NCAA comments on 96 team field....video

[GGGG]

Tell that to the BCS conferences that don't automatically qualify and to the non-BCS conferences that can't qualify.They don't even get a chance to prove it on the gridiron. The BCS champion (I wouldn't call it a national champion) is nothing more than some popularity contest voted on by the coaches and the media.

I understand the drawbacks but you are off topic.  A loss in the regular season is much more devastating to a team's national championship hopes than in college basketball.  Theoretically, a team can lose every single regular season basketball game, win its conference championship, and the national championship.  That simply cannot happen in college football.  Hell, in college football Michigan State would never be able to play for the championship.

Largely determined before anyone even plays a game.

Inaccurate.  In some years that has a partial determination, but to say it is "largely" determined is just wrong.

[M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS]

I understand the drawbacks but you are off topic.  A loss in the regular season is much more devastating to a team's national championship hopes than in college basketball.  Theoretically, a team can lose every single regular season basketball game, win its conference championship, and the national championship.  That simply cannot happen in college football.  Hell, in college football Michigan State would never be able to play for the championship.


Inaccurate.  In some years that has a partial determination, but to say it is "largely" determined is just wrong.

And theoretically I will run for and win the office of POTUS in 2012.  Why dont we stick with reality here.

[TallTitan34]

So being one of the 32 teams that dont have to play in round 1 will mean nothing?  I disagree.

The four top teams in the Big East this year would have been included in the 32 teams with a bye.

How did the double bye treat them in the Big East Tournament?  3 of the 4 lost.  It means nothing.

[ChicosBailBonds]

this is the worst decision ever. i hate the ncaa, they are all about money. look at how lopsided the BCS is in football. burn it down

The NCAA doesn't control the BCS....please, educate yourself.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Nearly everyone, besides coaches, is saying this is a bad idea.  That press conference was an absolute joke.  Shaheen couldn't or wouldn't answer numerous questions about the new field.  Students will be forced to miss an entire week of school now the second week (not that it really matters anymore at most schools).  I am not against expansion, but I am definitely against such a large expansion.  Why not try to expand by a little like has been done in the past?  Maybe expand to 72 schools first and see how that works. 

There will be a lot bad/boring basketball played those first two days as middling teams battle it out.  I'm sure there will prolly be a few more upsets in the round of 64 but I don't think it is a good trade-off.  Is the Big East tournament better now with 16 teams than it was with 12?  I don't think so; I actually think its worse and creates a lot of terrible games on the first day of the tournament.

I'll bet dollars to donuts within 5 years people will look back and say, wow were we stupidly wrong for opposing this.

Are you really comparing the Big East tournament with the bottom 4 teams to an expanded NCAA tournament that adds 32 other pretty damn good teams?  I don't see the correlation at all.  The teams they would be adding are almost all going to be 20+ win teams (not all, but mostly).  They'll be adding teams like Dayton, not teams like DePaul.  The analogy doesn't make sense.

The reason why they likely won't expand to 72 or 80 is because logistically it's a nightmare.  You either expand to 68 or 84 or 96.  The easiest is 96 because you give the top 32 byes, you keep the same sites, you play in the same week...it's just a lot easier to run.

I had a great conversation with Dana O'Neil (ESPN) on this last night.  She hates the idea and we have a bet that she will eat her words within 5 years. 

We'll see.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, how won't this destory the regular season?  If there was a 96 team field this year Marquette's games against South Florida, Seton Hall, Rutgers, and St. John's all would have meant nothing.  There's no way Marquette will miss the tournament next year, thus making the regular season meaningless.

And playing for seed is a joke.  Seeding means nothing.  Look at all of the upsets this year.

Playing for a seed is a joke?  You mean having a bye in the NCAA tournament while another team has to play 2 days earlier means nothing?  You're kidding...it was April 1st when you posted that so I have to assume you were kidding.  That bye is pure gold.

And no, you and others said the regular season would be destroyed....if MU lost to USF, Seton Hall, Rutgers and St. John's, their record would have been 7-11 in the Big East and they would not go to the NCAA tournament.  So I fail to see how your logic holds any water at all.  They still have to win those games, that's entirely the point.

