Get ready for NCAA tournament expansion...

The Don · #1 03-31-2010, 07:50 AM

to 96 teams.They propose the top 32 teams drawing a bye. It's going to happen.
There are approx. over 340 div one programs .
Link:http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...xpansion_N.htm

mjs_ud · #2 03-31-2010, 09:49 AM

do not want

binnie33 · #3 03-31-2010, 09:50 AM

This is a terrible idea for College Basketball in my opinion. I can't even begin to explain how watered down a tournament of 96 teams will be.

Another negative would be the end of the NIT. Expansion will lead to the end of the NIT. Look what the NIT has done for a team like Dayton. The NIT has turned a disappointing season into some pretty exciting basketball. I have always been a big fan of the NIT (especially when Dayton makes a run to the finals) and would hate to see it be destroyed.

I am really hoping that expansion does not occur, for the quality of College Basketball's sake.

San Diego Flyer · #4 03-31-2010, 09:54 AM

Ultimately, this additional 31 teams will save up to 31 coaching jobs each year.

Jack D · #5 03-31-2010, 09:59 AM

boo...hiss....

Do not expand the tournament! Do not water this down!!

Fudd · #6 03-31-2010, 10:01 AM

I am fascinated by the thought that it might effect OOC scheduling. Will there be a new philosophy? Most decent teams will be playing for seeding rather than just "making the cut", IMO.

I would love to see a bracket if it had happened this year. I don't think that there would be many snoozer games. The difference between teams #25 through #96 is marginal in my eyes. You see it in the regular season. When two top 100 teams play, it's normally a very entertaining game.

NCkevi · #7 03-31-2010, 10:01 AM

Since the NCAA tournament locations are set through (I think) 2013, I don't think expansion could go into effect until 2013-2014

DetroitFlyer · #8 03-31-2010, 10:06 AM

for it. Let's win the last NIT and look forward to an expanded tourney. I guess that I understand folks general resistance to change, but this seems like an absolute no-brainer to me. The TV and money exist to support it, we will still crown a national champion, and more deserving teams will be able to participate. Frankly, it looks to me like everybody wins by expanding the tourney. The nonsense that it will be watered down just makes no sense to me at all. There are already a large number of teams that have NO CHANCE at winning a national championship. Expanding the tourney actually gets more teams in that could actually have a chance to win the title.

UD62 · #9 03-31-2010, 10:13 AM

They could do it tomorrow, add a couple games at each 1st round site. Seeding would be interesting with the minor league seeds dropping. It would make many of the first games involving the top 32 seeds more competitive with the strongest 32 teams coming out of the first games. this years Flyers are an example of that. We would not have gotten a bye, yet would have been a handfull for anybody we played. It's going to happer, and in a few years it will be considered normal.

oRed · #10 03-31-2010, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Fudd

I am fascinated by the thought that it might effect OOC scheduling. Will there be a new philosophy? Most decent teams will be playing for seeding rather than just "making the cut", IMO.

I would love to see a bracket if it had happened this year. I don't think that there would be many snoozer games. The difference between teams #25 through #96 is marginal in my eyes. You see it in the regular season. When two top 100 teams play, it's normally a very entertaining game.

Fudd, you're a visionary. Expansion will not only be good for OOC but it will make the 1st and 2nd round of the NCAA far more appealing.

This boo, hiss mentality..."we love our field of 64" is a perfect example of having your head buried in the sand.

An expanded field with 32 byes makes for better 1st round games and then the 1st round winners have a win under their belt going up against teams that have a bye and are sitting around their hotel rooms thinking they're the special teams of the tourney...it's a perfect storm for upsets and at the very least many more late contested games.

The field of 64 is/has been flawed with too many weak auto qualifiers...those weak teams will sink or swim in the 1st round.

NIT going away? It's just the way the world is weaker links disappear to more efficient options...

premania · #11 03-31-2010, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer

There are already a large number of teams that have NO CHANCE at winning a national championship. Expanding the tourney actually gets more teams in that could actually have a chance to win the title.

Who exactly has no chance of winning it? I can think of only a few, those being the leagues that dont have an automatic bid yet and the independents. This isn't the BCS where you have to go undefeated in the best league to get a shot. In theory, You can go 0-30 in the SWAC and run the table in the conference tourney and get in.

Has there ever been a doubt that someone that got left out of the tournament had a legitimate shot at winning a championship?

rollo · #12 03-31-2010, 10:22 AM

Selection Sunday will now be a 12 hour mini-series hosted by Simon Crowl.

Bracketology will now include 'Last 12 out' and 'Last 12 in'.

Filling our a bracket will be linked to carpel tunnel syndrome, sending millions of workers onto disability.

The 97th team, Virginia Tech, will complain that their non-conference SOS of 342 isn't relective of their potential and will get 20 minutes of air time on ESPN to voice their complaint. Dickie V will support VTech as well as 26 other teams that deserve to be in the Big Dance.

VTech will lose in the 2nd round of the newly formed WIT - Whiners Invitational Tournament - to Prairie View A&M....and then sign a 10-year home-and-away contract with them.

People will complain that the tournament needs to be expanded to 150 teams and in 2023, the NCAA will expand. VTech will then finish 151st, continue complaining, and then lose to Wittenberg in the newly formed Mini-Me Invitational Tournament....for the 2nd time that season.

steve · #13 03-31-2010, 10:25 AM

This is really going to affect coaches and bargaining power with contracts. Use to be it was a pretty good body of work to be able to go into a contract negotiation meeting and say "we've made the NCAA 3 straight times" but with 96 it can't be anything but more dilluted.

premania · #14 03-31-2010, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Fudd

I would love to see a bracket if it had happened this year. I don't think that there would be many snoozer games. The difference between teams #25 through #96 is marginal in my eyes. You see it in the regular season. When two top 100 teams play, it's normally a very entertaining game.

Jerry Palm put one togther. You can check it out here: http://boards.gopherhole.com/boards/...ad.php?t=16621

I think this way you lose the casual fan. The ones that went nuts with excitement when Ohio beat Georgetown. If OU beat Minnesota in the first round...not too exciting. Also remember the big boys will need to be on board. Once they see that there reward for a great regular season is a #1 seed and a game against a #16 or #17 like UConn, North Carolina, Dayton, Kent St etc. They aren't going to be happy.

