it in.

I don't see teams "taking it easy", I just don't.  When you're talking about putting your post season lives into the hands of a committee, why on earth would you do this?  It's one thing to put it in cruise control in the NBA when you have clinched a playoff spot based on a certain record in comparison to your peers.  Quite a different thing when you're trying to convince 8 people to not only get you into the tournament but also put you in a high enough seeding that you can do some damage.  I don't think a recipe for success in that case would be to just put it in cruise control....do you?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 20, 2010, 02:35:47 PM
Yes, the play will be better.  For several reasons.  The NIT is a letdown, teams have cashed it in and some don't even bother to show up.

Plus, if they do this right, some of those teams in the NIT currently won't even get a shot at this thing....UCONN, UNC, etc.  It will be the 23, 24, 25 win teams from smaller conferences that will be out to prove they belong and will bring everything they can in a national tournament.

Yes, because if there's any organization that protects the little guys and doesn't favor the big guys, it's the NCAA  ::)

So a 8-10 Big East teams with quality non-conference and conference wins and no bad losses would be left out of a field of 96 because they were a game under .500?

I don't think that would happen considering 7-11 UConn would have got in the field of 65 if they won 2 or 3 Big East Tournament games.

Would 9-9 Seton Hall be left out of the 96 team field this year?

Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 21, 2010, 12:20:04 AM
Yes, I think several teams will go on cruise control because they know whatever happens, that they will be in the tournament.  Coaches will mail it in as well.

I don't buy that one bit.  Coaches are motivated to win, always.  They'll be strongly interested in winning titles, improving seeds, and simply adding to their win count.   All coaches and players are competitive in nature.  They like winning.  Losing sucks.  Those 40 minutes are what is important.

The only item I could see happening is on the player level, either by resting a player more, or not pushing an injured player if a bid was assured and seeding wasn't going to drop significantly.

The pressure for a bid will be shifted down 25+ teams, sure.  But the pressure to assure a 1st-round bye will be there.  The pressure to improve the seed, to have an easier path, will always exist.  Those who are slated for a #9-10-11 seed, will be working hard to get an #8.  Those who are around an #8 will be working hard to get a #7 or 6, and just keep their first round bye.

There's 334 D1 teams.  Do 250+ of them go on cruise control TODAY?  Hell, 90% of them don't have a chance for a bid the first day of the season.  Are they all just playing out the string?  Hell no.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 21, 2010, 05:07:36 AM
Yes, because if there's any organization that protects the little guys and doesn't favor the big guys, it's the NCAA  ::)

I really think you misunderstand what the NCAA is and who they represent based on your comments.  Most of the NCAA IS the little guys

  The day Northwestern makes the NCAA tournament is the day that it means nothing to be in the big dance.


[/quote]


I keep telling you dudes not to sell the Wildcats short. This is not your father's Northwestern team. Carmody has it going on. Coble was out all year, yet they beat ND, Purdue, as well as Illinois. Last season, Michigan State, Wisconsin,  and Florida State felt the 'Cats' bite.
BTW, if you haven't seen Drew Crawford play, you're missing out on the Big Ten freshman of the year who could play for any team in the country.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 21, 2010, 09:39:26 AM
I really think you misunderstand what the NCAA is and who they represent based on your comments.  Most of the NCAA IS the little guys

So that's why so many deserving mid-majors get into the Tournament and why undefeated "non-BCS" teams get to play for the National Championship in football.

Just because it's mostly little guys doesn't mean they protect the little guys. The NCAA is all about money.

More big name schools = more money. Period.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 21, 2010, 10:18:19 AM

I keep telling you dudes not to sell the Wildcats short. This is not your father's Northwestern team. Carmody has it going on. Coble was out all year, yet they beat ND, Purdue, as well as Illinois. Last season, Michigan State, Wisconsin,  and Florida State felt the 'Cats' bite.
BTW, if you haven't seen Drew Crawford play, you're missing out on the Big Ten freshman of the year who could play for any team in the country.

Agreed.  If everyone is healthy next year, Northwestern has a decent shot to make the dance.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 21, 2010, 10:26:16 AM
Agreed.  If everyone is healthy next year, Northwestern has a decent shot to make the dance.

If there's 96 schools.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 21, 2010, 10:22:38 AM
So that's why so many deserving mid-majors get into the Tournament and why undefeated "non-BCS" teams get to play for the National Championship in football.

Just because it's mostly little guys doesn't mean they protect the little guys. The NCAA is all about money.

More big name schools = more money. Period.

Again, why do you guys bring in the BCS?  Every time you do you show that you're not understanding the situation.  The BCS is NOT CONTROLLED BY THE NCAA.  AGAIN, THE BCS IS NOT CONTROLLED BY THE NCAA.

Secondly, the NCAA is made up of universities, most of which are small.  Division III, Division II, much of Division I.   Those are their constituents.

The expansion of the NCAA Tournament will allow for MORE....repeat....MORE of the smaller schools to get in.  So yes, they are going to be taking care of those schools.  

