RIP NIT?

[Its DJOver]

One of the main reasons I support going to 80 with 16 games on Tuesday/Wednesday at 4 sites is because you can package that into evening programming. Start at 6:00 EST, then continue to start a game every twenty minutes for the first window, so 6:20, 6:40, and 7:00. Then plan the next window to start at 8:40 to allow time between the first and second games at the opening site, with subsequent games at 9:00, 9:20, and 9:40. The last game should be done before midnight. Effectively cramming 8 games into a 6-hour window for two nights. Very doable.

Considering that gambling very much plays a factor into the popularity of the tournament, where would you draw the line for brackets needing to be submitted by?  Right now, I believe that you can wait until right before tip on Thursday morning, if you push that back to Tuesday early evening how do you think that would effect the whole ordeal?  Or would you not include those games and keep it at Thursday morning?

[Hards Alumni]

So you again refuse to answer a question.  Congrats.  If you're going to have claims that the "right" number is somewhere between 32 and 211, but won't say where, then I guess you can paint with a broad enough brush to fall somewhere near a possibly correct answer. Good job.

His answer is the market determines the amount of games.  Which given enough time, it will.

If people don't care about the games and they are a net financial loser then a tournament would go smaller.  If games are well attended and watched then they will expand until a time they are not.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

nm

[lawdog77]

One of the main reasons I support going to 80 with 16 games on Tuesday/Wednesday at 4 sites is because you can package that into evening programming. Start at 6:00 EST, then continue to start a game every twenty minutes for the first window, so 6:20, 6:40, and 7:00. Then plan the next window to start at 8:40 to allow time between the first and second games at the opening site, with subsequent games at 9:00, 9:20, and 9:40. The last game should be done before midnight. Effectively cramming 8 games into a 6-hour window for two nights. Very doable.

That might help, but what would really help, in my opinion, is not having those #16 play on Tuesday/Wed. Those games are buzzkills to me.

[Hards Alumni]

That might help, but what would really help, in my opinion, is not having those #16 play on Tuesday/Wed. Those games are buzzkills to me.

And honestly, that is really the crux of the question.  Is there an audience for more of those type of games? 

[Its DJOver]

His answer is the market determines the amount of games.  Which given enough time, it will.

If people don't care about the games and they are a net financial loser then a tournament would go smaller.  If games are well attended and watched then they will expand until a time they are not.

Another non-answer.  Number please.

This model also works fine when you can have increases in small increments.  64 to 68 is a bump of 6%, and didn't change the overall format of the tournament.  You can also point to teams like VCU or Syracuse and say the the expansion was a success before proposing more expansion.  If you're bumping the tournament 50% and 16 teams, as well as fundamentally changing the format of the tournament you're taking a larger gamble.  The fact that the tournament is also every 4 years rather than annually means that the risks are higher too.  The last time they expaned by 50% the format was so convoluted that they scrapped it after one go.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Another non-answer.  Number please.

This model also works fine when you can have increases in small increments.  64 to 68 is a bump of 6%, and didn't change the overall format of the tournament.  You can also point to teams like VCU or Syracuse and say the the expansion was a success before proposing more expansion.  If you're bumping the tournament 50% and 16 teams, as well as fundamentally changing the format of the tournament you're taking a larger gamble.  The fact that the tournament is also every 4 years rather than annually means that the risks are higher too.  The last time they expaned by 50% the format was so convoluted that they scrapped it after one go.

They scrapped the second group stage (which had been used in the two WCs prior) for an expanded group stage that included the use of third place teams. You know...the thing you think is terrible for 2026.

[Hards Alumni]

Another non-answer.  Number please.

This model also works fine when you can have increases in small increments.  64 to 68 is a bump of 6%, and didn't change the overall format of the tournament.  You can also point to teams like VCU or Syracuse and say the the expansion was a success before proposing more expansion.  If you're bumping the tournament 50% and 16 teams, as well as fundamentally changing the format of the tournament you're taking a larger gamble.  The fact that the tournament is also every 4 years rather than annually means that the risks are higher too.  The last time they expaned by 50% the format was so convoluted that they scrapped it after one go.

The number of teams in a tournament will continue to expand as long as there is money to be made from the expansion.  If there isn't enough money coming in, the number of teams invited will decrease. 

