[Cracked Sidewalks] NCAA exploring the expansion of bids to NCAA tournament

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

NCAA exploring the expansion of bids to NCAA tournament

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (muwarrior92)

The NCAA has begun to meet with television executives about possibly expanding the NCAA tournament field. I, for one, have been a proponent of this for a long time. There are now 347 Division 1 teams for 65 NCAA spots. This basically means that 18.7% of schools make the tournament and that number decreases each year. It has become harder and harder to get into the tournament, especially for some schools depending on their conference affiliation. In years past, the percentage of teams making the NCAA tournament was signficantly higher. For example, in 1985 when the field expanded from 48 to 64 teams, almost 25% of schools made the NCAA tournament.

The NCAA has the option to escape from their CBS 11-year, $6 billion deal if they wish. Talks ongoing now are preliminary in nature, but could lead to the tournament going partly (or fully) to cable (i.e. ESPN or FOX). At the end of the 2010 tournament, the NCAA can bolt the current deal.

The proposals being viewed would be to expand the tournament to 96 teams and eliminate the NIT all together. As we all know, the current field does not put the "best 65" into the tournament, but rather the best 40 to 45 plus a lot of conference tournament winners from smaller conferences. This has caused many smaller conference teams from being rejected because they lost in their conference tourney despite having a great season. This has also led to lopsided dominance for the 1, 2 and 3 seeds over the years in the NCAA tournament itself. The expanded field would bring more money to the NCAA and add one week of additional competition for some schools (top seeds would get a bye).

Of course, not everyone agrees. Many fans don't want the change and feel 65 is the correct number. In the end, this is about money. It's going to happen, the question is when. The tournament will expand to 72, 80 or 96 or even larger.

History of changes over the years:

1939 - 1950: eight teams
1951 - 1952: 16 teams
1953 - 1974: between 22 and 25 teams
1975 - 1978: 32 teams
1979: 40 teams
1980 - 1982: 48 teams
1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
1985 - 2000: 64 teams
2001 - present: 65 teams

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2009/12/ncaa-exploring-expansion-of-bids-to.html

[mu_hilltopper]

Hey, can anyone explain the expansion from 64 to 65? 

Maybe they should just increase the # of play-in games.  Slot the minor auto-bid conferences into the play-ins, and give them the #15 and #16 seeds if they win.

[willie warrior]

Take it to 96. More excitement, more money for NCAA, gets more schools involved in all the hoopla.

Then we stand a better chance of getting in the dance every year.

[Nukem2]

I would go along with 68, 70 or 72 and increase the number of play-in games.  but that would result in 8, 12 or 16 teams playing on Tuesday, which would be a logistical nightmare.  Going further would have to add a week to the tourney.  Aside from $$$$$, I think thats silly and would water down the product.

I suspect a better answer for the lower Div I leagues would be to abandon their conference tourneys and send their regular-seasonchampions to the NCAAs.  Can't believe that many (if any) of those leagues are making money on their conference toruneys?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I would go along with 68, 70 or 72 and increase the number of play-in games.  but that would result in 8, 12 or 16 teams playing on Tuesday, which would be a logistical nightmare.  Going further would have to add a week to the tourney.  Aside from $$$$$, I think thats silly and would water down the product.

I suspect a better answer for the lower Div I leagues would be to abandon their conference tourneys and send their regular-seasonchampions to the NCAAs.  Can't believe that many (if any) of those leagues are making money on their conference toruneys?

My argument to that is then that the product was "watered down" back in the 1980's when 25% of the teams made it.  I don't think anyone was claiming that to be the case. 

It's only a matter of when

[MU B2002]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ncaa_expands_march_madness_to


4096 teams.  Now everyone is happy.

[GGGG]

You want to really have fun?  Eliminate the conference tournaments and have every team play.  It would only mean two more games for some teams...three for others.  You could have the play in games on a Tuesday, and one extra Thurs through Sunday

[dsfire]

Hey, can anyone explain the expansion from 64 to 65? 

Maybe they should just increase the # of play-in games.  Slot the minor auto-bid conferences into the play-ins, and give them the #15 and #16 seeds if they win.

As I recall, a new conference got an automatic bid and everyone else griped about decreasing the number of at large bids, so they created the play-in game.  There was a new conference formed this year but they didn't get an NCAA automatic bid - I think they've got one to the NIT instead.

I'm not a fan of byes in the NCAA tourney.  I'd prefer to see everyone play from the start, but 64 and 128 seem to be less than ideal numbers.

[GGGG]

As I recall, a new conference got an automatic bid and everyone else griped about decreasing the number of at large bids, so they created the play-in game.  There was a new conference formed this year but they didn't get an NCAA automatic bid - I think they've got one to the NIT instead.

Yes, it happened when the Mountain West split from the WAC.  There was a fight over who should keep the automatic bid so the NCAA did what it normally does - screw the small teams because Lord knows that the big school that barely gets a 12 seed is really deserving of a bid.

[chapman]

You want to really have fun?  Eliminate the conference tournaments and have every team play.  It would only mean two more games for some teams...three for others.  You could have the play in games on a Tuesday, and one extra Thurs through Sunday

Might as well if you're going to take away from the need to earn something during the season and also make conference tournaments twice as irrelevent.  Just because New Jersey Tech and 20 other equally don't-belong-in-D1 schools entered D1 doesn't mean teams like UWM should be hoping for an at-large bid any later in the season than...now.  And no, if we are a bubble team and get snubbed I won't change my opinion; I'd rather earn something than get it handed to us, and making the tournament still means something for all but a dozen or so programs that may or may not take it for granted.

[Daniel]

I like it the way it is.  Teams should earn a spot, and all season long they should be playing hard so that they have a shot of getting their dance card punched.  I say - leave it!