Now, do the big boys drive much of this?  Of course.  But much of the money you are complaining about is driven by the CONFERENCES, not the NCAA.  Your anger is placed in the wrong place and by reading many of the comments here, it is clear that people do not understand who runs the BCS (not the NCAA), who controls the NCAA Tournament (the NCAA) and where the television money goes for most college sports (the CONFERENCES, not the NCAA).  The NCAA is not the bogeyman you are making them out to be, you need to re-direct who controls MOST of the money if that is your concern.

Chicos...Didnt this all start with the NCAA sending out an RFP to the networks to determine how valuable an expanded 68 or 96 team tournament is to them?

If the NCAA didn't/doesn't like what they hear back from the networks, wont they just keep the deal with CBS that pays them a significant amount over the next 3 years?

Quote from: GOMU1104 on March 21, 2010, 11:16:08 AM
Chicos...Didnt this all start with the NCAA sending out an RFP to the networks to determine how valuable an expanded 68 or 96 team tournament is to them?

If the NCAA didn't/doesn't like what they hear back from the networks, wont they just keep the deal with CBS that pays them a significant amount over the next 3 years?

Correct.  The NCAA controls the television contract for the NCAA Tournament for men's basketball as they are responsible for running NCAA championships.  (The other contracts which many posters here seem to be considerably confused on, are not run by the NCAA but controlled by the conferences, the BCS, etc).

At any rate, there is an out clause in the current deal where the NCAA could void the remaining 3 years of the contract after this year's tournament.  The RFP was sent out to various entities (including my company) to determine what interest there is in expanding the tournament.

At the end of the day, it costs money to run the NCAA, etc, so they are doing their fiduciary responsibility to explore this option.

They could come back and say no, the  money isn't enough or the tournament should stay at 65 or whatever.

I believe that it will go to 96 either next year or in 2014.  It's not a matter of if, but when. 

I also believe you will see CBS keep the majority of the tournament or perhaps the most important components (the FINAL Four), but I could be wrong on that.  My guess is that ESPN will gobble up a good chunk of these games and you might see a 3rd party involved as well.

Interesting times ahead, but I honestly feel the negativity on this is short sighted....just my opinion.  Teams will keep playing hard, the margin for error to get into the tournament is not substantially reduced by adding 32 teams.  Clubs will still be playing for high seeds, conference championships, etc.  The beneficiaries will not just be the BCS conferences.

Most importantly, if MU people here would take two seconds to put on their Blue and Gold glasses, they would realize how critically important this could be for Marquette in a world where we don't have football.  Self preservation is key and a lot of people are missing this for some reason.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 20, 2010, 09:03:56 AM
Disagree that it would be a blow to popularity.  Purists may be upset, but they aint turning the TV off.

The overwhelmingly largest reason for the popularity of the NC2A tournament is simple. Gambling. Anybody can throw $5 or $10 in the office pool and be part of the "in" crowd for three weeks. Making it harder to gamble on and make people feel like they're part of the "in" crowd for three weeks makes it that much more unpopular.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 20, 2010, 02:47:34 PM

Okay here's a question... assuming that it has always been 96 teams since 1990, what years would we have NOT made the tourney?

I'll take a shot on this one. I'll say 16 of the last 18 years. Only year MU would have missed in those years would have been Deane's last year and Crean's second year.

Completely agreed on your last point though Chicos. While I think this is an awful idea for college basketball as a whole, it's probably good for MU.

Quote from: Eye on March 21, 2010, 04:40:54 PM
The overwhelmingly largest reason for the popularity of the NC2A tournament is simple. Gambling. Anybody can throw $5 or $10 in the office pool and be part of the "in" crowd for three weeks. Making it harder to gamble on and make people feel like they're part of the "in" crowd for three weeks makes it that much more unpopular.

Well, two things wrong with that.  Firstly, I believe you vastly overstate the "largest reason for the popularity .. gambling."   Certainly, as you suggest, people are popping a few bucks to get into a bracket .. but within 2 short rounds, a huge chunk of people's brackets are busted .. do they stop watching?  Some do.    A $10 investment is NOT what people are dedicating 4, 8, 12, 20 hours to.   Not saying it doesn't add some spice .. but it's a bell curve, with big bell being people who'd casually like to win, yet watch for the same reasons people watch sporting events, regular season games, playoff baseball, the superbowl, whatever.   It's entertainment with purpose and meaning (a championship.)

Second, the amount another 32 teams makes to "making it harder to gamble on" is a pittance.  Sure, if you're a die-hard, researching another 16 games will take time .. but most people are NOT doing that .. I'll bet the average time it takes to fill a bracket is about 6 minutes.  

Sounds like you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Hilltopper. Could we at least agree that the vast majority of people are into the Super Bowl because of gambling and wanting to be part of the "in" crowd?

This is not only a mistake, it's an absolute travesty. The NCAA tournament is the most perfect tournament in all of sports. It means a lot to get in, there are a great number of teams, and every game matters.