Attendance will suck even more for the new first round. How many people do you think will show up in Salt Lake City to watch a pod of first round games of #14 Ole Miss/#19 St. John's and #11 Washington/#22 UCSB?

rollo · #15 03-31-2010, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by premania

Attendance will suck even more for the new first round. How many people do you think will show up in Salt Lake City to watch a pod of first round games of #14 Ole Miss/#19 St. John's and #11 Washington/#22 UCSB?

Great point. I always get the NCAA tickets hoping to see a #1 seed or #1 team in the country come to Dayton. If the best team I can see is #33 and the best matchup I can get is the #64 v #65, I'll probably pass.

Figgie123 · #16 03-31-2010, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by oRed

Expansion will not only be good for OOC but it will make the 1st and 2nd round of the NCAA far more appealing.

Okay, and how is expansion going to be good for OOC scheduling? Let's see...the Big 6 Conferences already don't play away at lower level teams. They know now that as long as they win the games, they can get an invite to the 65 team dance. Okay, let's expand to 96. Well, we can still get into the dance even if we play a POORER OOC schedule. That means the Big 6 Conferences will have absolutely no reason to schedule road games at all, let alone any games against the 7 thru 12 conferences. Expansion, in my opinion, will all but eliminate any Big 6 teams travelling to a 7 thru 12 conference. Maybe I should clarify a little and say that better Big 6 teams will be able to do this. The bottom feeder Big 6 conferences are already scheduling the 7 thru 12 conferences for good competition rather than being blown out by the best of the Big 6.

For instance, Arkansas Pine Bluff might once again compete completely on the road in the out of conference, but the teams they play may get knocked further down. Kansas State may not want to play them, they are too high in the RPI. #166 is too high for a home buy game for KState now. Colorado may not want to play them since they only won by 16 points this year.

Figgie

Medford · #17 03-31-2010, 10:53 AM

I'm all for it, provided one aspect is taken care of. First, premania asks who wants to watch #14 Ole Miss vs #19 St Johns? Who wanted to watch #14 Ohio and their sub .500 MAC record vs #3 Georgetown? No one really, until the upset was evident. Think many were jacked for that Old Dominion/Florida tilt? Not really, you're just hoping for a good game and rooting for the team you pick in your bracket.

The NCAA tournament isn't made on great matchups on paper. Who had Butler in their Final 4? Who was really excited to watch X and K State rematch? Those type of teams and type of games become the story of the NCAA because of what they turn into, not because of what we think of them going in. How many times to the talking heads complain because this 1 seed is on the same side of the bracket as that 1 seed and they should be on opposite sides of the bracket so they could match up in the finals, only to find out that 1 or both teams fail to even reach the final 4. The NCAA tournament is made b/c the cream of the crop usually rises to the top in the end, because you get some school you can't locate on a map to take down national power U, because the game of basketball can be a beauty to behold at its best. A combination of 5 men working in unison to overcome the challenges ahead of them while still being able to rely on 1 or 2 players to take over a game and turn into a star.

Why is the NCAA tournament perfect at 65? or 64 or even 68? Was it perfect at 32? or when it expanded to 36? When only 1 team per conference was allowed in? 64/65 is just an arbitrary number of teams that convinently allows them to sell the bracket idea. Yes, getting to the tournament will be watered down, no doubt, but we're just as likely to find huge upsets, must watch games, big surprises and huge letdowns w/ 96 teams as we are w/ 64/65 teams. In fact I'm guessing the additional 31 teams will give us even more opportunities to find a newborn star picking up his 15 minutes of fame.

I mentioned earlier that I had 1 thing I'd like to take care of, and that is this. I hope like heck they install a rule that you have to finish at least .500 in conference play to be eligible for an at large. I'd hate to see a team schedule 12 gimmies at home OOC, then go 4-12 in conference, splite a pair of games in their conference tournament and enter the NCAA tournament at 17-13. I'd like to see more chances for the fringe NCAA teams from the A-10/MAC/MWC/CUSA/Etc along w/ a handful of fringe NCAA tournament teams from the BCS conferences than to watch a team like Miami (FL) this year make it.

Fudd · #18 03-31-2010, 10:55 AM

Getting the 1st round bye will be the new golden ring. Will teams schedule for that? If they do, they will want to play a decent OOC.

Medford · #19 03-31-2010, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

Great point. I always get the NCAA tickets hoping to see a #1 seed or #1 team in the country come to Dayton. If the best team I can see is #33 and the best matchup I can get is the #64 v #65, I'll probably pass.

Assuming the first 3 rounds are all played at 1 site, you'll still get a chance to see the #1 team, but you also get to see #33 take on #96 (the old #65) and advance to take on #1. how often is #1 vs #64 even a good game? #1 vs #33 actually gives you hope of an upset.

rollo · #20 03-31-2010, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Medford

Assuming the first 3 rounds are all played at 1 site,

I was assuming the 1st round would be played on the home court of the higher seed. Otherwise you're asking too many teams and fans to travel to too many sites only to get sent home on a Tuesday night. Considering hotel rooms, game tickets, flights...etc..., I don't see an additional game being added to the 1st round sites.

NCkevi · #21 03-31-2010, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

Great point. I always get the NCAA tickets hoping to see a #1 seed or #1 team in the country come to Dayton.

I'm pretty much the opposite - I'd just about rather see any match-ups other than the
1-16 or 2-15 games

BallgameJohnny · #22 03-31-2010, 11:08 AM

I think this debate is a lot like healthcare, nobody is sure how it will work, but doesn't stop them from *****ing about what they don't know.

premania · #23 03-31-2010, 11:09 AM

Isn't it funny how the NCAA argument for not having football playoffs is that it expands the season a week and the players miss too much class time. That is the NCAA excuse at least....not that the bowls bring in too much $$$ to change. But, they have no trouble having the basketball season expand by a week and kids missing class because more rounds of the tourney = more money.

San Diego Flyer · #24 03-31-2010, 11:11 AM

I like the 96. I like seeding the top 32. I like pitting the #33/#64 vs #65/#96 in the 1st round. It improves the quality of the 2nd round on. But we will have some monumental upsets in the first round which I think will add to the sport. And there will be some large school embarrassments in those matchups also.

Think out of the box. This is good for the sport.

John C. · #25 03-31-2010, 11:22 AM

Number 1 seed would still be playing #16 or #17 seeds in what we currently call the first round. 16 and 17 seeds would play each other in the opening round. Number 9 seeds would play #24 seeds if I have done my math right. They would then play the number 8 seed.