[groove]

I'd go back to 24 or 32 teams. Only the conference champs and not every conference champ guaranteed a spot. But of course it will never happen because of big money. Nothing worse than a seventh or eighth place team whining about not making it into the tourney.

[MUSF]

DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MUEng92]

How about they take whatever number of teams they want to add to the basketball tournament and add them to the current two team football tournament?

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

No kidding. This proposal has all the makings of transforming the excitement of March Madness into the snoozefest of Bowl season.

[CTWarrior]

I think 64 is the right number.  Every team with even a one tenth of one percent chance to win the tournament currently makes it.  What is the purpose of expanding it further, other than to make the coaches happy who can say they made the tournament x years in a row?

There are 34 at large berths currently, of which roughly 28-30 are eaten up by the 6 BCS conferences.  Add the 6 winners, and in a normal year roughly 34-36 of 73 BCS schools make it (last year 36 of 73, almost half, made it).  Despite this, I guarantee a bigger chunk of BCS schools than other schools will eat up the extra bids. 

What teams missed last year that would have added excitement to the tournament other than for the fans/alumni of that school?

I'm sure it is inevitable that the tournament will expand (in the end, it's all about the money), but I don't see how it's a good thing for the NCAA basketball fan.  When it does expand, have fun filling out your bracket for that exciting 14 vs 19 seed game between some 8th place 6-10 Big Ten team and the 3rd place MAAC team.

March Madness indeed.

[mu_hilltopper]

What is the purpose of expanding it further, other than to make the coaches happy who can say they made the tournament x years in a row?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[MarquetteDano]

I think 96 will definitely water down the product.  As was mentoined, though, some decent non-BCS teams end up in the NIT because they won the regular season but didn't win their tourney.

I think going to 72 would be reasonable.  I would love to see both the regular season and tourney winners receive an automatic berth.  Wonder how the math works out in terms of how that would reduce the at large bids given today? It is not as simple as two times the number of conferences since many years the smaller conference teams win both tourney and reg season; plus the  big conference regular season winners would be going to the dance anyways.

[Badgerhater]

Most teams are already in the tournament....its just that for most teams, that tournament starts and ends within their respective conference.

I would prefer the NCAA eliminate about 60 teams from D1.

[ChicosBailBonds]

These same arguments were made when they expanded in the past, and the tournament is fine.

I believe the comparison to the bowl games is way off base. 

There are 34 bowl games for FBS schools which means 68 teams go to bowl games....there are only 120 FBS schools, so more than HALF go to a bowl game.

MORE THAN HALF.  That is ridiculous.


By going to 96 teams in the tournament, it means 27.6% go to the tournament.  We're not even talking about the same ballpark here.  It also means teams that have solid records are going to go, not teams that are 6-6 like with the bowl games.  TOTALLY inappropriate comparison.

As an example, here are the records of some teams last year that didn't go to the NCAA Tournament


Penn State 22-11  (ended up 27-11 and won the NIT)
Tulsa 24-10
Auburn 22-11
Baylor 20-14
Illinois State 24-9
Kansas State 22-11
Creighton 26-7

Etc, etc....this is not like the bowl games were mediocre teams go to play.  These are good teams, capable of knocking off anyone in the tournament.

It's going to happen fellas....many folks involved in this and it's going to happen.  Maybe not next year, but it's going to happen. 

The flip side is scarier....the "haves" potentially break off and create a super division of football \ basketball only schools which leaves us and many others out.  I don't think anyone wants that.

[muball]

+ 1000 for Chico on this as there are more FB then BB teams comparing Bowl games to NCAA games.  I would prefer 96 teams and let it rip.

[jficke13]

no using the term BCS conferences to refer to conferences for bball.

[chapman]

Penn State 22-11  (ended up 27-11 and won the NIT)
Tulsa 24-10
Auburn 22-11
Baylor 20-14
Illinois State 24-9
Kansas State 22-11
Creighton 26-7

So we have to add these mediocre teams and 24 more?  The 72 example would include adding a group like this which is bad enough.  Baylor went 5-11 in their conference.  Penn State's out of conference schedule had 0 anywhere near quality wins, 2 losses, and they finished 10-8 in a conference where they won a game 38-33 and lost to Iowa.  Team like these, that can't even go .500 against respectable, much less good opponents, don't deserve the excitement or the gratification of the NCAA tournament if making the tournament is going to continue to be any sort of accomplishment.    

Comparing all bowl games to the NCAA tournament isn't apples to apples either.  With the total postseason play 129 teams get to play in the postseason.  Plus there's a conference tournament for everyone except the Ivy League instead of a single championship game for less than half of the conferences.

[mu_hilltopper]

But adding 24 more mediocre teams would give MU a better chance of getting out of the first round!  

[CTWarrior]

There are 34 bowl games for FBS schools which means 68 teams go to bowl games....there are only 120 FBS schools, so more than HALF go to a bowl game.

MORE THAN HALF.  That is ridiculous.


By going to 96 teams in the tournament, it means 27.6% go to the tournament.  We're not even talking about the same ballpark here.  It also means teams that have solid records are going to go, not teams that are 6-6 like with the bowl games.  TOTALLY inappropriate comparison.

I have to disagree with you here.  Your comparison is totally irrelevant.  The NCAA basketball tournament is the national championship tournament.  In CFB, the BCS championship game is the NCAA championship tournament and only 2 teams make the tournament (1.7% of all teams if 120 is correct).  The balance of the bowls are a bunch of NITs with better publicity.

Your argument supports expanding the NIT, not the NCAA tournament.

Of those teams you mentioned who nearly missed out, any one of them might have won a game or two, but none of them would have won the tournament if you played it 1,000 times or 100,000 times, so it serves no purpose other than money to invite them.