You not being happy with the answer doesn't make it a non-answer.

[Its DJOver]

They scrapped the second group stage (which had been used in the two WCs prior) for an expanded group stage that included the use of third place teams. You know...the thing you think is terrible for 2026.

Did I use the word terrible, or are you shifting goalposts... the thing you accuse me of?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

And honestly, that is really the crux of the question.  Is there an audience for more of those type of games?

I've always been a fan of getting rid of the two 16/16 seed play in games and replacing them with making two more games with the last at larges playing for entry. Last season this would have resulted in NC State vs Providence and two of USC/Utah St/Penn St/Boise St playing each other. That has to draw more eyeballs than Texas Southern vs Fairleigh Dickinson and TAMU-CC vs. SE MO St

[Its DJOver]

The number of teams in a tournament will continue to expand as long as there is money to be made from the expansion.  If there isn't enough money coming in, the number of teams invited will decrease. 

You not being happy with the answer doesn't make it a non-answer.

I've been asking for an opinion.

Of course I had to be ridiculous because you're making statements along the lines of "expansion=more games=more exertainment", like it's that simple.  Of course you wouldn't want a tournament with 211 FIFA recognized nations, but where do you draw the line?  For me, it's 32. It's at least 48 for you and Brew, if not higher. 

He's unable to give that because he wants to be argumentative, and not commit in the case his opinion would be wrong.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Did I use the word terrible, or are you shifting goalposts... the thing you accuse me of?

You said it "diminishes the quality of the WC." Do you not think diminishing the value of the World Cup would be terrible?  Or are we just playing word games here.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I've been asking for an opinion.

He's unable to give that because he wants to be argumentative, and not commit in the case his opinion would be wrong.

How can my opinion be wrong?  I think 48 is fine.  Maybe 96 would be better?  Who knows?

But I'm not the one claiming 32 is "perfect."

[Its DJOver]

You said it "diminishes the quality of the WC." Do you not think diminishing the value of the World Cup would be terrible?  Or are we just playing word games here.

I've said since the beginning that 32 in perfect.  Any reduction from perfection is diminishment. I've admitted that it might be a small downgrade, but there will be a downgrade.

[Its DJOver]

How can my opinion be wrong?  I think 48 is fine.  Maybe 96 would be better?  Who knows?

But I'm not the one claiming 32 is "perfect."

Because the "market" may end up proving it wrong.  That's what decided whether opinions on future events are correct.  I'm sure there were some that believed that even going from 64 to 68 was wrong, and that was their opinion.  Hard's "market" has proven that opinion wrong.

[brewcity77]

That might help, but what would really help, in my opinion, is not having those #16 play on Tuesday/Wed. Those games are buzzkills to me.

I do think you need to keep those in and if I were king, I'd have all the 15/16 seeds be play-in games those days. That would essentially mean the current 53-68 autobid teams playing into the 15/16 seed spots. It would mean better teams playing in those games (teams that are now 13s and 14s would be included) and it would provide a better 64-team field on Thursday/Friday because 8 of the worst teams would be eliminated prior to those games and the teams that are left would provide more competitive games for the 1/2 seeds once they get there.

Consider this, from 1985 when the 64 team format was adopted through 2010 which was the last year of 65 teams, there were just 4 upsets by 15/16 seeds in that 26-year stretch. Since 2011, when the field went to 68, there have been 9 such upsets in 12 years.

Going from 64/65 to 68 meant pushing teams that would've been 14s or 15s in the past down a seed line which created increased competition and drama. Further expanding the auto-bid play-in would only increase that level of competition.

The gambling is an important note. I wonder if it might be best to start the tourney on Wednesday/Thursday with the play-in games, then have the first weekend wrap up on Monday. It would still give teams at least 3 days off before the S16 starts and just shift the weekend portion from Thursday-Sunday to Friday-Monday.

[Hards Alumni]

I've always been a fan of getting rid of the two 16/16 seed play in games and replacing them with making two more games with the last at larges playing for entry. Last season this would have resulted in NC State vs Providence and two of USC/Utah St/Penn St/Boise St playing each other. That has to draw more eyeballs than Texas Southern vs Fairleigh Dickinson and TAMU-CC vs. SE MO St

I'd much rather watch your version.