The people saying the regular season is ruined or destroyed somehow believe that if you cruise at the end and lose, it won't matter.  That's so illogical.  Do you think a 7-11 Big East team is going to get in because they added 32 slots?  I got news for you.....it's not going to happen.  Because what do they do to the 6-10 ACC teams and the 7-11 Big Ten teams, and the 7-11 Pac Ten teams and the 6-10 SEC teams and on and on.  There aren't enough spots....it's not going to happen.

[TallTitan34]

Playing for a seed is a joke?  You mean having a bye in the NCAA tournament while another team has to play 2 days earlier means nothing? 

The four top teams in the Big East this year would have been included in the 32 teams with a bye.

How did the double bye treat them in the Big East Tournament?  3 of the 4 lost.  It means nothing.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The four top teams in the Big East this year would have been included in the 32 teams with a bye.

How did the double bye treat them in the Big East Tournament?  3 of the 4 lost.  It means nothing.

Funny, when you look at other teams in other conference tournaments the exact opposite happened.  The byes helped them.  You can find data to support both sides, but every coach is playing for a bye or a double bye for a reason.  It gives your club an advantage.  Nothing is guaranteed which is why they play the games, but a bye is better than no bye.  It's an advantage to your club.

[TallTitan34]

Quite a few people will argue your team loses momentum by having the bye.

That's why 64 teams are perfect.  No byes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Quite a few people will argue your team loses momentum by having the bye.

That's why 64 teams are perfect.  No byes.

Well then let's go to 128 teams, no byes either.   

Yes, some people will argue the team loses momentum.  There are some coaches that will tell you their team plays better on the road, too....less distractions.

What edge do you want your teams to have?  My guess is most coaches are going to say they want the extra time off to prepare, to rest\heal up, and to play a team that had to exhaust themselves only 48 hours earlier. 

[MDMU04]

The four top teams in the Big East this year would have been included in the 32 teams with a bye.

How did the double bye treat them in the Big East Tournament?  3 of the 4 lost.  It means nothing.

A team that clinches a bye in a conference tournament typically doesn't have that much to gain by winning in its conference tournament.  A team with a bye doesn't have to play for its NCAA tournament life.  Syracuse lost their first game in the BET this season and still got a #1 seed.  Villanova lost their first game and still managed to get a #2 seed.  Those teams didn't have too much to gain by winning games in the conference tournament.

I think they would likely approach their first game after a bye in the National Championship tournament a little differently.

[GGGG]

And theoretically I will run for and win the office of POTUS in 2012.  Why dont we stick with reality here.

Fine....NC State in 1983.  Very likely doesn't get in unless they win their conference championship.  They go on to win the national championship.  Their regular season was pretty much irrelevant.  That doesn't happen in college football.

[TallTitan34]

There are arguments how the byes are fair and unfair.  Just get rid of the byes and keep it at 64!

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Cripes, Chicos, is your annual bonus based on the tourney expanding?

[jmayer1]

I'll bet dollars to donuts within 5 years people will look back and say, wow were we stupidly wrong for opposing this.

Are you really comparing the Big East tournament with the bottom 4 teams to an expanded NCAA tournament that adds 32 other pretty damn good teams?  I don't see the correlation at all.  The teams they would be adding are almost all going to be 20+ win teams (not all, but mostly).  They'll be adding teams like Dayton, not teams like DePaul.  The analogy doesn't make sense.

The reason why they likely won't expand to 72 or 80 is because logistically it's a nightmare.  You either expand to 68 or 84 or 96.  The easiest is 96 because you give the top 32 byes, you keep the same sites, you play in the same week...it's just a lot easier to run.

I had a great conversation with Dana O'Neil (ESPN) on this last night.  She hates the idea and we have a bet that she will eat her words within 5 years. 

We'll see.

I'm not comparing the bottom 4 teams of the Big East to 32 teams that will now get in to the tournament.  I'm comparing the Big East tournament when it was at 12 teams to the Big East tournament when it was at 16 teams.  I believe the tournament is worse now than it was before.  Just as I believe diluting the field of the NCAA by so many teams will be bad as well.  I guarantee some of those next 32 spots will go to a big conference team that has an 8-10 or 7-11 conference record.  As it stands now, the vast majority of teams in the big conferences with winning records get in.  I think it is inevitable that a few teams with subpar conference records are going to get  into the tournament (similar to the NIT now).