Now what? We're going to have the 1 seed facing the 24 seed? A 16 seed has never beaten a 1, so now we're going to have two rounds of pointless basketball? And what does this do to the regular season? If you're in a major conference like Marquette, all you need to do is win 7 games in the Big East and you're in. Each game means almost nothing until the tournament starts, and as a paying season ticket holder I don't want to be going to meaningless games. Season ticket sales will plummet across the nation. No one is going to care about games outside the tournament. Only schools like Duke, Kansas and Kentucky will sell out every game, we even saw the UNC crowds this year stat away from the Deandome once the team dropped to .500.

I really thought the NCAA was better than this. I expect this from the NBA, where David Stern expanded the playoffs to having an absurd 16 teams, over half the league, and even expanding the first round from best of 5 to best of 7 in order to get more money, but I thought the NCAAs realized just how perfect their tournament is. Apparently not. I guess nothing outside the TV Deal matters to these guys.  >:(

And it's obvious the committee wasn't listening to the fans at all. A recent ESPN poll had only 11% in favor of expansion.

Quote from: SacWarrior on March 21, 2010, 06:05:41 PM
This is not only a mistake, it's an absolute travesty. The NCAA tournament is the most perfect tournament in all of sports. It means a lot to get in, there are a great number of teams, and every game matters.

Now what? We're going to have the 1 seed facing the 24 seed? A 16 seed has never beaten a 1, so now we're going to have two rounds of pointless basketball? And what does this do to the regular season? If you're in a major conference like Marquette, all you need to do is win 7 games in the Big East and you're in. Each game means almost nothing until the tournament starts, and as a paying season ticket holder I don't want to be going to meaningless games. Season ticket sales will plummet across the nation. No one is going to care about games outside the tournament. Only schools like Duke, Kansas and Kentucky will sell out every game, we even saw the UNC crowds this year stat away from the Deandome once the team dropped to .500.

Damn...you can tell the future?

Why are you posting here? You should be telling the people in Indianapolis what is going to happen!

The tournament is perfect as is and a cash cow for everyone involved.   So now the genius move is to water it town and cheapen the regular season.     Just a bad idea.    Lets add two more majors to golf and make the NFL playoffs 8 teams in each conference and the MLB 8 teams in each league, too.    Shorten the regular season and add more playoff rounds.   Brilliant!

If they expand to 96 teams... it will ruin this tournament

This year is proof that 64 team tournament is perfect... look how great this year has been, only to dilute it with below-average teams... awesome

The NCAA tournament is best playoff system in sports, it should not be changed

Quote from: Eye on March 21, 2010, 04:47:02 PM
I'll take a shot on this one. I'll say 16 of the last 18 years. Only year MU would have missed in those years would have been Deane's last year and Crean's second year.

Respectfully disagree in a huge way....I think we listed 5 that were slam dunk no way they would have made it.  How would we have made it in two of O'Neill's years, one in which we were 11-18?


EDIT:  We were looking at since 1990 and it looks like you were looking at since 1992

Quote from: SacWarrior on March 21, 2010, 06:05:41 PM
This is not only a mistake, it's an absolute travesty. The NCAA tournament is the most perfect tournament in all of sports. It means a lot to get in, there are a great number of teams, and every game matters.

Now what? We're going to have the 1 seed facing the 24 seed? A 16 seed has never beaten a 1, so now we're going to have two rounds of pointless basketball? And what does this do to the regular season? If you're in a major conference like Marquette, all you need to do is win 7 games in the Big East and you're in. Each game means almost nothing until the tournament starts, and as a paying season ticket holder I don't want to be going to meaningless games. Season ticket sales will plummet across the nation. No one is going to care about games outside the tournament. Only schools like Duke, Kansas and Kentucky will sell out every game, we even saw the UNC crowds this year stat away from the Deandome once the team dropped to .500.

I really thought the NCAA was better than this. I expect this from the NBA, where David Stern expanded the playoffs to having an absurd 16 teams, over half the league, and even expanding the first round from best of 5 to best of 7 in order to get more money, but I thought the NCAAs realized just how perfect their tournament is. Apparently not. I guess nothing outside the TV Deal matters to these guys.  >:(

And it's obvious the committee wasn't listening to the fans at all. A recent ESPN poll had only 11% in favor of expansion.

Sigh....so much wrong wit this.  And no, the 1 seed will not play the 24 seed. They're called byes.

Forget it....stop watching then because it's going to change.

Quote from: Eye on March 21, 2010, 05:27:15 PM
Sounds like you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Hilltopper. Could we at least agree that the vast majority of people are into the Super Bowl because of gambling and wanting to be part of the "in" crowd?

There is no way in high heaven that "the vast majority of people are into the SB because of gambling."  

Gambling on brackets and the SB adds a point or two to viewership, but their entertainment value alone drives their popularity.  

That you think people watching the SB (and NCAAs) is dominated by gamblers explains your predisposition -- that you're watching the SB and NCAAs while gambling on it (in your words) "to feel included in the 'in' crowd".

I don't suggest there isn't a segment who does that to an extent, but that doesn't come within miles of explaining the 106 million people watching the SB game.

Gambling on sporting events has an effect, no doubt.  But MM and the SB are such majestic (for lack of a better word) events, they transcend a few droves (of men) watching them solely because they are gambling on them.

