Should the NCAA Go To 96 Teams

[Dawson Rental]

Those "shockers" are why the early rounds are so popular.  Also, the first three seeds should get the advantage of a relatively easy first round game, they've earned it.  If you take at the 10 worst auto qualifiers and replace them with 10 at-large teams that are worse than Xavier this season, have you really helped the tournament become more interesting?  Do you really want a world where there is no reasonable way for any new schools to work their way into the upper echelon of college hoops because they are shut out by the power conferences?  

Bottom line, the tournament is most popular now for the early round upsets in the beginning and the battles between the top teams at the end.  Getting rid of the bottom conferences make both of those things less likely to happen.

I guess my answers are yes and yes, although I don't think you can say that new schools are being blocked by power conferences when 22 conferences still have auto bids.  Are there 22 power conferences in Division I?

[Dawson Rental]

I think you are right but the shockers coming from teams that are both regular season and tournament champs, but I am not interested enough to try an figure it out.  The NCAA doesn't dictate that the conference tourney winner has to go to the NCAA tournament.  The individual conferences have the right to select from the regular season champ or a tournament champ, but you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to attend a SWAC tournament, for example, that doesn't award the winner with an auto-birth.

The conference tournaments add to the romantic notion that every team, no matter how poor their season, has a chance and can keep playing once the conference tournaments starts as long as they keep winning, and that's OK with me.

"you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to attend a SWAC tournament, for example, that doesn't award the winner with an auto-birth."

What does that tell you about such conferences?

[CTWarrior]

I guess my answers are yes and yes, although I don't think you can say that new schools are being block by power conferences when 22 conferences still have auto bids.  Are there 22 power conferences in Division I?

No, I used the number 10 because earlier Aughnanure mentioned that there were about 10 conferences that could be eliminated under a certain criteria.  My position is simple.  Let the little guys in because they serve two purporses.  One, they add a little excitement/flavor to the early rounds, and two, they give the top teams an advantage by playing an easier first game, and thus increase the likelihood of the best teams advancing, lending more importance to the value of a great regular season.

[CTWarrior]

"you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to attend a SWAC tournament, for example, that doesn't award the winner with an auto-birth."

What does that tell you about such conferences?

Not a lot.  I would think all conferences would suffer a dip in attendance, often significant, if no automatic bid was on the line.

[Benny B]

When's the last time a double-digit seed won the tournament?  Oh yeah... never.  So you'd be expanding the tournament with a bunch of teams that wouldn't stand a rat's chance in Meowville of winning the title.

The lowest seed that's ever appeared in the championship game is an 8-seed (Butler 2011, Nova 1985).  Therefore, it makes more sense to go back to 32 teams than it does beyond 68.

[Coleman]

64 was perfect. 68 is 4 too many, but bearable.

96 would be awful.

[mu72warrior]

NO!

[dgies9156]

If I was going to redesign the NCAA, I would prefer a scenario where the top seeds in each region get a home game for the second and third rounds of the NCAA. So if you were a 1, you played at home as long as you won.

Would make seedings MUCH more valuable. If you were  1 playing a 16, you got an exhibition game. Would make up for the sub-300s you didn't play during the season.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Comeon. There's 32 freakin' divisions! You could cut 10 out and still have 250+ schools. Just not 363. This would actually do a lot of placate the football conferences, as the TV money wouldn't have to be split with the sisters of the poor. I don't think they look at us and A-10, the AAC, etc as the problem. They know we have value to the tournament and college basketball. Also, they know that if they ever break-off to do their own thing they will never get the tournament back (every team gets in? haha). They will have killed it.

Division 1 has long been due for trim. It's gotten way overbloated in both football and basketball the past 20 years. We can still make it more compact and better while still keeping the integrity.

How are we going to schedule Grambling then?

[MarquetteDano]

If I was going to redesign the NCAA, I would prefer a scenario where the top seeds in each region get a home game for the second and third rounds of the NCAA. So if you were a 1, you played at home as long as you won.

Isn't this Duke and North Carolina nearly every year?  

[keefe]

Division 1 has long been due for trim. It's gotten way overbloated

Well, actually, I feel the same way

[Coleman]

But how do you trim D1?

Can you tell a school they are no longer welcome, even if they are willing to pony up the scholarships and satisfy all the other requirements? And what about the rest of the members of their conferences? How are they going to feel if one (or half) of their conference opponents is now D2? It would create a lot more unstability and conference realignment.

Its a tricky question. I do agree though, D1 should ideally be <250 teams.

[GooooMarquette]

I think you are right but the shockers coming from teams that are both regular season and tournament champs, but I am not interested enough to try an figure it out.  The NCAA doesn't dictate that the conference tourney winner has to go to the NCAA tournament.  The individual conferences have the right to select from the regular season champ or a tournament champ, but you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to attend a SWAC tournament, for example, that doesn't award the winner with an auto-birth.

The conference tournaments add to the romantic notion that every team, no matter how poor their season, has a chance and can keep playing once the conference tournaments starts as long as they keep winning, and that's OK with me.

If the goal is to make the SWAC, MEAC, etc tournaments more interesting, then you're right.  

