http://ow.ly/16WtxI
Definitely in line with everything I'm hearing on the broadcasting side of the ledger.
110% not a fan. Teams will have absoulutly nothing to play for.. well maybe DePaul.
sad. ruins the best weekend of the whole year.
on the bright side, we will be a tourney team forsure next year
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on March 31, 2010, 12:30:11 PM
on the bright side, we will be a tourney team forsure next year
If the tourney goes to 96 teams, we should be making it every year.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on March 31, 2010, 12:22:20 PM
sad. ruins the best weekend of the whole year.
Also dilutes the regular season and renders conference tournaments rather useless as well as watering down Selection Sunday and bubble talk. What bubble with 96 teams...?? Who cares who that 97th team is (unless, of course, that is your school).
People said the same thing during the last expansion, and the we are still around! Armageddon has not ensued! It will still be awesome, I will still take days off of work, they make work in a bye system of sorts, so seeding will still be very important.
Quote from: reinko on March 31, 2010, 12:34:31 PM
People said the same thing during the last expansion, and the we are still around! Armageddon has not ensued! It will still be awesome, I will still take days off of work, they make work in a bye system of sorts, so seeding will still be very important.
I think this is one of the bigger problems I have with it. One of the things I really like about the 64 team tourney is that there are no byes. Yea the 1 vs 16 is sort of a bye, but other than that there is always the chance a 15 upsets a 2. Not often, but it has happened. I just always liked the idea all the teams had to win the same number of games. How long until we run into a problem like the BET where the byes seem to hurt the teams more? The lower seeded team already has a win under their belt and has some momentum. I just can't get excited for the possibility of watching Seton Hall play a 2nd or 3rd place mid-major team on the first day of the tournament.
I like the 96 team field. The first round will basically be 32 play-in games. Most of the low-major automatic qualifiers will be eliminated leaving the top 64 teams in the nation. The #1 seeds will finally face some competition in their first game.
For those worried about office pools, a 64 team bracket can still be completed after the first round is over.
Greed.....It's what drives America, and College Basketball unfortunately.
96 teams is probably a bit much, but I don't get why this is that horrible. If we had a 96 team field this year, Kentucky would've played a UNC or UConn in the 1st round instead of ETSU. Yeah, the first round games where the 9-24 seeds play will be pretty dull (you're going to watch it anyways so why wouldn't the NCAA do this), but after its narrowed down to 64 the second round and on is going to be extremely entertaining and will have more upsets on average than the last 25 years in the 64/65 format. What's the problem with that?
People will grow to love 96 (although 72-84 is probably perfect).
Quote from: Eford4President2012 on March 31, 2010, 01:11:23 PM
I like the 96 team field. The first round will basically be 32 play-in games. Most of the low-major automatic qualifiers will be eliminated leaving the top 64 teams in the nation. The #1 seeds will finally face some competition in their first game.
For those worried about office pools, a 64 team bracket can still be completed after the first round is over.
That will be interesting if that how it gets worked out. If I understand it, then 32 teams get byes, and 64 teams play to match up with those top 32. Might the 64, after the first round, get re-seeded?
Quote from: Eford4President2012 on March 31, 2010, 01:11:23 PM
I like the 96 team field. The first round will basically be 32 play-in games.
Bingo.
Quote from: muguru on March 31, 2010, 01:13:01 PM
Greed.....It's what drives America, and College Basketball unfortunately.
Expenses also drive America.....it costs money to run things, something most Americans and especially our gov't don't realize
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 31, 2010, 01:34:45 PM
Bingo.
Yup....more upsets than ever before, more mid-majors involved, absolutely does not render the regular season worthless and arguments of that nature are silly beyond belief. Teams will be playing for those byes which is exactly why the regular season won't be worthless.....as well as playing to get into the tournament, trying to win their conference championship, etc. No coach is going to let his team "coast'....beyond silly on so many levels.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 31, 2010, 01:51:52 PM
Yup....more upsets than ever before, more mid-majors involved, absolutely does not render the regular season worthless and arguments of that nature are silly beyond belief. Teams will be playing for those byes which is exactly why the regular season won't be worthless.....as well as playing to get into the tournament, trying to win their conference championship, etc. No coach is going to let his team "coast'....beyond silly on so many levels.
