ESPN currently has Memphis, Butler, Boston College, and Gonzaga as the last four teams in the tournament and Colorado State, UAB, Baylor, and Richmond as the last four out. Does anyone really believe the 24 teams behind Richmond all belong in the NCAA Tournament? That is what would happen with a 96 team field.
That alone should prove that expanding the field to 96 teams is a really bad idea.
I was never really on board with 96 for that same reasoning, but an expansion to 72 makes sense, with some byes, etc., for the higher seeds. Just my opinion.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 23, 2011, 11:58:51 AM
ESPN currently has Memphis, Butler, Boston College, and Gonzaga as the last four teams in the tournament and Colorado State, UAB, Baylor, and Richmond as the last four out. Does anyone really believe the 24 teams behind Richmond all belong in the NCAA Tournament? That is what would happen with a 96 team field.
That alone should prove that expanding the field to 96 teams is a really bad idea.
+96
This might be the simplest, most concise reasoning I've seen for not expanding the tourney. Well played.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 23, 2011, 11:58:51 AM
ESPN currently has Memphis, Butler, Boston College, and Gonzaga as the last four teams in the tournament and Colorado State, UAB, Baylor, and Richmond as the last four out. Does anyone really believe the 24 teams behind Richmond all belong in the NCAA Tournament? That is what would happen with a 96 team field.
That alone should prove that expanding the field to 96 teams is a really bad idea.
Well, one could use our inclusion in the current field as justification that 64 teams are too many. Why not cut it back to 32?
I want 96 because it ads 32 basketball games for my viewing pleasure...the more the better. This is also why I support an 18 game NFL schedule.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 23, 2011, 12:56:22 PM
Well, one could use our inclusion in the current field as justification that 64 teams are too many. Why not cut it back to 32?
I want 96 because it ads 32 basketball games for my viewing pleasure...the more the better. This is also why I support an 18 game NFL schedule.
plus more money for everyone!
The NIT has become such an after thought you might as well take the teams that would have made that tournament and put it into the Expanded NCAA
The downside is it diminishes MU's X number of consecutive years of making the tournament. Same for all MU level teams. Making the tournament is still kind of a big deal
Yes only 30% of teams make the tournament if its 96 but it just doesn't have the same elite feeling as 64/8 teams. And we'll have to listen to Joe Lunardi ask the question "Could the big east send 14 teams to the Big Dance?!"
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 23, 2011, 12:56:22 PM
Well, one could use our inclusion in the current field as justification that 64 teams are too many. Why not cut it back to 32?
I want 96 because it ads 32 basketball games for my viewing pleasure...the more the better. This is also why I support an 18 game NFL schedule.
But Sultan don't you think it would some impact of your viewing pleasure of the regular season? If 96 get in, think how many more teams would be a "lock" and how early the "lock" would be. I am thinking two big wins over the course of the year would nearly lock you in, even with a couple of bad losses.
And then the teams you are wondering if they get near the end of the season are so poor it would be brutal watching games wondering if a crap team would get in the tourney or not?
It wouldn't ruin my basketball watching pleasure at all. Under that logic, nobody would enjoy watching two top-20 teams because they are all going to be in the tournament anyway. I actually think it would be cool to include every team in D1 into the tournament in some sort of format similar to the FA Cup....where certain teams enter at certain times.
I wanted it then and still would take it now. Would love to see all conference regular season teams as automatic qualifiers, no questions asked. Reward those teams for winning their conference over 3 months. That's 31 bids right there.
Then you get the at large teams plus the conference tournament winners....I'd love it. Of course, I love college hoops
NO! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NO... although I'm resigned to the likelihood that it will happen, along with an 18-game NFL schedule with which I also disagree.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on February 23, 2011, 01:14:50 PM
But Sultan don't you think it would some impact of your viewing pleasure of the regular season? If 96 get in, think how many more teams would be a "lock" and how early the "lock" would be. I am thinking two big wins over the course of the year would nearly lock you in, even with a couple of bad losses.
And then the teams you are wondering if they get near the end of the season are so poor it would be brutal watching games wondering if a crap team would get in the tourney or not?
Exactly what I was going to say. All these regular season games would be so much less meaningful aside from pride for the players. There would be no pressure what so ever.
Quote from: IAmMarquette on February 23, 2011, 01:58:38 PM
NO! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NO... although I'm resigned to the likelihood that it will happen, along with an 18-game NFL schedule with which I also disagree.
If it happens, just boycott the first two NFL games and the first round of the NCAA tournament...you won't miss a thing. ;) Something tells me you might just watch them all
I used to be against a 96-team NCAA tournament until last year's NIT. There were some great first-round games. It would take some getting used to, but I think eventually most people would come around. I really don't think it would dilute the magnitude of the event and would give low-major teams a better chance of winning a first-round game.
I'm not sure how they would set it up. Do the No. 1 seeds still get to play a Jackson State or Lehigh in the first round? Or would they get a bye into the second round and play a team that finished in the bottom half of a power six conference or a middle-of-the-pack mid major team?
I'd be in favor of something like a "play-in" tournament comprised entirely of at-large teams. Let the automatic bids and top at-large teams get a spot in the 64-team field. Play the "play-in" tournament on campus sites. I think it'd make for some intriguing basketball. It would basically combine the NIT and NCAA tournaments. And there would still be an incentive to win in the regular season so you don't suffer the indignity of playing in the play-in games.