[brewcity77]

I've always been a fan of getting rid of the two 16/16 seed play in games and replacing them with making two more games with the last at larges playing for entry. Last season this would have resulted in NC State vs Providence and two of USC/Utah St/Penn St/Boise St playing each other. That has to draw more eyeballs than Texas Southern vs Fairleigh Dickinson and TAMU-CC vs. SE MO St

I get this perspective, but in order to expand you need more than just the high-majors to buy in. By keeping the low and mid majors in there, it guarantees more NCAA credits for their leagues (though fewer of the added credits than high-majors will expect) and allows more of their coaches to say they won an NCAA Tournament game. And culling those teams early is the best way to improve the quality of the competition once you pare the field to 64. If you have 15/16s as play-in winners, then the new 13s and 14s are essentially the old 11/12 autobids that were usually on the 11-13 lines, while the new 11s and 12s will all be play-in winners, meaning a higher percentage of high-major teams giving the field more overall talent.

[panda]

Having third place teams advance to the knock out round is a very common occurrence at tournaments throughout the world. It happens now at the Euros, Copa America and the African Cup of Nations. It even happened in the World Cup in the past - the US team in 1994 wouldn't have advanced to the knockout round otherwise.

So while you might think the current format is "perfect," a lot of people who organize some pretty big tournaments disagree.

To clarify, not all third place teams make it through in the Euros and the Copa. It's basically a wildcard format that two or three get through, not all. They do this so there aren't byes in the knockout rounds.

The World Cup allowed three teams from a four team group through until 1998 (when they expanded the field again). Three of four teams going through when it's a smaller elite field is much more palatable than putting three of four teams through in a diluted field.

[SaveOD238]

I wonder if it might be best to start the tourney on Wednesday/Thursday with the play-in games, then have the first weekend wrap up on Monday. It would still give teams at least 3 days off before the S16 starts and just shift the weekend portion from Thursday-Sunday to Friday-Monday.

How about this?

Teams 33-96 play on Thursday-Friday (16 games each day, like it is now), and then 1-32 play the winners on Saturday-Sunday (16 games each day rather than 8).

Then the remaining 32 teams advance to the second weekend.  8 games on Thursday and Friday, 4 each on Saturday and Sunday.

The final 8 advance to the final weekend, rather than final four, played over five days (Thurs-Sat-Mon)

[brewcity77]

How about this?

Teams 33-96 play on Thursday-Friday (16 games each day, like it is now), and then 1-32 play the winners on Saturday-Sunday (16 games each day rather than 8).

Then the remaining 32 teams advance to the second weekend.  8 games on Thursday and Friday, 4 each on Saturday and Sunday.

The final 8 advance to the final weekend, rather than final four, played over five days (Thurs-Sat-Mon)

It would work, though personally, I really like the idea of the 1/16 upset possibility continuing, and I also think the marketing of building up to the Final Four weekend is a value add they will want to keep.

Again, just personal, I also am not a huge fan of 96. I think that's where you start to get more push for second auto-bids for non-conference tourney winners (the math doesn't make that enough of an add for the big boys to agree to it) and it totally kills the quality of the NIT. Admittedly, that doesn't matter a ton, but I still think it's a fun event for the teams involved. Three win-or-go-home games at the Al in 2018 were a ton of fun, even if we weren't playing for the same stakes as NCAA teams were.

[Coleman]

How about this?

Teams 33-96 play on Thursday-Friday (16 games each day, like it is now), and then 1-32 play the winners on Saturday-Sunday (16 games each day rather than 8).

Then the remaining 32 teams advance to the second weekend.  8 games on Thursday and Friday, 4 each on Saturday and Sunday.

The final 8 advance to the final weekend, rather than final four, played over five days (Thurs-Sat-Mon)

I like it. I am still against expansion but this is honestly the best version I have heard so far.

[Coleman]

It would work, though personally, I really like the idea of the 1/16 upset possibility continuing, and I also think the marketing of building up to the Final Four weekend is a value add they will want to keep.

I am also against expansion, but playing Devil's advocate..

Now there are possibilities of even crazier upsets...like a 1/24 upset.

And you still have the exact same Final Four weekend. The elite 8 is just played 4 days later at the same site as the Final Four. And 4 more teams are part of the build up. I think that all means more eyeballs, and more $$$.