Quote from: tower912 on March 21, 2010, 06:41:43 PM
The tournament is perfect as is and a cash cow for everyone involved.   So now the genius move is to water it town and cheapen the regular season.     Just a bad idea.    Lets add two more majors to golf and make the NFL playoffs 8 teams in each conference and the MLB 8 teams in each league, too.    Shorten the regular season and add more playoff rounds.   Brilliant!

Strawman alert.....but more importantly, your examples do nothing but prove how wrong your point is.  Well done!!


They did add teams to baseball, and everyone bitched....until....wait for it....it made the playoffs better and now, NO ONE bitches.

And in 1985 they added to the NCAA tournament....and people bitched....until....wait for it.....it made the NCAA tournament better and no one bitches until now when we're going through the cycle again....until....wait for it....no one will bitch again in a few years


And they did add to the majors in golf....apparently you're not old enough to remember (nor am I)....and life went on and golf ratings got bigger and better.  God forbid, they even changed some of them as the US Amateur used to be one and isn't any longer...imagine the howling.   ::)


Football....yup, they went from 4 teams to 5 teams to 6 teams....and people bitched and said it would water down the regular season....until....wait for it....the NFL is the most popular sport in the USA and playoffs have not made the regular season less worth it, have not taken down ratings, have not done anything of the kind.


Every example you gave they have done in the past and the only thing that has happened is the sport got MORE popular, the play was NOT diminished, etc, etc.

Well done.   ;)

Quote from: Mayor McCheese on March 21, 2010, 06:42:16 PM
If they expand to 96 teams... it will ruin this tournament

This year is proof that 64 team tournament is perfect... look how great this year has been, only to dilute it with below-average teams... awesome

Another person who can predict the future.....who's going to win the 6th race at Santa Anita?  I have a kitchen remodel to pay for.  Thanks

I gotta say I'm really looking forward to this time next year as Digger, Bilas, Lunardi et. al. debate the merits of Stony Brook (#8 seed in NIT) and SLU (#1 seed in CBI) to see who is the last team in.

Last Four In
Jacksonville (19-12)
Quinnipiac (23-9)
Stony Brook (22-9)
Jackson State (19-12)

First Four Out
Saint Louis (20-11)
Oregon State (14-17)
George Washington (16-14)
Hofstra (19-14)

In golf, the majors have changed, not been added.   Western Open used to be a major, etc.    As to the professional game, they have expanded to an appropriate level, not watered down the playoffs.    And in basketball and hockey, it wasn't all that long ago that the complaints were how the regular season sucked and that the real season didn't start until the playoffs. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 21, 2010, 06:55:14 PM
Respectfully disagree in a huge way....I think we listed 5 that were slam dunk no way they would have made it.  How would we have made it in two of O'Neill's years, one in which we were 11-18?


EDIT:  We were looking at since 1990 and it looks like you were looking at since 1992

Correct Chicos, I didn't factor in 1990 to 1992. After thinking about it, I'd say probably one of those three, 1990, Tony Smith's last year, which would be 17 of the last 21.

Quote from: tower912 on March 21, 2010, 07:12:55 PM
In golf, the majors have changed, not been added.   Western Open used to be a major, etc.    As to the professional game, they have expanded to an appropriate level, not watered down the playoffs.    And in basketball and hockey, it wasn't all that long ago that the complaints were how the regular season sucked and that the real season didn't start until the playoffs. 

Basketball and hockey, I agree....disgrace....but that's not what will happen here.   In basketball and hockey, over 50% of the teams make it into the playoffs.

If they go to 96 teams, it means 27% will make it....not even in the same ballpark as the basketball and hockey comparison, so why use it?

For golf, their used to be 3 majors, then 4...and yes, they have been changed many times over through the years.  There has been a push to add the TPC as a fifth major, which may happen....if it does, do you think people will stop watching golf?   For tennis majors, same thing...changes over the years.


This has been a great tournament thus far and why is that?  Because of the upsets and the smaller teams winning.  Expanding the tournament will bring MORE OF THOSE TYPES OF TEAMS INTO THE TOURNAMENT!!!!!

You think this tournament is wild, wait until you actually have the current 13, 14, 15, and 16 seeds playing other teams that are more their equal since the top 8 seeds won't play in round 1.  So instead of UW-madison playing Wofford...they would have played someone like the winner of the Illinois State - Va Tech game.  Marquette would have played the Washington - Morgan State winner and actually been given a BENEFIT to having a higher seed.

And some of you are STILL missing the biggest point of all.  For schools without football, this is a lifeline in a huge way if the conferences go haywire as many are predicting.  I don't know why some of you continue to ignore this critical part about the team we all love. 

Alright, I will concede your last paragraph. 

You've completely misrepresented me Hilltopper. I don't follow the NFL much anymore for precisely the reason I mentioned. I think most people are into it because of gambling (fantasy FB, #'s) and violence. I think the level of play in the NFL absolutely stinks compared to 15 years ago and before, but almost nobody has noticed it. Beyond that for the SB, commercials and an excuse to have a party are high on the list IMHO, too.

I haven't paid to be in a bracket pool in my entire life. I watch MU and Arizona almost every game every season, and try to watch as many Big East games as humanly possible during the season. I wish more people were as into college basketball as I am. Very few are.