The 1/16 matchup would have a team like Dayton playing Kansas. My guess is that we would have been a 16 or 17 seed. The current #16 seeds would be dropped down to #24 seeds as they would still be woerse than all of the new at large teams.

In reality, the match-ups in the first round would be better after the opening round than they are today.

forego1 · #26 03-31-2010, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by premania

Isn't it funny how the NCAA argument for not having football playoffs is...

NCAA and BCS are separate entities.

UDGutter2 · #27 03-31-2010, 11:23 AM

The second round would be great. Most fans watch for the upsets and you would have a much better chance of that with the #1 seed playing a legitimate #16 rather than a team with a 180 rpi.

Odrab14 · #28 03-31-2010, 11:31 AM

For me 96 is too big of jump. I think they could move it to 72 and have Bubble play in games on Tuesday and Wednesday. Those seeds would be 8-10 seeds. How exciting would that be to truly have to earn your spot in the 64 field. I do agree that the 15's and 16's should all be play in games like they have now. You can add spots this way. They are making too big of a deal out of this. Add 8 spots and move on. Then in a few years if it keeps expanding then so be it. Bubble Busters are the way to go. It would be more exciting....

oRed · #29 03-31-2010, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Fudd

Getting the 1st round bye will be the new golden ring. Will teams schedule for that? If they do, they will want to play a decent OOC.

Obviously the first round byes will be cherished and will have a power conference bias but what better year to springboard into the scenario than next year with this years NCAA results as a backdrop.

The A10 is the poster child for breaking down the bias with a big assist this year from Cornell, St. Mary's, Butler and No Iowa.

What becomes of season ending conf tourneys? talk about dinosaurs...

Many coaches don't like byes but will never publicly admit and even though they might fear the bye they'll do their best to elevate themselves to the elite class of 32...

forego1 · #30 03-31-2010, 11:41 AM

I won't do plus and minus (again). But I imagine Selection Sunday will include about every significant market in the country. I think March Madness interest will be stronger than it ever has been.

UDgutter2 is right that some of the matchups going into the bye teams are going to be made in heaven. I think the anticipation for the second round will be freakin' unbelievable.
And in that respect, backtracking, a lot of first rounders are going to be perceived as really
interesting.

And as Medford points out, these things take on a life of their own. No one will know what freak stories can develop, but that they will you can be sure.

Throw in Dayton with my

crazy BG, and what more do you want?

NorthwestFlyer · #31 03-31-2010, 01:19 PM

This will be a good thing for college basketball. Teams will be playing for the bye. The selection committee will not be able to snub a Dayton team over an Arizona State team for whatever reason, both will be in and can decide their own fate. The smaller schools that dominated conference play and lost by a buzzer beater in their conference tourney will still likely be in. More schools will get some exposure and a chance to run with the big dogs. I personally hate the 1 vs 16 match ups for the most part, it is practically a bye game already.

The only real problem is going to be the fitting those brackets on a 8.5 X 11 sheet of paper and possibly the carpel tunnel thing.

BallgameJohnny · #32 03-31-2010, 01:29 PM

No doubt, I am a big fan of the brackets that can be done online with only clicking...

The Don · #33 03-31-2010, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by NCkevi

Since the NCAA tournament locations are set through (I think) 2013, I don't think expansion could go into effect until 2013-2014

Maybe UD will be an added site.

The Don · #34 03-31-2010, 02:34 PM

It will make 32 more communities happy, the fans in those communities will be happy , the players will be happy and the schools will be happy with the added revenue to help out with the other athletic programs... plus it will make me happy to see some extra teams play. Whats wrong with that?
It won't be armageddon or death panels. It won't ruin the tournament. There still would be two thirds of the teams still not playing.
People always resist change whether it be good or bad. Just think of the NIT. Are we happy? The nit will be added to the NCAA field. Hell , they may even keep the NIT. That will make Wright State happy.

Class of 73 Alum · #35 03-31-2010, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by The Don

It will make 32 more communities happy, the fans in those communities will be happy , the players will be happy and the schools will be happy with the added revenue to help out with the other athletic programs... plus it will make me happy to see some extra teams play. Whats wrong with that?
It won't be armageddon or death panels. It won't ruin the tournament. There still would be two thirds of the teams still not playing.
People always resist change whether it be good or bad. Just think of the NIT. Are we happy? The nit will be added to the NCAA field. Hell , they may even keep the NIT. That will make Wright State happy.

I think you mean that MIGHT make Wright State happy.

SHQCKEY · #36 03-31-2010, 02:56 PM

Keep expanding the tournament to include everyone and this is what you'll end up with...

+ YouTube Video

UD90 · #37 03-31-2010, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by premania

Who exactly has no chance of winning it?
....
Has there ever been a doubt that someone that got left out of the tournament had a legitimate shot at winning a championship?

Let's see what happens this year. Is there a team in the NIT final four that would be more than a 4-6 point underdog to the NCAA final four teams?

I don't think so.

Poot · #38 03-31-2010, 03:31 PM

This is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. I couldn’t even think of five more teams that deserved to be in the tournament let alone 32. This is something like the YMCA would do and let every team in the tournament.

San Diego Flyer · #39 03-31-2010, 03:58 PM

Lord, one would think this is the Health Bill. It's just a basketball tournament. Call the first round of 32 games "The Play-in Round" if that helps. Change, in and of itself, is the enemy here. Half the NIT this year are better than those high seeds in the NCAA.

FlyerFanatic08 · #40 03-31-2010, 04:29 PM

i think its a good idea, i just think they should be willing to change their minds if it doesnt work out. i mean once this goes into effect, i dont see anyway presidents/AD's/coaches agree to go back. why is 64 the magical number though? i dont get it, didnt people complain about expansion back when it expanded to 64?

UDBrian · #41 03-31-2010, 05:09 PM

I think it could be added quickly. UD has one play in game booked already. Have UD with four play in games Tuesday and four on Wednesday. Add three more locations who would like to host play in games and do the same. It could be a little bit of a negative having to play two days before the big tournament which couldn't be solved until later.

You could have all of the play in games on Tuesday with eight locations.

I don't like the idea of the higher seed playing at home, make it neutral sites as much as possible.

I do believer that the .500 conference record would be a good requirement.

lilrudy4787 · #42 03-31-2010, 05:23 PM

Not to change the convo or anything but, ESPN has its bracketbusters thing it does every year. Since there are many many people who like the bracket the way it is, isnt it possible that the committee opts to do something like a Bracket Busters play-in tournament and markets it separately from the tournament itself.