Your 3rd paragraph is just ridiculous.  Expanding to 72 or 80 is a nightmare logistically?  Haha, are you serious?  How?  It doesn't take a rocket science to figure it out.  With 72 teams you have 8 first round games to get to the field of 64 (2 in each region).  With 80 teams, you have 16 first round games to get to the field of 64 (4 in each region).  WOW, that would be such a nightmare!!!!  It is so hard to subtract 64 from N to figure out how many first round games there would be.  How is that harder than expanding it to 68, 80, or 96?

Great, you talked to somebody at ESPN.  You must be a real bigshot over there at DirecTV.  Color me impressed.  Are you actually Tom Crean? What are Tony LaRussa, Barry Alvarez, and Mike McCarthy's thoughts on the expansion to 96 teams?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/name+dropping

[GGGG]

I'm not comparing the bottom 4 teams of the Big East to 32 teams that will now get in to the tournament.  I'm comparing the Big East tournament when it was at 12 teams to the Big East tournament when it was at 16 teams.  I believe the tournament is worse now than it was before.  Just as I believe diluting the field of the NCAA by so many teams will be bad as well.  I guarantee some of those next 32 spots will go to a big conference team that has an 8-10 or 7-11 conference record.  As it stands now, the vast majority of teams in the big conferences with winning records get in.  I think it is inevitable that a few teams with subpar conference records are going to get  into the tournament (similar to the NIT now).

Your 3rd paragraph is just ridiculous.  Expanding to 72 or 80 is a nightmare logistically?  Haha, are you serious?  How?  It doesn't take a rocket science to figure it out.  With 72 teams you have 8 first round games to get to the field of 64 (2 in each region).  With 80 teams, you have 16 first round games to get to the field of 64 (4 in each region).  WOW, that would be such a nightmare!!!!  It is so hard to subtract 64 from N to figure out how many first round games there would be.  How is that harder than expanding it to 68, 80, or 96?

Great, you talked to somebody at ESPN.  You must be a real bigshot over there at DirecTV.  Color me impressed.  Are you actually Tom Crean? What are Tony LaRussa, Barry Alvarez, and Mike McCarthy's thoughts on the expansion to 96 teams?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/name+dropping

Dude seriously?  You expect people to take you seriously with this crap?

[M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS]

Fine....NC State in 1983.  Very likely doesn't get in unless they win their conference championship.  They go on to win the national championship.  Their regular season was pretty much irrelevant.  That doesn't happen in college football.

You just mentioned on of the most famous games in NCAA history!  Thank you

[GGGG]

You just mentioned on of the most famous games in NCAA history!  Thank you

You're welcome....but it makes my point about the regular season.

[M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS]

You're welcome....but it makes my point about the regular season.

I still disagree.  1 year in 70 does not make it enough of an issue to make me say the regular season wont matter.  Will it happen sometime?  Sure.  Will it be bad if it does? I dont think so.  Because the likelyhood is probably 1 out of 20 years....

[The Man in Gold]

I find it interesting that no one is talking about how this is going to make it much harder for the top seeds.  We aren't adding the 66-96 best team, its more like the 34-64th best teams.  Instead of KU playing Fake State U. they will be getting the winner of a 16 Va. Tech vs. 17 USF type game.  Suddenly #10 seeds will be getting to play against the 1 bid leagues; not the big dogs.

Not necessarily a bad thing, but that will profoundly change the tournament landscape.

[GGGG]

I still disagree.  1 year in 70 does not make it enough of an issue to make me say the regular season wont matter.  Will it happen sometime?  Sure.  Will it be bad if it does? I dont think so.  Because the likelyhood is probably 1 out of 20 years....

You need to remember what you were arguing.  I never said that the regular season won't matter.  I said that the college football regular season matters more.

[M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS]

You need to remember what you were arguing.  I never said that the regular season won't matter.  I said that the college football regular season matters more.

I absolutely HATE the college football system.  Its a traveshamochery!
Before the season starts.  All but about 16 teams are realistically eliminated from any title hopes.  6 conferences are all that matters and a good portion of most of them dont matter.