Also sounds like you and I have a different definition of gambling. You're saying guys betting on games is gambling. I say a bracket, a fantasy FB league or a #, albeit at a lower level, is still gambling, and I think that's a big reason a lot of people are into the NFL and NC2A tourney.

Sorry for misinterpreting.  Usually people argue from the majority, having a personal stake. As you suggested the biggest driver for MM and the SB was gambling, it's an odd stance to take, since you do not count yourself as one of the majority -- i.e., everyone else does X, but I don't!

Like you, I don't watch because of gambling either.  My wife doesn't too.  That makes three of us.  I guess the three of us aren't included in the "vast majority" of people watching, then!   

And no, I agree with you about the definition of gambling -- although there are levels.  Bets, brackets, fantasy all have varying amounts -- due to their nature, and their participants -- of the desire for money, and the desire for entertainment.     The brackets I'm in, one for $10, two others for pride, have little to do with why I watch MM.   My stance is, like the three of us, we are the in the majority by a large margin.  Few watch for gambling purposes alone, meaning they would continue if it was "more difficult" as you suggested.

We're much more in agreement than I guess either one of us probably though earlier today! :) We're probably just in disagreement about how much of an influence it has on the level of interest. I think most people consider a small amount entertainment rather than gambling. I'm probably taking the definition more literally. I would certainly say not all watch for gambling purposes, I just think it's a larger group than you do.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 21, 2010, 10:48:04 AM
Again, why do you guys bring in the BCS?  Every time you do you show that you're not understanding the situation.  The BCS is NOT CONTROLLED BY THE NCAA.  AGAIN, THE BCS IS NOT CONTROLLED BY THE NCAA.

I'm well aware that the NCAA does not, REPEAT in order to be condescending, does NOT run the BCS. However, the BCS is an intregal part of the NCAA's most popular sport. The BCS also is very "unfriendly" to the non-BCS schools. How, then, is the NCAA helping those smaller schools in terms of BCS bids? Keep in mind that looking the other way or claiming it's out of their hands because the BCS controls it does NOT help the non-"name" schools. In case that wasn't clear, looking the other way or claiming it's out of their hands because the BCS controls it does NOT help the non-"name" schools.

This has been pretty interesting reading, to say the least.

Chicos, I understand your point about BCS but I truly believe it is hypocritical of the NCAA to say they can't have a football playoff because it would be too much of a strain on the student-athletes, yet have no qualms about discussing the merits of expanding the bball tourney another week. At least. I'm sorry but it smacks of hypocrisy. And money. And please don't feel the need to educate me again about the BCS, I read everything you wrote here and I understand it. The fact remains that the football bowl system involves SCHOOLS, not professional football teams, in the NCAA, as does March Madness. They can't talk out of both sides of their mouth saying they can't expand football but they can expand bball. I don't care who owns it. Technically they're ALL student-athletes. (Clearing my throat heavily here)

All that being said, I think a 96 team tourney could be a lot of fun. Provided there are provisions made about how you can make it. Lots of interesting ideas here. I'll be very curious to see how it all plays out. May end up in the long run being a very good thing. Going from 48 to 64 was great for MM; going to 96 COULD be great too. Provided it's done the right way.

One last thought: judging on how this past week went, a serious overhaul of the RPI, Strength of schedule, and evaluating for seedings needs to be done. Bilas isn't always right but he did say a few things correctly: No way was Cornell a 12 seed. Washington an 11. St. Marys a 10. No way was Northern Iowa a 9. They didn't win that Kansas game on a fluke; they took it to the best team in the land and pasted them. These mid majors have to stop getting penalized because of a 'weak schedule.' The seeds need to be based on merit, not a computer system that doesn't actually watch the teams play. I don't have an exact answer, but for the last several years mid-majors keep proving they belong. And keep proving they get under-seeded because they're perceived as fluke teams.

Quote from: warriors1991 on March 21, 2010, 11:49:42 PM
This has been pretty interesting reading, to say the least.

Chicos, I understand your point about BCS but I truly believe it is hypocritical of the NCAA to say they can't have a football playoff because it would be too much of a strain on the student-athletes, yet have no qualms about discussing the merits of expanding the bball tourney another week. At least. I'm sorry but it smacks of hypocrisy. And money. And please don't feel the need to educate me again about the BCS, I read everything you wrote here and I understand it. The fact remains that the football bowl system involves SCHOOLS, not professional football teams, in the NCAA, as does March Madness. They can't talk out of both sides of their mouth saying they can't expand football but they can expand bball. I don't care who owns it. Technically they're ALL student-athletes. (Clearing my throat heavily here)

All that being said, I think a 96 team tourney could be a lot of fun. Provided there are provisions made about how you can make it. Lots of interesting ideas here. I'll be very curious to see how it all plays out. May end up in the long run being a very good thing. Going from 48 to 64 was great for MM; going to 96 COULD be great too. Provided it's done the right way.