That way you keep your field of 64, and gain an extra marketing special that I know I would watch. It satisfies two needs at once, gives teams an opportunity to play into the tourney and satisfies die hards who like the tourney the way it is.

forego1 · #43 03-31-2010, 06:20 PM

lilrudy4787, you are the king of semantics.

Piqua Flyer '66 · #44 03-31-2010, 08:29 PM

I don't like it.
Makes regular season irrelevant - big wins less significant
Makes league tourneys irrelevant - if you have not "made" the NCAA Field of 96 by your league tourney - who cares?
Destroys the "bubble" excitement/chatter
Don't argue with me that you deserved the 96th spot but got screwed!!

Good bye NIT!

Go Flyers, Beat NC!!

Buster Goode · #45 03-31-2010, 08:59 PM

I hate it too.

The only advantage is that we should make the tourney almost every year if this happens.

UD_NY · #46 03-31-2010, 09:10 PM

I don't like it because now different teams have a different road to the championships. Some teams will have to play more tournament games.

The tournament already identifies the champion, adding more teams just dilutes the product, in my opinion.

On the other hand, it is still a better solution then football has. At least basketball doesn't vote on a champion. If it did, either Kansas or Kentucky would be much happier now.

They both lost because basketball teams get the chance that football teams are never given.

emswartz92 · #47 03-31-2010, 09:24 PM

Nothing is good about 96 teams. Nothing at all.

The Gem · #48 03-31-2010, 09:32 PM

They will add 31 teams and 0 of them will have a realistic chance of winning the tourny. I would be OK with 68 teams so that the last 4 in and the last 4 out in the current format play each other for the 12 seeds. The NCAA could do a better job of promoting the NIT so it's less of a step child.

Money will likely decide things.

ClaytonFlyerFan · #49 03-31-2010, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by The Gem

They will add 31 teams and 0 of them will have a realistic chance of winning the tourny. .

Seems to be more parity every season of late, so I have to disagree with your statement above assuming the current trends continue.

Who is to say a team that, well just for example is playing in the finals of the NIT this year, buys black uniforms, gets hot at the right time, a few bounces go the right way in close games on neutral courts instead of on the road, and all of a sudden they are playing in front of 65K fans in the final four.

Yea, ok, maybe not realistic today, but would love to come back to this post in 6 or 7 years and be able to say told you so.

Go Flyers

lilrudy4787 · #50 03-31-2010, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by forego1

lilrudy4787, you are the king of semantics.

its all about the details.

THE DUKE · #51 03-31-2010, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by emswartz92

Nothing is good about 96 teams. Nothing at all.

Amen, making the tournament should be hard. This would make the regular season from mostly irrelevant to completely irrelevant.

jonji · #52 03-31-2010, 10:14 PM

Edited to reflect 1984:

Originally Posted by Piqua Flyer '66

Field of 64, I don't like it!
Makes regular season irrelevant - big wins less significant
Makes league tourneys irrelevant - if you have not "made" the NCAA Field of 64 by your league tourney - who cares?
Destroys the "bubble" excitement/chatter
Don't argue with me that you deserved the 64th spot but got screwed!!

ClaytonFlyerFan · #53 03-31-2010, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by THE DUKE

Amen, making the tournament should be hard. This would make the regular season from mostly irrelevant to completely irrelevant.

Lets compare the numbers to other sports, specifically professional.

NCAA basketball 96 teams is about 27% of Div 1

NHL 16 of 30 for 53%

NBA 16 0f 30 for 53 %

NFL 12 of 32 for 37%

MLB 8 of 30 for 27%

I would not say regular season in any of the four sports listed above is irrelevant. Percentage wise, far fewer NCAA basketball teams will be in the playoffs.

I do think 96 is the maximum I want to see in my lifetime though, and I hope I have over half my life yet to live!

AC91 · #54 03-31-2010, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by ClaytonFlyerFan

Lets compare the numbers to other sports, specifically professional.

NCAA basketball 96 teams is about 27% of Div 1

NHL 16 of 30 for 53%

NBA 16 0f 30 for 53 %

NFL 12 of 32 for 37%

MLB 8 of 30 for 27%

I would not say regular season in any of the four sports listed above is irrelevant. Percentage wise, far fewer NCAA basketball teams will be in the playoffs.

I do think 96 is the maximum I want to see in my lifetime though, and I hope I have over half my life yet to live!

I just don't think that's a good comparison. It's not about a 96 team field. It is about expanding the at large field from 32 to 63. Half of the conferences essentially have no chance of earning an at large bid, so that cuts down the possible pool at least in half. And the playing field, even relative to baseball, is completely out of whack in terms of the haves/have nots balance, so you cannot realistically include so many of those teams in the at large discussion at all.

All this is doing is opening up the tournament to teams with potential that didn't achieve anything to be able to pull it together and make a run. Remember Arizona getting to the sweet 16 a couple of years ago after their controversial at large selection? No one was surprised they made that run because of the talent they had, but they didn't earn the chance. You could make a STRONG argument that there were not enough worthy teams of an at large bid this year...and i don't think i've ever seen a year where people said more than a couple of truly deserving teams were left out.

I really would have been fine with expanding from one to four play in games - as long as they changed it to the last 2 at larges in each region playing in those. But I just do not see the justification for going to 96 at all (except to keep the TV $ growing in a down market by increasing the # of games).

Flyer Jones · #55 03-31-2010, 10:49 PM

I see expanding the tournament as a very positive thing for all parties involved. First, is it more money, yes, but there are many other positives about it:

1. The number of automatic bids will increase in a couple years as the Great West Conference obtains an auto bid to 32

2. In 1985 there were 35 at large bids, in a couple years this would be 33 regardless the decrease is concerning

3. In 1985 there were 282 DI teams that could qualify; with the addition of the Great West this will increase to 347 (a 23% increase in teams)

4. Due to the increase in teams the ability of quality opponents to dodge scheduling "mids" like teams from the A10, MVC, WCC, etc. creates a tremendous unbalanced schedule issue which makes comparing teams more difficult today than ever before. A lot less of an argument can be made for the 97th best team than the 66th best team. There are still some pretty good teams in that 55 - 80 range. Expanding to 96 eliminates excuses and puts a lot more control in the hands of the ADs and Coaches to win and get in the tournament.