You could also take it a step further. The 16 play-in losers could be bracketed in a mini-NIT with the traditional last four playing in Madison Square Garden.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I just love college basketball. I don't think you can have too much. I love that the CBI and CIT exist. I also think it can be beneficial for a young team to get a taste of what tournament preparations are like. If Marquette doesn't make the NCAA tournament, a deep run in the NIT will really benefit guys like Junior Cadougan and Vander Blue.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on February 23, 2011, 02:00:48 PM
Exactly what I was going to say. All these regular season games would be so much less meaningful aside from pride for the players. There would be no pressure what so ever.
I don't care if NC State and Maryland are battling it out for a tourney seed on some random Tuesday in February. But I will watch if one or both of those teams are in the tournament.
I care about Marquette, and if they get into the tournament, then I care about their seed, then I care about who they will play. I will still watch every MU game, and every other game that I vested interest in. Do people really sit down on there couch, with baited breath, "wow, this bubble buster is gonna be great!" No they sit down, hoping to see a great game.
Quote from: IAmMarquette on February 23, 2011, 01:58:38 PM
NO! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NO... although I'm resigned to the likelihood that it will happen, along with an 18-game NFL schedule with which I also disagree.
I also don't understand why NFL football fans would be against 2 extra games, and possibly three extra weeks, a year of football. Have you seen Sunday sports programming the past couple of weeks, and the coming couple of weeks? Bad college basketball and NASCAR. If the Super Bowl could be held the week before selection sunday my life would be damn near perfect.
If 96 teams make the tournament, Marquette should never miss the tournament again. Missing would result in the immediate firing of the coach.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 23, 2011, 02:30:25 PM
I also don't understand why NFL football fans would be against 2 extra games, and possibly three extra weeks, a year of football.
As an NFL season ticket holder, as long as the games replace preseason games, I'm all for it. I'm not for adding more cost to the tickets!
The people of Vegas are cool with the extra gaming revenue.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 23, 2011, 02:30:25 PM
I also don't understand why NFL football fans would be against 2 extra games, and possibly three extra weeks, a year of football. Have you seen Sunday sports programming the past couple of weeks, and the coming couple of weeks? Bad college basketball and NASCAR. If the Super Bowl could be held the week before selection sunday my life would be damn near perfect.
So you don't like bad college basketball games on Sunday, but you're OK with it in a 96-team NCAA Tournament?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 23, 2011, 03:38:25 PM
So you don't like bad college basketball games on Sunday, but you're OK with it in a 96-team NCAA Tournament?
Yeah because elimination games are usually exciting.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 23, 2011, 02:30:25 PM
I also don't understand why NFL football fans would be against 2 extra games, and possibly three extra weeks, a year of football. Have you seen Sunday sports programming the past couple of weeks, and the coming couple of weeks? Bad college basketball and NASCAR. If the Super Bowl could be held the week before selection sunday my life would be damn near perfect.
Because it ...
1. Dilutes the importance of every week . The NFL is a rarity among pro sports because every game matters a lot. More games mean each one matters less.
2. Gives us more matchups no one really cares about. I can't want for more Jacksonville-St. Louis, Tampa-Seattle, Arizona-Buffalo games, can you?
3. Through injury, playoff-bound teams resting players, an earlier start to the season and other factors, it will lessen the quality of the product. Some may think that a bad NFL game is better than no NFL game, but don't count me in the group.
4. Making the owners more money at the expense of the players' short- and long-term health isn't something I can support.
1. I guess you would rather have a 14 game...or 12 game season then.
2. It may also give us match ups that people care a great deal about. What if the two games added were inter-conference games between division leaders from the season before?
3. I don't think that will happen. More injuries yes, but I doubt it will severely affect the quality of play.
4. I could care less about that. Billionaires making money at the expense of millionaires. <yawn>
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 23, 2011, 04:18:09 PM
1. I guess you would rather have a 14 game...or 12 game season then.
Is this where I write that you'd prefer a 24-game season?
Quote2. It may also give us match ups that people care a great deal about. What if the two games added were inter-conference games between division leaders from the season before?
What would the 24 other teams be doing that week? The fact is the schedule would inherently create more bad/uninteresting games than good games.
Quote3. I don't think that will happen. More injuries yes, but I doubt it will severely affect the quality of play.
How could more injuries NOT affect the quality of play. More injuries means you're using lesser players in more significant roles. That means poorer quality football.
Quote
4. I could care less about that. Billionaires making money at the expense of millionaires. <yawn>
OK. Though, really, most NFL players don't make over $1 million a year, and most don't play for more than 2-3 seasons.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 23, 2011, 12:56:22 PM
Well, one could use our inclusion in the current field as justification that 64 teams are too many. Why not cut it back to 32?
I want 96 because it ads 32 basketball games for my viewing pleasure...the more the better. This is also why I support an 18 game NFL schedule.
For selfish reasons, I completely agree with you. I take off every year for the tournament because, let's me honest, how productive are you going to be during those days? If they expand, it means more days off and more games. I also agree with expansion to 18 games, again for selfish reasons, and because I think preseason games are a bogus way for teams to make money so fans can watch 3rd string players. Although I have to admit I have never been to a preseason game so perhaps there is some allure?