Honestly, the regular season from a viewing point of view has been pretty worthless for awhile. The viewership number for the regular season aren't all that good anyway. This won't make them worse.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 31, 2010, 01:54:56 PM
Honestly, the regular season from a viewing point of view has been pretty worthless for awhile. The viewership number for the regular season aren't all that good anyway. This won't make them worse.
Do you mean from tv ratings? True, but things are so fractured now it's very difficult to compare to the past. Remember when there was one college basketball game a week and it was on NBC? Now it's everywhere on multiple platforms (satellite, Telco, cable, online, mobile, etc). So overall eyeballs are likely up in aggregate, but individual ratings are down for comparable games.
But I agree with the general premise, no way this makes the regular season more irrelevant. It's a silly argument. Teams are playing for conference championships first. That hasn't changed. They are playing for conference tournament seeding next...that hasn't changed. They are playing to get into the NCAA tournament....that will change as there are more spots, BUT they will also be playing like the dickens to be one of the top 32 teams to avoid a first round game, thus neutering this argument that the regular season is meaningless.
It's like some people here saying all 350 teams are getting in....THAT would make the regular season meaningless, but this doesn't do that.
I was against this idea at first but, I think it's more productive to be excited about this than to complain about more march madness.
More upsets. We'll have stats on how many years coaches have earned a bye. Lots of people fighting over how a team that should have been a 7 seed and was a 9 instead and have an extra game. That will be fun.
If these play in games are happening on wednesday we'll need to push up the big east tournament.
one question:
Were people pissed about the jump to 64 teams?
I mean, I'm not happy about the jump to 96, but people weren't happy about the jump to 64 and that has worked out pretty well.
Shrug.
Quote from: RJax55 on March 31, 2010, 12:31:29 PM
If the tourney goes to 96 teams, we should be making it every year.
Buzz is a hero! Makes the tourney every year since he arrived.
Quote from: RJax55 on March 31, 2010, 12:31:29 PM
If the tourney goes to 96 teams, we should be making it every y
Yeah, that's what we were all saying when it went to 24.
Quote from: radome on March 31, 2010, 02:06:09 PM
Buzz is a hero! Makes the tourney every year since he arrived.
Haha, yeah. Easy to see why almost every coach wants the tourney expanded to 96.
Unless there's a rule that BCS conference teams must finish .500 or better to make the field, MU should go every year.
In a mock 96 team field, St. Johns made the tourney. You're talking about a team that finished 13th in conference by going 6-12. I would hope that even in a rebuilding/down year, MU could do the same.
More upsets= Hard to call a crap team beating another crap team an upset. I'm not going to be on the edge of my seat or talk about it the next morning when a 22 seed beats an 11 seed.
More mid-majors=Rewarding programs that aren't usually good and usually don't invest enough to try to be good.
A .500 or better rule=Stupid. Georgia Tech made it at 7-9 this year because they were one of the best at-large teams. You're going to add 32 more spots and then also keep a team like that out? The major conferences would never, ever allow this.
I will agree it doesn't make the regular season irrelevant, as a conference championship, a conference tournament championship, or simply doing well in conference will be more of an accomplishment than anything else because hanging a banner for an NCAA appearance like we do now will be as pathetic as hanging banners for winning preseason tournaments.
I just don't understand the 50% increase overnight. Why not like 80 teams to start? I know they are trying to replace the NIT for good but there are still these other tourneys. Get rid of the NIT and allow 80 teams. Other tourneys (CBI, CIT, etc.) can replace the NIT.
Also, with any expansion (even to 80) they had better allow an automatic bid for winning your conference regular season. I can just see some decent small conference school losing out against 15-14 Oregon State because the small conf school didn't win their conference tourney.