5. The 1 seeds in the tournament would actually have to play a real team in the first game. If you give seeds 1 - 8 a bye and make the other teams "play-in" you will get a much more competitive and exciting round of 64. To get this it is only one more game for 2/3 of the field.

6. It will create a better opportunity for revenue sharing through the distribution of revenue credits. Lunardi did a study of at-large non-BCS schools vs BCS schools with a 9 seed or higher. The result was a non-BCS winning Percentage that was significantly better than the BCS schools. The additional games should give the "Mids" a better opportunity to compete head-to-head with the BCS schools for earning revenue credits. Of course the revenue distribution would have to be worked out but maybe each game/bye = 1 revenue credit

7. Similar to avoiding schedules, maybe, just maybe the BCS teams wouldn't be so concerned about coming to Dayton to play with the potential lose because the margin of error is a little bigger. In turn this will give upper non-BCS programs with a better opportunity to prove themselves. This is really a hope more than anything, but it would eliminate an excuse they use.

Flyer Jones · #56 03-31-2010, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by AC91

All this is doing is opening up the tournament to teams with potential that didn't achieve anything to be able to pull it together and make a run. Remember Arizona getting to the sweet 16 a couple of years ago after their controversial at large selection? No one was surprised they made that run because of the talent they had, but they didn't earn the chance. You could make a STRONG argument that there were not enough worthy teams of an at large bid this year...and i don't think i've ever seen a year where people said more than a couple of truly deserving teams were left out.

I think this point actually works the other way. George Mason was a controversial pick and one of the last at larges a few years ago. They made it to the Final Four. If these teams are good enough to make a run in the tournament then they should be in. I think that is the difference between the 66th team and the 97th team. The 66th team can still make a run, the 97th team can't.

Fudd · #57 03-31-2010, 11:30 PM

We probably would have been a 75-80 this year, and we are run-capable, IMO. I watched some VCU vs. Saint Louis. They are very watchable teams, IMO, and they might have barely made it in this year. The quality is very good all they way down to 96. I think you would see a lot more upsets in the round of 64.

This is what it may have looked like this year according to Jerry palm:

Here's what it would look like, according to CollegeRPI.com's bracket guru.

East Region
#1 Kentucky vs. #16 Seton Hall/#17 Texas Tech winner
#8 Texas vs. #9 Wake Forest/#24 Arkansas-Pine Bluff winner
#4 Wisconsin vs. #13 Arizona State/#20 Louisiana Tech winner
#5 Temple vs. #12 Cornell/#21 Wofford winner
#2 West Virginia vs. #15 Memphis/#18 Nevada winner
#7 Clemson vs. #10 Mizzou/#23 North Texas winner
#3 New Mexico vs. #14 Ole Miss/#19 St. John's winner
#6 Marquette vs. #11 Washington/#22 UCSB winner

South Region
#1 Duke vs. #16 UConn/#17 Northeastern winner
#8 Cal vs. #9 Louisville/#24 Winthrop winner
#4 Purdue vs. #13 Siena/#20 Saint Louis winner
#5 Texas A&M vs. #12 Utah State/#21 Sam Houston State winner
#2 Villanova vs. #15 Wichita State/#18 NC State winner
#7 Richmond vs. #10 St. Mary's/#23 Robert Morris winner
#3 Baylor vs. #14 Illinois/#19 Murray State winner
#6 Notre Dame vs. #11 Old Dominion/#22 Montana winner

Midwest
#1 Kansas vs. #16 North Carolina/#17 William & Mary
#8 UNLV vs. #9 Northern Iowa/#24 Lehigh winner
#4 Maryland vs. #13 Mississippi State/#20 Northwestern winner
#5 Michigan State vs. #12 New Mexico State/#21 Houston winner
#2 Ohio State vs. #15 South Florida/#18 Illinois State winner
#7 Oklahoma State vs. #10 Georgia Tech/#23 Morgan State winner
#3 Georgetown vs. #14 UAB/#19 Marshall winner
#6 Tennessee vs. #11 San Diego State/#22 Oakland winner

West
#1 Syracuse vs. #16 Dayton/#17 Kent State
#8 Gonzaga vs. #9 Florida State/#24 East Tennessee State
#4 Vandy vs. #13 Virginia Tech/#20 Charlotte winner
#5 Butler vs. #12 UTEP/#21 Portland winner
#2 K-State vs. #15 Cincinnati/#18 Tulsa winner
#7 BYU vs. #10 Florida/#23 Vermont winner
#3 Pitt vs. #14 Rhode Island/#19 VCU winner
#6 Xavier vs. #11 GOPHERS/#22 Ohio winner

FlyingArrow · #58 03-31-2010, 11:37 PM

I'm sure they won't do this, but I would make the schedule completely in favor of the higher seeds, just to make the regular season more meaningful - make a bye really valuable. Also, doing it this way guarantees that some Cinderellas make it to the round of 64... here's a sample region:

#1 vs winner #23/#24
#8 vs winner #9/#10

#4 vs winner #17/#18
#5 vs winner #15/#16

#2 vs winner #21/#22
#7 vs winner #11/#12

#3 vs winner #19/#20
#6 vs winner #13/#14

On second thought, never mind. I changed my mind. Eh- since I took the time to type it I'll go ahead and post it.

ClaytonFlyerFan · #59 04-01-2010, 12:11 AM

This would also be a great time to implement a If you finish below .500 in your conference, you are not allowed in the tournament rule

xubrew · #60 04-01-2010, 01:18 AM

expanding the field would water down the tournament, but that's not really the biggest downside to expansion. not even close.

the "lets expand the field to give more teams a chance" argument is misguided. the people that say this aren't really saying "lets give more teams a chance." what they're really saying is "lets give a third, fourth or fifth chance to teams that blew their first four chances."

every team already has a chance. they actually have two. they can play their way into the consensus top forty (that's top FORTY over the course of the thirty game season and all but assure themselves of an at-large if they were to need it. the door is open to all the teams to do this. this isn't college football where half the teams are eliminated because even if they were to go undefeated they wouldn't land in the top two. any team can play their way into the consensus top 40 if they're good enough.

the second chance is the conference tournament. i believe 302 teams played in conference tournaments. all of them, even the crappy ones, had yet another chance to make the dance.

i just don't see the need to expand the field and give teams that blew it twice yet another chance.