One last thought: judging on how this past week went, a serious overhaul of the RPI, Strength of schedule, and evaluating for seedings needs to be done. Bilas isn't always right but he did say a few things correctly: No way was Cornell a 12 seed. Washington an 11. St. Marys a 10. No way was Northern Iowa a 9. They didn't win that Kansas game on a fluke; they took it to the best team in the land and pasted them. These mid majors have to stop getting penalized because of a 'weak schedule.' The seeds need to be based on merit, not a computer system that doesn't actually watch the teams play. I don't have an exact answer, but for the last several years mid-majors keep proving they belong. And keep proving they get under-seeded because they're perceived as fluke teams.

Remember, the NCAA doesn't "control" Division I football.  Note, that the NCAA does control DI-AA and DII and DIII football....and guess what, they all have a playoff system.  So there really isn't any hypocrisy, the NCAA is quite consistent on having playoff tournaments and have for years, including football.

The folks that don't want a playoff in DI are the University Presidents, the BCS, etc....not the NCAA.  That's where so many people don't get this right.  They blame the NCAA for something that they aren't even in charge of.


I like your other comments, think they are very fair....though we also need to be careful when we say a team isn't a "X" seed because of one game.  Anything can happen in one game, but I do generally agree with you that they were underseeded and teams like New Mexico were overseeded.  Then again, I thought Purdue was very overseeded without Hummell and here they are in the Sweet 16.

It's going to be an interesting ride.  My only gripe with people that are bashing the expansion like crazy is that the reason seems to be "because we don't want to change it".  Well, I get that argument, but that doesn't mean the next version won't be better.

What is the point of adding 31 teams with a combined 0.0001% chance of winning the tournament (I think I am overstating the percentage?  This is, after all, the national championship tournament.  This year is an exception because the PAC-10 was awful, but roughly 50% of the Big 6 conference teams already make it year after year.  In this year's tournament, Washington would have had to beat the number 22 seed before advancing to play us.  What is the point of that game?

The only people this makes sense for are the fine folks at ESPN, who will have more "product" to sell.  They know it's not right, they know nobody wants it, but they also know that people who love college basketball (like us) will watch those pointless extra games.

Quote from: CTWarrior on March 22, 2010, 08:54:12 AM
What is the point of adding 31 teams with a combined 0.0001% chance of winning the tournament (I think I am overstating the percentage?  This is, after all, the national championship tournament.  This year is an exception because the PAC-10 was awful, but roughly 50% of the Big 6 conference teams already make it year after year.  In this year's tournament, Washington would have had to beat the number 22 seed before advancing to play us.  What is the point of that game?

The only people this makes sense for are the fine folks at ESPN, who will have more "product" to sell.  They know it's not right, they know nobody wants it, but they also know that people who love college basketball (like us) will watch those pointless extra games.

Exactly, and they will make a boat load of cash doing it... so it will be done.

Quote from: CTWarrior on March 22, 2010, 08:54:12 AM
What is the point of adding 31 teams with a combined 0.0001% chance of winning the tournament (I think I am overstating the percentage?  This is, after all, the national championship tournament.  This year is an exception because the PAC-10 was awful, but roughly 50% of the Big 6 conference teams already make it year after year.  In this year's tournament, Washington would have had to beat the number 22 seed before advancing to play us.  What is the point of that game?

The only people this makes sense for are the fine folks at ESPN, who will have more "product" to sell.  They know it's not right, they know nobody wants it, but they also know that people who love college basketball (like us) will watch those pointless extra games.

Using that logic, why do we have the conference tournament winners invited currently from the bottom 10 conferences?  They have no shot either.  Where do you draw the line?

Yet here we are with 16 teams left alive and one of them is from the Ivy league, one is from the Horizon league, one if from the Missouri Valley.   Conventional wisdom would say none of them have a shot either.  A few years ago we had George Mason in the Final Four from the Colonial Athletic Association?

I never quite understood this argument that we shouldn't invite other teams because they have "zero shot" to win it.  Says who?   You guys need to rent Hoosiers.   ;D  Anything can happen, and even if they don't win it all they can knock off a few challengers in the process.  Otherwise, let's invite the top 4 teams in the polls each year since they're the only ones that can win it apparently?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2010, 12:27:17 PM
I never quite understood this argument that we shouldn't invite other teams because they have "zero shot" to win it.  Says who?   You guys need to rent Hoosiers.   ;D  Anything can happen, and even if they don't win it all they can knock off a few challengers in the process.  Otherwise, let's invite the top 4 teams in the polls each year since they're the only ones that can win it apparently?

Why not invite everybody, then?  Why stop at 96?  The point is, every team that has the remotest of remote chances are already in the tournament.  Why do we need to invite more?  Would it really add to the tournament if Rhode Island and Illinois got in?  Or Quinnipiac?  If they add the 8 or 10 teams that won the lousy conferences that didn't manage to win the conference tournament to the NCAAs, how would that make the tournament better?  They couldn't beat East Tennessee State when it mattered so let's see how they do against Wake Forest?  The fact is, when they expand the tournament, they'll let 8 or 10 more teams from the lesser conferences in and at least a dozen more from the Big 6. 

I would HATE going to 96, however would Seeds 33-64 get a home court game, or would they already be at the nuetral sites?