Assuming 96 teams, last four in based on RPI...
Arizona 16-15
South Carolina 15-16
North Carolina 16-16
Charleston 21-11
Weak. :-[
Quote from: chapman on March 31, 2010, 02:43:29 PM
More upsets= Hard to call a crap team beating another crap team an upset. I'm not going to be on the edge of my seat or talk about it the next morning when a 22 seed beats an 11 seed.
Missing the point. Not talking about 11/22s...there will be more upsets once the field is down to 64.
I believe 3 #15 seeds beat #2s in the 64/65 format and we all know a #16 never won. This won't be in the case with the 96 format over a 25 year timeline. We all know the first round or first 32 play-in games will not be that great...so what? The 64 team field after this round will be more competitive (i.e. leading to more upsets than we currently get) than ever before. Shame on the NCAA for putting out a better product!
I agree with most. The regular season has already been diminished and now is basically meaningless.
For teams like Marquette or Wisconsin it would take a nearly catastrophic season not to make the tourney. It would be bottom 2 or 3 of the Big 11 or bottom 4-5 of the Big East.
I hate this idea. We can't get the obvious needed and public desired football playoff and now get this which nobody asked for or wants.
I am all for more mid majors but it would have been awful if undeserving teams like Minnesota, Illinois, Seton Hall or Cincinnati made the tournament.
Just install a consolation bracket after the first weekend, going back to 6th grade catholic b-ball days, everyone loved the consolation bracket. :P
Quote from: butchbadger on March 31, 2010, 02:59:02 PM
I agree with most. THe regualr has already been diminished and now is basically meaningless.
For teams like Marquette or Wisconsin it would take a catastrophic season not to make the tourney. It would be bottom 2 or 3 of the Big 11 or bottom 4-5 of the Big East.
I hate this idea. We can't get the obvious needed and public desired football playoff and now get this which nobody asked for or wants.
So the team that goes 24-6, gets a #3 seed in the 96 team tourney, and the team that goes 17-12 and gets a #19 seed are in the same boat. C'mon bucko.
I can't see 96 unless you guarantee every automatic bid winner gets a bye into the round of 64. The logistics also seem rather daunting. How many sites do you have for these 16 games because there's absolutely no way campuses can host these games.
Are the 16 winners re-seeded to create the field of 64? Additionally, are these 16 winners going to play three games the first week of the tournament? Then we'll get the whining from coaches similar to what happened at the Big East with the double-bye when they play a team that has momentum after its first win.
Continuing, how much money does the NCAA think it's going to get from the winning bidder with the expansion? Will it be the same per "unit" that is awarded to teams now? Will conferences be willing to accept a lesser revenue share during their down years (i.e., the Pac-10 this year with only two teams despite its three victories)?
I love college basketball, but I have a very hard time believing these additional 16 games are going to produce "quality" basketball. I understand using the word quality is subjective, but we've all watched enough college basketball to know a watchable game. As a case in point, can anyone say the current play-in game has been played at such a level where you thought the two teams were anything BUT a 16 seed (or worse)?
Like some others, I would be in favor of gradual expansion... I could see 68 or 72, with those extra games being played at Dayton and Hinkle Fieldhouse on a permanent basis that feeds into the 64. 96, however, is just too much too soon and it does diminish the accomplishment of reaching the NCAA tournament.
Just my .02
Quote from: RJax55 on March 31, 2010, 02:24:00 PM
Haha, yeah. Easy to see why almost every coach wants the tourney expanded to 96.
Unless there's a rule that BCS conference teams must finish .500 or better to make the field, MU should go every year.
In a mock 96 team field, St. Johns made the tourney. You're talking about a team that finished 13th in conference by going 6-12. I would hope that even in a rebuilding/down year, MU could do the same.
If they do this right, they would not be going. I suspect they end up doing this right.
I think it diminishes the Tournament and before you know it all 300+ teams will be in the damn thing. If you want to go to the big dance bring a candidite for Prom Queen not a pig in lipstick.