are there teams that were left out that were good enough to make a run?? maybe so. i'm not going to say they aren't. however, to me the ncaa tournament is about who the most accomplished teams are, not necessarily who has the most potential. if the team has the potential to go on a run, but didn't get it done during the regular season, i don't feel they deserve yet another chance if the blew the first two. with that logic kansas should be let back into the tournament. they are good enough to make the sweet sixteen even though they lost in the second round, so why not give them another chance to do it?? the reason thsi shouldn't happen is obvious. they already had one. it's the same with teams that didn't make the ncaa tournament.

i also think it's a slap in the face to the teams that were accomplished during the regular season to say that they'll have to play another game to make it to a round that they otherwise would have already been in. it basically says to teams like northern iowa, utep, saint mary's and the like that teams like dayton, wichita state, uab and memphis are their equals in terms of what they accomplished during the season. they're not. those teams shouldn't have to play another game just to make room for less accomplished teams that blew their chances.

would expanding the tournament create more exciting games in march?? maybe so. however, the key words there is "IN MARCH." by adding one week of excitement onto the ncaa tournament, you essentially negate four and a half months of excitement during the season. for example, teams like utep, uab, memphis, tulsa and marshall in conference usa were all close in the standings for most of the season. attendance and excitement was up because they knew they were fighting for ncaa tournament bids, and every conference game meant a lot, ESPECIALLY when they played each other. the games sold out or were came close to it, and most of them were exciting battles. add 35 more teams to the tournament and all those teams are probably in. what was exciting during the season turns into more of a blah game.

same with the colonial. same with the wac. same with the mwc. same with the pac ten. same with the sec. what was a multitude of high stakes games during the season suddenly become less intense. would expanding the field result in more money?? maybe, but only in the sense that claiming zero will most likely result in a bigger tax refund. in the long run, you probably lose more money by doing that.

one other argument that strikes me as extremely misguided is the "major teams will be less likely to avoid mid-majors during the season." that's so ridiculous it almost warrants no response. look at the bcs teams that are on the bubble, but typically miss the field. virginia tech, penn state last year, florida state for several years, seton hall this year, etc. what do they all have in common?? weak out of conference schedules is what. the teams that do get in generally play at least a handful of mid majors either at neutral sites or on the road. if that doesn't trumpet loud and clear that bcs teams need to hit the road i don't know what does. expand the field, and all those teams that were left out are in. they have absolutely no reason to ever play on the road, and most won't.

it's a bad deal. the pros don't come anywhere close to being worth the cost of the cons. if you want the field to expand because you want more exciting games, pay more attention to the regular season. you'll get that effect. if you want the field to expand becuase it gives your team a better chance of making it, then you don't want it to expand for the right reasons.

FlyingArrow · #61 04-01-2010, 01:37 AM

For reference, here's what normal pairings would look like:

#1 vs winner #16/#17
#8 vs winner #9/#24

#4 vs winner #13/#20
#5 vs winner #12/#21

#2 vs winner #15/#18
#7 vs winner #10/#23

#3 vs winner #14/#19
#6 vs winner #11/#22

Beno · #62 04-01-2010, 03:32 AM

this post is awesome. as a uva student, its especially awesome. also, as a uva student, i dont care bout uva ball. why? bc i was brought up in the dyt, love the flyers, go to the ud arena, and am gonna see the flyers beat unc's a$$ tonight. but this post is still especially awesome...epitomizes everything a lot of us are thinking

Originally Posted by rollo

Selection Sunday will now be a 12 hour mini-series hosted by Simon Crowl.

Bracketology will now include 'Last 12 out' and 'Last 12 in'.

Filling our a bracket will be linked to carpel tunnel syndrome, sending millions of workers onto disability.

The 97th team, Virginia Tech, will complain that their non-conference SOS of 342 isn't relective of their potential and will get 20 minutes of air time on ESPN to voice their complaint. Dickie V will support VTech as well as 26 other teams that deserve to be in the Big Dance.

VTech will lose in the 2nd round of the newly formed WIT - Whiners Invitational Tournament - to Prairie View A&M....and then sign a 10-year home-and-away contract with them.

People will complain that the tournament needs to be expanded to 150 teams and in 2023, the NCAA will expand. VTech will then finish 151st, continue complaining, and then lose to Wittenberg in the newly formed Mini-Me Invitational Tournament....for the 2nd time that season.

nerdychuck · #63 04-01-2010, 09:08 AM

To keep the regular season interesting, they could give an auto-bid to the winner of the conference regular season, and then keep the auto-bid for the conference tourney champions. Leave it up to the conference to decide who wins the regular season. If the same team wins them both, then that opens up another at large bid. Conferences who choose not to have a tourney would lose their second auto-bid.

Not 100% sure if I'm in favor of it or not, but just an idea.

xubrew · #64 04-01-2010, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by nerdychuck

To keep the regular season interesting, they could give an auto-bid to the winner of the conference regular season, and then keep the auto-bid for the conference tourney champions. Leave it up to the conference to decide who wins the regular season. If the same team wins them both, then that opens up another at large bid. Conferences who choose not to have a tourney would lose their second auto-bid.

Not 100% sure if I'm in favor of it or not, but just an idea.

this is actually one of the ideas they're looking at.

one idea would be to give conferences the option of exempting the first place finisher from playing in the conference tournament so as to not gobble up the second bid from that league. another proposal is that if the same team wins both the regular season and the tournament to just allow the conferences to give the second bid to the second place team.

either way, a conference would not have to forfeit it's second automatic bid if the same team that finished first won the tournament.

that would keep the bubble and the importance of the regular season at about the same point that it is now. i'd still be against this idea, but i like it a ton better than adding 31 at-large bids.

oldfan · #65 04-01-2010, 12:58 PM

Nobody should get a bye because of the subjective opinion of the Tournament Committee. The field should be expanded to 128 and with all first round games on tuesday and wenesday it would not make the season any longer.
For those who think the bottom 32 teams would not be competitive with the top thirty two teams and attendance would suffer. The tournament could have the middle 64 teams play on a neutral court while the top thirty-two teams play on the bottom thirty-two team's home court. The top thirty-two in theory should be able to win regardless of where they play but the fans at these smaller schools would be thrilled to have one of the big guys playing on their home court.

flyerfanatic86 · #66 04-01-2010, 01:02 PM

It's just going to make the creation of a bracket a lot harder when you don't know for sure who the "first" round teams will be playing.

FlyingArrow · #67 04-01-2010, 03:17 PM

Giving a bye to each of the conference champions could solve the subjectivity problem - there'd be 1 or 2 too many, so whichever ones have the lowest RPIs could get the best seeds among those playing in the opening round.

