Does the advancement of VCU and Butler change your opinion on 96 teams?

[Hards Alumni]

I used to be against expansion, because of the dilution factor.  Now I am beginning to think we should eliminate conference tournys and go to 256. (48 at large bids to the best teams, the rest play for the right to advance)  The more games lesser seeds play, the better chance that better teams advance further.  

I don't have a problem per se with Cinderellas advancing.   It does add interest  (I rooted for Butler in the championship game last year).  

So the cinderella teams would have to win like 8-10 games to win it all?  No thanks.

[IAmMarquette]

Reality is that ratings are up this year WITH expansion

Up 17%

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/212456/NCAA_Tournament_Ratings_Up_17_Percent_

How much (if any) of that ratings bump is the direct result of those 3 additional teams? I'd guess very little. Correlation =/= causation.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How much (if any) of that ratings bump is the direct result of those 3 additional teams? I'd guess very little. Correlation =/= causation.

Not sure but there will be analysis on that, rest assured.

Through yesterday, ratings are up 11% from 2010 and the highest in 18 years

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/03/28/ncaa-men%E2%80%99s-basketball-championship-delivers-highest-overall-tournament-ratings-in-18-years/87269

[ChicosBailBonds]

I know this is off topic...

I am a huge fan of the new TV format of the NCAAs.  I know some people have had trouble with TRU TV coverage, but this is the first year I could watch any game I wanted without having to buy the direct TV March Madness package or go to a bar.

68 teams is enough.

That's what they used to say about 32, 48, 64, 65, 

[El Duderino]

I think 96 would devalue the regular season way to much.

Teams finishing 7-11 or maybe even 6-10 in major conferences would likely get some bids. Regular season games wouldn't be nearly as intense for teams that aren't in the top 20 because they'll know that finishing at least 9-9 at worst would no longer be required to get in.

[MerrittsMustache]

Not sure but there will be analysis on that, rest assured.

Through yesterday, ratings are up 11% from 2010 and the highest in 18 years

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/03/28/ncaa-men%E2%80%99s-basketball-championship-delivers-highest-overall-tournament-ratings-in-18-years/87269

The info is skewed because every game was shown in it's entirety. In previous seasons, if someone didn't care about the game that they were getting in their market, they'd switch to something else. If they're getting 4 games at once, they're more likely to stay tuned to at least one of the games. It shouldn't be at all surprising that ratings went up.

[MU B2002]

That's what they used to say about 32, 48, 64, 65, 

But this isn't about their opinion, the thread asked for my opinion.

 I am too young to remember 32 or 48. To me there isn't much difference betweem 64 & 68. (To which you would respond, "tell that to VCU")  I consider the dance to start on that first thursday, and I have yet to watch any of the play-in games, so for me the tourney is still 64 teams.  I would probably prefer just a straight 64 teams, because I feel the play in games punish the small schools.  But I can't see the NCAA ever decreasing the size of the tourney.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The info is skewed because every game was shown in it's entirety. In previous seasons, if someone didn't care about the game that they were getting in their market, they'd switch to something else. If they're getting 4 games at once, they're more likely to stay tuned to at least one of the games. It shouldn't be at all surprising that ratings went up.

I do not disagree with you...that's why there will be more analysis down the road.  A true apples to apples comparison will be difficult, but not impossible.  You see, there is this satellite company that showed EVERY game the last 8 years that will be used a proxy with the subscribers they had as a benchmark.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

But this isn't about their opinion, the thread asked for my opinion.

 I am too young to remember 32 or 48. To me there isn't much difference betweem 64 & 68. (To which you would respond, "tell that to VCU")  I consider the dance to start on that first thursday, and I have yet to watch any of the play-in games, so for me the tourney is still 64 teams.  I would probably prefer just a straight 64 teams, because I feel the play in games punish the small schools.  But I can't see the NCAA ever decreasing the size of the tourney.

Even when some of the play in games involved "big schools" like Clemson and USC? 

You are correct, the NCAA is not going to decrease it especially with the size of DI these days.  That is, as long as their is a NCAA tournament.  If the football schools ever break away to start their own gig, well that changes everything.

[El Duderino]

To add 28 more teams, if it was being done this year, wouldn't the odds be pretty high that the committee would have ended up adding teams like Northwestern who finished 7-11 in the Big Ten?

Any or all of Nebraska/Baylor/Oklahoma St. who finished 7-9/7-9/6-10 in the Big 12?

Mississippi St. from the SEC West who did finish 2nd, but mostly beat bad teams and had losses at home to teams like Florida Atlantic, E. Tennessee St., a brutal LSU squad, and a loss to a bad Hawaii team?

Shouldn't we avoid awarding teams with resumes like this in the regular season instead of rewarding them with an NCAA berth for simply not being completely terrible.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'd add this is the first time since seedings began that no #1's or #2's made the Finsl Four.  The combined seeding number of 26 is also the highest ever for a Final Four.

[Eye]

I'll go the other way and would vote for contraction back to 64.

[MerrittsMustache]

I'll go the other way and would vote for contraction back to 64.

+1000

Although, I'd be fine with 65 if the Play-In game was between the 2 teams who received the final at-large berths. If a low-level team wins its conference tourney and earns their way into the NCAA Tournament, they should actually get to play in the NCAA Tournament and not have to earn their way in again by playing some other small-time team...in Dayton...on a Tuesday.