Take a look at this analogy.  Lets say the Badgers somehow went 11-0 and fla an texas also went 11-0.  Even a major school from the BCS in UW would still have no chance at the title.  The football system is a complete joke and I would argue that the regular season means almost nothing for almost every team in the country before the season begins.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not comparing the bottom 4 teams of the Big East to 32 teams that will now get in to the tournament.  I'm comparing the Big East tournament when it was at 12 teams to the Big East tournament when it was at 16 teams.  I believe the tournament is worse now than it was before.  Just as I believe diluting the field of the NCAA by so many teams will be bad as well.  I guarantee some of those next 32 spots will go to a big conference team that has an 8-10 or 7-11 conference record.  As it stands now, the vast majority of teams in the big conferences with winning records get in.  I think it is inevitable that a few teams with subpar conference records are going to get  into the tournament (similar to the NIT now).

Your 3rd paragraph is just ridiculous.  Expanding to 72 or 80 is a nightmare logistically?  Haha, are you serious?  How?  It doesn't take a rocket science to figure it out.  With 72 teams you have 8 first round games to get to the field of 64 (2 in each region).  With 80 teams, you have 16 first round games to get to the field of 64 (4 in each region).  WOW, that would be such a nightmare!!!!  It is so hard to subtract 64 from N to figure out how many first round games there would be.  How is that harder than expanding it to 68, 80, or 96?

Great, you talked to somebody at ESPN.  You must be a real bigshot over there at DirecTV.  Color me impressed.  Are you actually Tom Crean? What are Tony LaRussa, Barry Alvarez, and Mike McCarthy's thoughts on the expansion to 96 teams?

Same stuff from you...always the same stuff (same digs, same everything)....Dana wrote an article on ESPN.com saying why the expansion was not a good idea.  The same tired and LAZY points she uses are what you are using.  I told her the same thing.  For every point she makes it was easy to rebute them, all it takes is a little effort.   Her point about how this will keep the kids away from school the entire week was beyond comical.  The teams leave for their NCAA 1st round site on Monday or Tuesday anyway as it is, so nothing is changing for most teams. That's why I brought her up, because some of you seem to be reading this nonsense and regurgitating it without any usage of your own brain cells.



And as cute as you want to make your little mathematical statement.  Let's play reality here, shall we.  If you go to 72 teams, that means 9 teams per sites (today there are 8 teams).  This means 1 team gets a bye, or another way to put it, there is one play in game.  So this means you're going to have fans come out to these sites for one game and then come back 2 days later for 4 games.  Not going to happen.  The play-in game right now works for Dayton because every year they have that one game, but revolving it around from year to year at these sites is likely going to kill attendance for that one day.  Won't happen IMO.   

THAT IS WHY IT IS A LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE.  It makes no sense for television, no sense for running the tournament, no sense from a fan perspective.

If you have 4 games at that site on Tuesday and the winners move on to 4 more games on Thursday, now you're talking a ticket that people will buy, television will want to produce, viewers will want to watch.

Welcome to reality my friend.  This is where the money part comes in and the television ratings.  Having only 1 play in game on the Tuesday at each site is a non-starter for those two elements, IMO. 

Happy Easter

[ChicosBailBonds]

I find it interesting that no one is talking about how this is going to make it much harder for the top seeds.  We aren't adding the 66-96 best team, its more like the 34-64th best teams.  Instead of KU playing Fake State U. they will be getting the winner of a 16 Va. Tech vs. 17 USF type game.  Suddenly #10 seeds will be getting to play against the 1 bid leagues; not the big dogs.

Not necessarily a bad thing, but that will profoundly change the tournament landscape.

Exactly....I said that last week.  No longer are the top seeds going to get a free ride.  Their first round game of 1 vs 16 is OVER!  They will actually play a real opponent for their first game.  I love it!!

[GGGG]

I absolutely HATE the college football system.  Its a traveshamochery!
Before the season starts.  All but about 16 teams are realistically eliminated from any title hopes.  6 conferences are all that matters and a good portion of most of them dont matter.

Take a look at this analogy.  Lets say the Badgers somehow went 11-0 and fla an texas also went 11-0.  Even a major school from the BCS in UW would still have no chance at the title.  The football system is a complete joke and I would argue that the regular season means almost nothing for almost every team in the country before the season begins.

<sigh>

Sometimes it's like banging your head against a wall.