This would mess up the brackets some since you'd have quite a few worse teams seeded above quite a few better teams, but it would definitely make the regular season and tournaments more interesting. And it would ensure that the round of 64 isn't all Big-6 teams.

Fudd · #68 04-05-2010, 06:00 PM

Expansion is going to be good for the A10. We are going to hold onto coaches a little easier and probably be able to recruit better as a result. I'll bet that the A10 will have about 6 teams in the tournament every year.

UACFlyer · #69 04-05-2010, 06:21 PM

Fudd, look at it this way. If you are a coach in a confernence with 14 teams, and typically 2,3 teams make the Dance,.....that means a coach that doesn't make it is part of a large, 11, 12 team majority.

Now suppose instead that 6 teams make the Dance, on average, and you don't. In that case about half the coaches are in and about half are out. I submit that failing to make the Dance puts a coach in a more precarious situation when half the teams make the Dance.

For schools like UD it should be easier because we're always right at the edge. But for programs that are always mid-pack A10, failing to make a 96 team field year-after-year will be tolerated less than failing to make a 64 team field.

Just an opinion.

Fudd · #70 04-05-2010, 06:49 PM

I would submit that the half of the A10 that doesn't make the tournament regularly with the 96 team field is not that interested in making their coaching job a high pressure postion in the first place.

I think Richmond, Dayton, Temple, UMass, GW, Rhode Island and Saint Louis look like the main benefactors in the near future.

sheg · #71 04-05-2010, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by xubrew

this is actually one of the ideas they're looking at.

one idea would be to give conferences the option of exempting the first place finisher from playing in the conference tournament so as to not gobble up the second bid from that league. another proposal is that if the same team wins both the regular season and the tournament to just allow the conferences to give the second bid to the second place team.

Under that plan, there are two teams from every craptastic conference. One from each of them is bad enough, two would make the tournament unwatchable. Armpit State versus Kentucky is disgusting enough as a 1/16 game. Texas versus Northwest Central Eastern Maryland as a 9/24 game is downright evil.

Glen Clark · #72 04-05-2010, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by sheg

Under that plan, there are two teams from every craptastic conference. One from each of them is bad enough, two would make the tournament unwatchable. Armpit State versus Kentucky is disgusting enough as a 1/16 game. Texas versus Northwest Central Eastern Maryland as a 9/24 game is downright evil.

Sheg - you don't have to watch them. Not every first-round game will feature NCEM, or AS for that matter. And the Kentucky's of the basketball universe - the anointed, as it were - won't have a patsy for their tournament opener.
How can that not be good?

As an aside: Fudd, in honor of the Negative Waves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuSts...eature=related I've cleared my ignore list. The NIT Flyers have me in a state of irrational exuberance (of course, I reserve the right to restock it with unrepentant trolls).

xubrew · #73 04-06-2010, 12:37 AM

And the Kentucky's of the basketball universe - the anointed, as it were - won't have a patsy for their tournament opener.
How can that not be good?

well, for starters, kentucky would have actually made the field last season.

ChampCar · #74 04-06-2010, 01:24 AM

NCAA Expands March Madness To Include 4,096 Teams

San Diego Flyer · #75 04-06-2010, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by ChampCar

NCAA Expands March Madness To Include 4,096 Teams

I like 96, but that's still funny. Very funny if you listen close to the discussion.

A welcome diversion to the expansion thread.

ud2 · #76 04-06-2010, 10:46 AM

Do you posters think the 96 team format would help or hurt the chances of a smaller non-BCS team like Wright State to get into the tournament?

I think the 96 team format helps Wright State's chances, but a friend was trying to convince me that the 96 team format hurts Wright State's chances by arguing that the BCS schools will just gobble up the additional 31 bids.

No way. The more bids there are, the easier it will be for smaller non-BCS schools to get in. The RPI cutoff with a 96 team format will be around 61-66 instead of the cutoff being around 30-35 right now with the 65 team format.

Although, I agree that the BCS schools will now be less inclined to play a tough OOC schedule.

Fudd · #77 04-06-2010, 10:51 AM

I would love to see the history of the NIT and the teams that were included. You can almost just transpose those NIT teams into the NCAA now. You still had to have a decent season to go to the NIT.

http://www.nit.org/history/nit-posts...ticipants.html

Since 2000, we would have been added to the NCAA field (NIT particpant) in 2001, 2002, 2008 and 2010. So we would have been NCAA 6 of 10 seasons with maybe one 1st round bye?

So after expansion, I guess my expectation going forward would be that if we go through another rebuilding period, for whatever reason, and drop into the bottom half of the A10, we most likely will miss the NCAA tournament in those years. The way that Brian Gregory has the program rolling now, I would say that I am pretty confident that we will be on an NCAA run in the next few years at least, especially if Wright is back this year.

I didn't see Wright State on the NIT list of participants. When was the last time they were in the NIT?

TerryK_67 · #78 04-06-2010, 11:22 AM

I just cannot imagine too much interest in # 33 playing # 96 - for the right to get pasted by #1! This is a BAD move - driven by the money grubbing NCAA!
The BCS conferences will likely gobble up the extra bids anyway!
What do you think the likelihood of a non-BCS team being in the top 32 is????? So this will be a huge play-in series to get the privilege to play a BCS team that is well rested....

Fudd · #79 04-06-2010, 11:27 AM

I don't see #33 getting pasted by #1. If #33 were to meet #1 during the regular season on a neutral floor, I'm sure it would be a very entertaining game.

Just look at tournament history to see how often non-BCS are in the top 32 seeds.

ud2 · #80 04-06-2010, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Fudd

I didn't see Wright State on the NIT list of participants. When was the last time they were in the NIT?

Wright State has never been in the NIT. My point is that Wright State has a much better chance right now of getting into the NIT vs. getting into the NCAA tournament. With a 96 team format, you are essentially taking the NIT teams and adding them to the NCAA tournament. So, therefore, Wright State would have an easier time getting into the NCAA tournament with a 96 team format.

With a 96 team format, I am hoping that the Gem City Jam can be restarted also.

daytonflyers · #81 04-06-2010, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by TerryK_67

I just cannot imagine too much interest in # 33 playing # 96 - for the right to get pasted by #1! This is a BAD move - driven by the money grubbing NCAA!
The BCS conferences will likely gobble up the extra bids anyway!
What do you think the likelihood of a non-BCS team being in the top 32 is????? So this will be a huge play-in series to get the privilege to play a BCS team that is well rested....