[CTWarrior]

I think UNC-Asheville enjoyed this tournament a lot more because they won a thriller in the play-in game rather than if they just got whipped by a 1.  Despite the fact that I'd rather there weren't play-in games, I watched a lot of them.

I'm all for reduction to 64. 

[MerrittsMustache]

I think UNC-Asheville enjoyed this tournament a lot more because they won a thriller in the play-in game rather than if they just got whipped by a 1.  Despite the fact that I'd rather there weren't play-in games, I watched a lot of them.

I'm all for reduction to 64. 

What about Ark-LR? They earned the right to play in the Tournament but instead had to play UNC-Asheville.

[ringout]

Ideally, 64 would be the place I'd like to stay. 

NCAA greed will prevent that genie from getting back into the bottle.  That being the case, instead of allowing 28 more random (inferior) teams into the mix, extend for a weekend, allow 256 in, and allow the rabble to fight amongst themselves.

The NCAA will get to 256 eventually.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Ideally, 64 would be the place I'd like to stay. 

NCAA greed will prevent that genie from getting back into the bottle.  That being the case, instead of allowing 28 more random (inferior) teams into the mix, extend for a weekend, allow 256 in, and allow the rabble to fight amongst themselves.

The NCAA will get to 256 eventually.

NCAA GREED?  LOL.  Do you have any idea what that money is used for?  Any?

I fail to see how 68 made the tournament worse and would argue it most certainly made it BETTER.  VCU is THE story this year and it doesn't happen without 68 teams.

[MerrittsMustache]

NCAA GREED?  LOL.  Do you have any idea what that money is used for?  Any?

I fail to see how 68 made the tournament worse and would argue it most certainly made it BETTER.  VCU is THE story this year and it doesn't happen without 68 teams.

Next year if the "play-in" teams all get blown out in their first game, would the tournament then be worse?

While VCU is the story of the tournament, they didn't deserve their berth to begin with.

[HouWarrior]

64/68 is fine.
The dark unspoken side of the superbowl, monday night  football and march madness are their perfect fit for betting. The two most common layman betting games are the superbowl, and NCAA brackets.

Pools for 64/68 brackets are easily managed, scored, and paid out at present.

96 team brackets  becomes more than unwieldly---the difference between betting the horses, and playing the lottery.

The bracket business will reduce by a large percentage at 96. America never messes much with a good betting scheme.

Stay at 68

[ZiggysFryBoy]

64/68 is fine.
The dark unspoken side of the superbowl, monday night  football and march madness are their perfect fit for betting. The two most common layman betting games are the superbowl, and NCAA brackets.

Pools for 64/68 brackets are easily managed, scored, and paid out at present.

96 team brackets  becomes more than unwieldly---the difference between betting the horses, and playing the lottery.

The bracket business will reduce by a large percentage at 96. America never messes much with a good betting scheme.

Stay at 68

I forget how much money is bet privately, but it's something like $3-4 Billion.  That's not counting Vegas' take.

[Lennys Tap]

64/68 is fine.
The dark unspoken side of the superbowl, monday night  football and march madness are their perfect fit for betting. The two most common layman betting games are the superbowl, and NCAA brackets.

Pools for 64/68 brackets are easily managed, scored, and paid out at present.

96 team brackets  becomes more than unwieldly---the difference between betting the horses, and playing the lottery.

The bracket business will reduce by a large percentage at 96. America never messes much with a good betting scheme.

Stay at 68

If the committee went to 96 or 128 it would just mean more game to bet. As for "bracket" pools or calcuttas, they could still begin when the field is whittled to 64.

[MerrittsMustache]

64/68 is fine.
The dark unspoken side of the superbowl, monday night  football and march madness are their perfect fit for betting. The two most common layman betting games are the superbowl, and NCAA brackets.

Pools for 64/68 brackets are easily managed, scored, and paid out at present.

96 team brackets  becomes more than unwieldly---the difference between betting the horses, and playing the lottery.

The bracket business will reduce by a large percentage at 96. America never messes much with a good betting scheme.

Stay at 68

Agreed with the gambling aspect of the tourney.

That's also why it kills me to see the NFL having Thursday night games. Part of the reason the NFL has seen such an increase in popularity is fantasy football. It's so much better than fantasy baseball or basketball because a vast majority of the action happens on one day which is then followed by a MNF game that often decides FF games. Having a Thursday game throws off that dynamic.

[downtown85]

Ideally, 64 would be the place I'd like to stay. 

NCAA greed will prevent that genie from getting back into the bottle.  That being the case, instead of allowing 28 more random (inferior) teams into the mix, extend for a weekend, allow 256 in, and allow the rabble to fight amongst themselves.

The NCAA will get to 256 eventually.

Why stop at 256? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxyPeME9TbI

[ringout]

NCAA GREED?  LOL.  Do you have any idea what that money is used for?  Any?

I fail to see how 68 made the tournament worse and would argue it most certainly made it BETTER.  VCU is THE story this year and it doesn't happen without 68 teams.

IDK.  DIRECT TV?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Next year if the "play-in" teams all get blown out in their first game, would the tournament then be worse?

While VCU is the story of the tournament, they didn't deserve their berth to begin with.

Only one group decides who deserved it....the SC.  No one else.

If they all get blown out in the first game, the tournament would be no worse so what's the harm?  Aren't you answering the question for me?  No worse whatsoever and you have some teams that had the ability to participate.   I'm glad they went to 68....tournament is as good if not better than ever.