NCAA Officials: Expansion To 96 Teams 'Will Happen,' Likely in '11, No More NIT

[flash]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[mu_hilltopper]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

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)

[tower912]

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. 

[Eye]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[tower912]

Alright, I will concede your last paragraph. 

[Eye]

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.

[mu_hilltopper]

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.

[Eye]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[warriors1991]

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.
 
 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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.

[Mayor McCheese]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.     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?

[CTWarrior]

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.     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. 

[bamamarquettefan]

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.

[PGsHeroes32]

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?

[sarcastro]

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.

[PGsHeroes32]

anyone know about the tourney format?