If they got home court at least you'd be playing for something.

On the bubble for an 8-seed would give you an 100% chance of making the 2nd round (a bye),

On the bubble for a 16-seed would give you a 70% chance of making the 2nd round (in home and home series, home teams win 70% of the time)

If you get through as a 17-seed to 24-seed, you only have a 30% chance of the road win.

Still would hate it, but at least that would give you something to play for.

does anyone know exactly how the 96 team format would work? Like whould the top 32 get byes  while the other 64 play 1 game  and get it done to the original 64?

If the tournament did expand to 96 teams and the expansion of the Big 10 led to the falling apart of the Big East is it possible Marquette could go back to Independent status?  It seems with a completely open schedule they could balance "buy games" with rival games and home and homes with bigger schools.  We wouldn't have to share our Tournament money with the downside being we wouldn't benefit from any other school's tournament wins.

Just tossin' it out there.

anyone know about the tourney format?

Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on March 25, 2010, 03:30:49 PM
anyone know about the tourney format?

Like this

EAST (Syracuse Regional)
New Orleans

Tuesday (March 16)

Game 1 - No. 9 Wake Forest vs. No. 24 Jacksonville
Game 2 - No. 12 Cornell vs. No. 21 Montana
Game 3 - No. 13 Virginia Tech vs. No. 20 Northeastern
Game 4 - No. 16 Seton Hall vs. No. 17 Wofford

Thursday (March 18)

Game 5 - No. 1 Kentucky vs. Seton Hall/Wofford winner
Game 6 - No. 8 Texas vs. Wake Forest/Jacksonville winner
Game 7 - No. 4 Wisconsin vs. Virginia Tech/Illinois State winner
Game 8 - No. 5 Temple vs. Cornell-Montana winner

Saturday (Mar. 20)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner
San Jose

Wednesday (March 17)

Game 1 – No. 15 Wichita State vs. No.18 William & Mary
Game 2 – No. 10 Missouri vs. No. 23 East Tennessee State
Game 3 – No. 11 Washington vs. No. 22 Morgan State
Game 4 – No. 14 UAB vs. No. 19 Illinois State

Friday (March 19)

Game 5 – No. 2 West Virginia vs. Wichita State/William & Mary winner
Game 6 – No. 7 Clemson vs. Missouri/East Tennessee winner
Game 7 – No. 3 New Mexico vs. UAB/Illinois State winner
Game 8 – No. 6 Marquette vs. Washington/Morgan State winner

Sunday (March 20)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner
SOUTH REGION (Houston)
Jacksonville

Wednesday (Mar. 17)

Game 1 – No. 9 Louisville vs. No. 24 Stony Brook
Game 2 – No. 12 Utah State vs. No. 21 Weber State
Game 3 – No. 13 Arizona State vs. No.20 Robert Morris
Game 4 – No. 16 UConn vs. No. 17 Siena

Friday (Mar. 19)

Game 5 – No. 1 Duke vs. UConn/Siena winner
Game 6 – No. 8 California vs. Louisville/Stony Brook winner
Game 7 – No. 4 Purdue vs. Arizona State/Robert Morris winner
Game 8 – No. 5 Texas A&M vs. Utah State/Weber State winner

Sunday (Mar. 21)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner
Providence

Tuesday (Mar.16)

Game 1 – No. 15 Dayton vs. No. 18 Tulsa
Game 2 – No. 10 St. Mary's vs. No. 23 Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Game 3 – No. 11 Old Dominion vs. No. 22 Winthrop
Game 4 – No. 14 Rhode Island vs. No. 19 Sam Houston State

Thursday (Mar. 18)

Game 5 – No. 2 Villanova vs. Dayton/Tulsa winner
Game 6 – No. 7 Richmond vs. St. Mary's/Arkansas-Pine Bluff winner
Game 7 – No. 3 Baylor vs. Rhode Island/Sam Houston State winner
Game 8 – No. 6 Notre Dame vs. Old Dominion/Winthrop winner

Saturday (Mar. 20)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner
MIDWEST REGION (St. Louis)
Oklahoma City

Tuesday (Mar. 16)

Game 1 – No. 9 Northern Iowa vs. No. 24 Quinnipiac
Game 2 – No. 12 Mississippi State vs. UC Santa Barbara
Game 3 – No. 13 Cincinnati vs. No. 20 Ohio
Game 4 – No. 16 North Carolina vs. No. 17 St. John's

Thursday (Mar. 18)

Game 5 – No. 1 Kansas vs. North Carolina/St. John's
Game 6 – No. 8 UNLV vs. Northern Iowa/Quinnipiac winner
Game 7 – No. 5 Michigan State vs. Mississippi State/UC Santa Barbara winner
Game 8 – No. 4 Maryland vs. Cincinnati/Ohio winner

Saturday (Mar. 20)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Milwaukee

Wednesday (Mar. 17)

Game 1 – No. 15 South Florida vs. No. 18 Texas Tech
Game 2 – No. 10 Georgia Tech vs. No. 23 Troy
Game 3 – No. 11 San Diego State vs. No. 22 Lehigh
Game 4 – No. 14 New Mexico State vs. No. 19 Houston