But I thought the goal was to make the NCAA tournament more interesting.  If that truly is the goal, the NCAA could easily revise its rules about who gets invited and who doesn't.

Also, the rule wouldn't necessarily have to apply to all conferences.  There would be plenty of ways (such as one mentioned above about figuring out which are the 10 worst conferences) where you could determine when the rule applies...while still permitting other conferences to choose how they select their champions.

[Class71]

How about going back to 32 with double elimination?

[wardle2wade]

How about going back to 32 with double elimination?

While it may be the most interesting idea, it's also the worst idea mentioned here. 

Doing this would not only be a logistical nightmare, it would add tons of confusion to March Madness, and it would make the simple bracket concept impossible to do.  Added confusion would remove the tens of millions of casual fans out of the picture... those fans are great for the sustainability of the college hoops, and taking them away eliminates the buzz which makes this tournament great.  There is no need for us hoops purists to ostracize them.

[Class71]

While it may be the most interesting idea, it's also the worst idea mentioned here. 

Doing this would not only be a logistical nightmare, it would add tons of confusion to March Madness, and it would make the simple bracket concept impossible to do.  Added confusion would remove the tens of millions of casual fans out of the picture... those fans are great for the sustainability of the college hoops, and taking them away eliminates the buzz which makes this tournament great.  There is no need for us hoops purists to ostracize them.

Not my intent to ostracize but appreciate your concern. While I enjoy watching the underdog beating the big dog I think it is unfortunate that the automatic bids include a number of very undeserving teams.

[TJ]

Not my intent to ostracize but appreciate your concern. While I enjoy watching the underdog beating the big dog I think it is unfortunate that the automatic bids include a number of very undeserving teams.

By definition the teams that earn automatic bids deserve their bids.  The best part about the NCAA tournament is that literally every team in Div-1 has a shot at winning it, however slim that chance may be.  It's the biggest reason I hate NCAA football - in a given year there are basically 20-30 teams that have a chance to win a National Championship, the rest of the teams can win every game and not even have a chance.  You can argue that Div-1 should be reduced in size all you want, but the automatic bids for every conference remaining in Div-1 MUST stay.

[Coleman]

By definition the teams that earn automatic bids deserve their bids.  The best part about the NCAA tournament is that literally every team in Div-1 has a shot at winning it, however slim that chance may be.  It's the biggest reason I hate NCAA football - in a given year there are basically 20-30 teams that have a chance to win a National Championship, the rest of the teams can win every game and not even have a chance.  You can argue that Div-1 should be reduced in size all you want, but the automatic bids for every conference remaining in Div-1 MUST stay.

+1

The autobids are the reason people watch. Everyone picks a Cinderella. Once in a while, they make a little run.

You kill that and you kill the product. It turns into a BCS situation where only teams from a handful of conferences get a shot at winning the whole thing.

Whether or not the mid majors actually win it is irrelevant. People want to see them have a chance to make the run.

And eventually, a 16 will upset a 1. It will happen sooner or later. And when it does, it will be one of the most exciting games in the history of the NCAA tournament. You want to take that away before it happens? Seems silly to me.

All of that said, I could do without the play-in games. Shrink it back to 64. 64 is perfect.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

And eventually, a 16 will upset a 1. It will happen sooner or later. And when it does, it will be one of the most exciting games in the history of the NCAA tournament. You want to take that away before it happens? Seems silly to me.

All of that said, I could do without the play-in games. Shrink it back to 64. 64 is perfect.

I honestly doubt this happens. I am fine with the auto-bids but I honestly cant see a situation where a Mt. St. Marys beats a 1 seed. Hell, we beat them by almost 50 two years ago. The closest were going to see for awhile was Southern vs. Gonzaga.

[Coleman]

I honestly doubt this happens. I am fine with the auto-bids but I honestly cant see a situation where a Mt. St. Marys beats a 1 seed. Hell, we beat them by almost 50 two years ago. The closest were going to see for awhile was Southern vs. Gonzaga.

It will eventually happen. Maybe not this year, or this decade, but it will.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

It will eventually happen. Maybe not this year, or this decade, but it will.

That would be Appalachian St. vs Michigan esq. A lt of things need to go right.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I honestly doubt this happens. I am fine with the auto-bids but I honestly cant see a situation where a Mt. St. Marys beats a 1 seed. Hell, we beat them by almost 50 two years ago. The closest were going to see for awhile was Southern vs. Gonzaga.

Chaminade beat Virginia. Anything can happen

[Eldon]

It will eventually happen. Maybe not this year, or this decade, but it will.

Likely in a situation where a team gets a one seed (or just before seeding), a key player is hurt, which makes the team vulnerable.

I took a huge chance in my bracket and picked Coastal Carolina against UVA.

[Benny B]

Likely in a situation where a team gets a one seed (or just before seeding), a key player is hurt, which makes the team vulnerable.

I took a huge chance in my bracket and picked Coastal Carolina against UVA.

You know, I'm looking at your signature like and thinking.... unless Legs is picking CC, I'm going with UVA.

[NavinRJohnson]

I think this pretty much nails the stupidity of the first four...

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24490948/the-first-four-a-play-in-game-and-insult

No further expansion...won't make the product better, nor help crown a champion.