Just how I feel
Quote from: caltruda on March 31, 2010, 03:31:02 PM
I can't see 96 unless you guarantee every automatic bid winner gets a bye into the round of 64. The logistics also seem rather daunting. How many sites do you have for these 16 games because there's absolutely no way campuses can host these games.
Are the 16 winners re-seeded to create the field of 64? Additionally, are these 16 winners going to play three games the first week of the tournament? Then we'll get the whining from coaches similar to what happened at the Big East with the double-bye when they play a team that has momentum after its first win.
Continuing, how much money does the NCAA think it's going to get from the winning bidder with the expansion? Will it be the same per "unit" that is awarded to teams now? Will conferences be willing to accept a lesser revenue share during their down years (i.e., the Pac-10 this year with only two teams despite its three victories)?
I love college basketball, but I have a very hard time believing these additional 16 games are going to produce "quality" basketball. I understand using the word quality is subjective, but we've all watched enough college basketball to know a watchable game. As a case in point, can anyone say the current play-in game has been played at such a level where you thought the two teams were anything BUT a 16 seed (or worse)?
Like some others, I would be in favor of gradual expansion... I could see 68 or 72, with those extra games being played at Dayton and Hinkle Fieldhouse on a permanent basis that feeds into the 64. 96, however, is just too much too soon and it does diminish the accomplishment of reaching the NCAA tournament.
Just my .02
Logistics are fairly easy. You just send more teams to each already existing site, have them play on Tuesday or Wednesday (Tuesday if you're a Thurs\Sat site or Wednesday if you're a Fri\Sun site). Winner then plays the bye team the normal slotted day as the tournament now runs (Thurs or Friday). Kids aren't missing any more class (they all leave on Monday anyway to get to the sites), it keeps the tournament to the same 3 weeks, it allows for the bye teams to truly get an advantage since they are rested while the teams that played the first game will have played 48 hours earlier.
Elephant....was the tournament diminished when it went from 32 to 48 to 64? I'm just asking, not trying to pick a fight.
I guess I just don't understand why they want to take the greatest sporting event in America, and ruin it?? Getting into the NCAAs is something special, something you strive for all season long. Now with 96 teams in, how special is it anymore?? You also wonder what if any impact it will have on recruiting?? Will some coaches get "lazier" figuring with an expanded field they will get in the dance anyway, even if the talent level a that school, while stil good enough, isn't as god as it had been??
Will more kids go to lesser known programs??
Quote from: muguru on March 31, 2010, 06:48:04 PM
I guess I just don't understand why they want to take the greatest sporting event in America, and ruin it?? Getting into the NCAAs is something special, something you strive for all season long. Now with 96 teams in, how special is it anymore?? You also wonder what if any impact it will have on recruiting?? Will some coaches get "lazier" figuring with an expanded field they will get in the dance anyway, even if the talent level a that school, while stil good enough, isn't as god as it had been??
Will more kids go to lesser known programs??
I guess I don't understand how it will be "ruined" by allowing more teams the opportunity to play in it. Can someone explain to me how it will be "ruined"? And while they are at it, can someone explain to me how going from 32 to 48 didn't ruin it....going from 48 to 64 didn't ruin it but going from 64 to 96 (25 years after the last expansion and more than 130 additional teams added to division I) will ruin it?
There are a lot of VERY smart people working on this that have zero intention of ruining anything.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 31, 2010, 01:49:56 PM
Expenses also drive America.....it costs money to run things, something most Americans and especially our gov't don't realize
For a second I thought this was a politics free board.
I absolutely hate this idea, if it isn't broken don't fix it NCAA!
Quote from: muhoosier260 on March 31, 2010, 06:59:44 PM
For a second I thought this was a politics free board.
I absolutely hate this idea, if it isn't broken don't fix it NCAA!
It is and my comment wasn't about politics. It was about economics, and basic economics at that. You can't SPEND more than you take in (whether that's the NCAA, the US Gov't, or your household). The NCAA has costs that must be accounted for in the future, and they are going to need to expand those revenues. This is one way to do that.