Friday (Mar. 19)

Game 5 – No. 2 Ohio State vs. South Florida/Texas Tech winner
Game 6 – No. 7 Oklahoma State vs. Georgia Tech/Troy winner
Game 7 – No. 3 Georgetown vs. New Mexico State/Houston winner
Game 8 – No. 6 Tennessee vs. San Diego State/Lehigh winner

Sunday (Mar. 21)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs.Game 8 winner
WEST REGIONAL
Buffalo

Wednesday (Mar. 17)

Game 1 – No. 9 Florida State vs. No. 24 Jackson State
Game 2 – No. 12 UTEP vs. No. 21 Oakland
Game 3 – No. 13 Illinois vs. No. 20 Coastal Carolina
Game 4 – No. 16 Kent State vs. No. 17 N.C. State

Friday (Mar. 19)

Game 5 – No. 1 Syracuse vs. Kent State/NC State winner
Game 6 – No. 8 Gonzaga vs. Florida State/Jackson State winner
Game 7 – No. 4 Vanderbilt vs. Illinois/Coastal Carolina winner
Game 8 – No. 5 Butler vs. UTEP/Oakland winner

Sunday (Mar. 21)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner
Spokane

Tuesday (Mar. 16)

Game 1 – No. 15 Memphis vs. No. 18 Murray State
Game 2 – No. 10 Florida vs. Vermont
Game 3 – No. 11 Minnesota vs. North Texas State
Game 4 – No. 14 Mississippi vs. No. 19 Nevada

Thursday (Mar.18)

Game 5 – No. 2 Kansas State vs. Memphis/Murray State winner
Game 6 – No. 7 BYU vs. Florida/Vermont winner
Game 7 – No. 3 Pitt vs. Mississippi/Nevada winner
Game 8 – No. 6 Xavier vs. Minnesota/North Texas winner

Saturday (Mar. 20)

Game 9 – Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner
Game 10 – Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner

Quote from: sarcastro on March 24, 2010, 09:10:37 PM
If the tournament did expand to 96 teams and the expansion of the Big 10 led to the falling apart of the Big East is it possible Marquette could go back to Independent status?  It seems with a completely open schedule they could balance "buy games" with rival games and home and homes with bigger schools.  We wouldn't have to share our Tournament money with the downside being we wouldn't benefit from any other school's tournament wins.

Just tossin' it out there.

The advantage of a conference is guaranteed scheduling and guaranteed money through a revenue share.  Don't think independent status would ever work again in college basketball

So chico, with your layout(thanks by the way) i didnt want to read through all of it, but my first comment was regarding would the first 32 get byes and the other 64 play in, to get it back to the typical 64? That seems like what your format is, but i couldnt tell forsure.

After looking at that proposed bracket, I think this would be awesome for hoops junkies, like most of us here are.  The only downside I can see is that I would now have 4 days in a row where I'd get nothing done at work.

This could also be huge for MU, as access to the tourney is the most important thing keeping schools like us at the top level.

For those saying teams would mail it in at the end, I think it would basically create two bubbles, those fighting to get in, and those fighting for the bye.  That first round bye would be huge and teams hovering in the 7-10 range would now have much more to play for down the stretch.

Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on March 25, 2010, 03:39:25 PM
So chico, with your layout(thanks by the way) i didnt want to read through all of it, but my first comment was regarding would the first 32 get byes and the other 64 play in, to get it back to the typical 64? That seems like what your format is, but i couldnt tell forsure.

Correct, first 32 teams get a bye and the other 64 play in.

The way I see it, you could actually have this tournament setup without even adding a week.  You play the "first round" games on Tuesday and Wednesday.  The winners then play the bye teams on Thursday and Friday (just like it's setup today).

Basically instead of send 8 teams to a regional, you send 12 teams....4 of them are knocked off on the first day and the remaining 8 function just like the tournament does today.  Essentially you're adding two more sessions (morning and evening) on another day.   

I would do it that very week....it would suck to play in that first round logistically, but we make the 65 vs 64 do this very same thing.  The teams are announced Sunday night and they tip off two days later, so it's basically the same deal.  Besides, the teams that are not one of the top 32 teams, should have to work a little harder, travel faster, shorter time to prepare, etc.

Quote from: Litehouse on March 25, 2010, 04:32:47 PM
After looking at that proposed bracket, I think this would be awesome for hoops junkies, like most of us here are.  The only downside I can see is that I would now have 4 days in a row where I'd get nothing done at work.

This could also be huge for MU, as access to the tourney is the most important thing keeping schools like us at the top level.

For those saying teams would mail it in at the end, I think it would basically create two bubbles, those fighting to get in, and those fighting for the bye.  That first round bye would be huge and teams hovering in the 7-10 range would now have much more to play for down the stretch.

DING DING DING.   It absolutely gives teams something to play for because you want that first round bye in a HUGE way, especially if they add the extra game the same day of the week.

All these people on the radio and talking heads on tv that basically wouldn't know how to run a tournament if it landed in their lap have not thought this through at all.