Was it broken when it went from 32 to 48? When it went from 48 to 64?
Mike Francesca was talking about it this afternoon. He said he was told the NIT would be gone. CBS & Turner Broadcasting have already submitted a joint bid to broadcast as well as a bid from ESPN. CBS broadcasters would do the games on TBS & TNT.
If tourney expansion is truly a must then they have to do it the way Andy Katz suggested. It is by far the best way. Expand to 68 teams. Have the last 4 in play the last 4 out and the winners of those 4 games get the 12 seeds. This also keeps the 16 seed conference winners from being punished and having to play a play in game.
I think what is being missed in all this isn't the postseason, but how does the structure of the regular season change if this happens.
For example, say what you will about DePaul, but tournament expansion gives them zero reason to stay in the Big East. If anything, tournament expansion should make DePaul want to get out of the Big East immediately. One could argue the same thing about MU really, if not for MU's committment to men's basketball. I know it will be argued DePaul should get out of the Big East now, but if you're DePaul, why bother getting your tail kicked by schools like Syracuse, Georgetown, UConn repeatedly (even if they do improve in the next 2 years). Teams like DePaul, Providence, and yes, Marquette, should be looking for the easiest road possible to get in to a 96 team field. Sure, with 96 teams, it should be much easier. But why risk staying in the Big East and taking it on the chin, when you could go to the A10, build a "strong enough" resume, and take the easier road.
Quote from: MUDish on March 31, 2010, 09:37:01 PM
I think what is being missed in all this isn't the postseason, but how does the structure of the regular season change if this happens.
For example, say what you will about DePaul, but tournament expansion gives them zero reason to stay in the Big East. If anything, tournament expansion should make DePaul want to get out of the Big East immediately. One could argue the same thing about MU really, if not for MU's committment to men's basketball. I know it will be argued DePaul should get out of the Big East now, but if you're DePaul, why bother getting your tail kicked by schools like Syracuse, Georgetown, UConn repeatedly (even if they do improve in the next 2 years). Teams like DePaul, Providence, and yes, Marquette, should be looking for the easiest road possible to get in to a 96 team field. Sure, with 96 teams, it should be much easier. But why risk staying in the Big East and taking it on the chin, when you could go to the A10, build a "strong enough" resume, and take the easier road.
Because the top players don't want to play in the A-10. This will not change.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 31, 2010, 07:02:33 PM
It is and my comment wasn't about politics. It was about economics, and basic economics at that. You can't SPEND more than you take in (whether that's the NCAA, the US Gov't, or your household). The NCAA has costs that must be accounted for in the future, and they are going to need to expand those revenues. This is one way to do that.
Was it broken when it went from 32 to 48? When it went from 48 to 64?
back track if you must, i think everyone sees what you were really getting at. The tournament expanded to 32, 53, and then 64 teams over a period of ten years. Now we're talking about expanding an essentially perfect system (except of course for the snubbed teams) by 50% despite it being in place without without flaw for 25+ years. Also, when the NCAA tournament expanded in the 60s and 70s, the NIT had more weight than it does now. Not only is this expansion going to cheapen the NCAA tournament as many people have pointed out, but it ruins the NIT, which isn't a bad tournament for an inexperienced team or a team that just frankly isn't worthy of making the NCAA. When do the participation ribbons get handed out, does Greg Gumbel do that on selection Sunday?
Why would MU want to leave the big east for an easy track? I sure as hell hope we can make a field of 96 while playing in the big east. I dont want to watch a seasons worth of games against A-10 or CUSA teams and make a field of 96 then lose. I want to watch us play marquee teams in the Big East, still make the tourney, be battle tested, keep bringing in good players and win some tourney games. The Big East also provides for meaningful wins as so many teams are quality. So if the tourney ends disappointing and you lose in round 1, you can look back on a key win or two against syracuse, uconn, pitt, nova etc... rather than dayton and temple.