In reality, this makes the the "real" first round much better. Would you rather watch the 65th best team play #1, or the 34th best team play number 1?

With the new setup, the current 14, 15, and 16 seeds would be eliminated before the true tournament starts. Obviously, some upsets will happen in the new first round, but this system will lead to the best 64 teams squaring off.

My question is, how will it be scheduled? Is the first round on Tuesday, then there is a quick turnaround for Thursday? If this is the case, those without the buy are at a serious disadvantage. In this way, Dayton could be hurt. 3 of the last 4 times we made the tourney, we were lower than an 8 seed, which means we would have to play in the first round.

San Diego Flyer · #82 04-06-2010, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by daytonflyers

In reality, this makes the the "real" first round much better. Would you rather watch the 65th best team play #1, or the 34th best team play number 1?

With the new setup, the current 14, 15, and 16 seeds would be eliminated before the true tournament starts. Obviously, some upsets will happen in the new first round, but this system will lead to the best 64 teams squaring off.

.

This is exactly the way I also see it.

Upsets in the first round? Sure.
Better overall second round games? Check.
Better chance to upset a #1 seed? You bet.

LowesFlyer · #83 04-06-2010, 04:23 PM

A few thoughts:

1. One thing that I haven't seen mentioned on here is the NCAA's rationale for making this expansion for reasons other than monetary value. I do not have the numbers (and frankly, don't want to do the research), but I am working in an NCAA athletics office as we speak. One of the primary reasons for tournament expansion concerns the proportion of Division 1 programs and the number of teams involved in NCAA (note: highlight there is NCAA (not NIT)) postseason play. Out of all Division 1 sports, the percentage of baseketball teams playing in tournament play is significantly lower than any other sports. Thus, expanding the tournament helps to remedy the discrepancy.

2. The biggest problem I have is the fact that the #9 seed and #24 seed play the 8 seed in the second round, while the #16/#17 seed plays the #1 seed. I think this system needs to be tinkered a bit. However, I have no idea how this could happen. But I do know that I would not think it is fair for a #1 seed to play a (Dayton, VA Tech, Illinois) in the first round of the tournament, while the #8 seed potentially plays the equivalent of a Winthrop or Ark Pine-Bluff this year. To me, this problem can't be remedied unless you up the teams to 128 and have the #1 play the #32... which no one, including me... wants to see.

xubrew · #84 04-06-2010, 04:54 PM

My question is, how will it be scheduled?

the proposed scheduling model is:

-round of 96 (thurs/fri)
-round of 64 (sat/sun)
-round of 32 (tues/wed)
-sweet sixteen (thurs/fri)
-elite eight (sat/sun)
-final four/championship (sat/mon)

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned on here is the NCAA's rationale for making this expansion for reasons other than monetary value. I do not have the numbers (and frankly, don't want to do the research), but I am working in an NCAA athletics office as we speak

they have not released a plan or explanation as to how they will share the revenue if they expand. i can only conclude that the reason they have not released it yet is because they don't know how they're going to do it themselves. it's quite possible that a lot of leagues will actually walk away with less money. they'll be more money overall, but there will be 96 teams instead of 64, which means smaller pieces. conferences whose teams are the traditional one-and-dones will probably end up with less if their one and done takes place in the round of 96 rather than the round of 64.

Fan4allUDSports · #85 04-06-2010, 05:16 PM

How does this affect the other sports? Does women's bball expand to 96 as well? What about Volleyball? There seems to be a magic about this number, since many use this format. Of the ones who don't the only one that doesn't make any sense is men's soccer. I know football is a different beast(money, bowl history, etc.) as well as the format of baseball. But, if we expand to 96 in men's bball would we not see an expansion in other sports as well?

xubrew · #86 04-06-2010, 05:22 PM

men's soccer only has about 200 teams. the rest that you mentioned that take 64 teams all have over 300 members.

fbs football, i believe, has the smallest percentage of teams.

Fan4allUDSports · #87 04-06-2010, 06:06 PM

Thanks for the info on men's soccer. Did not know that they had so few. Still begs to question, if they expand the tourney in bball to include more, will we see an icrease in other sports?

xubrew · #88 04-06-2010, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Fan4allUDSports

Thanks for the info on men's soccer. Did not know that they had so few. Still begs to question, if they expand the tourney in bball to include more, will we see an icrease in other sports?

it's a good question. each sport has it's own championship committee (not necessarily the selection committee, but the faction of the ncaa league office that is in charge of running it), so it would sort of be up to them. for the non-revenue sports (everything except men's basketball) it would cost more money to fund, and that may possibly prevent it from happening. however, it's not an impossibility. my instinct is that none of them will look to expand anytime soon, though. i'm still not entirely convinced men's basketball will. i have, however, gone from thinking it was so unlikely that it was virtually possible, to now thinking it is very possible.

jumpin' joe · #89 04-06-2010, 07:20 PM

More of the same criticizing the proposed 96 team field, but I like the picture in the article a lot.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...am-bracket/rss

San Diego Flyer · #90 04-06-2010, 07:31 PM

There we go again. More press from the NIT win. It has been bestowed on us from unusual sources and strange ways, but that NIT trip has been very good press.

UACFlyer · #91 04-06-2010, 08:05 PM

SDF is right.....the exposure was terrific....better, actually than had we been in the Dance. FOUR nationally televised games over about two weeks. When has that ever happened in the history of Flyer BB? Never, I'm betting.

As for the 96 debate...such nonsense. It's as if there were really eleven commandments, one of which proclaimed: "The NCAA tournament shall have 64/65 teams; thou shalt not propose another number".

Good grief!

San Diego Flyer · #92 04-06-2010, 08:19 PM

And it's not like we never expanded before. Will there be unanticipated dynamics with 96? Of course. But it will breathe a little fresh air into the process.

xubrew · #93 04-06-2010, 09:44 PM

As for the 96 debate...such nonsense. It's as if there were really eleven commandments, one of which proclaimed: "The NCAA tournament shall have 64/65 teams; thou shalt not propose another number".

uac, you talk as if people who are against expansion are against it for this reason. it's at 65 now, and therefore they mindlessly want it to say there. most who are adamantly against it are not against it just because. they actually have VERY legitimate reasons and no one is directly addressing them. (and i don't mean you. i mean the ncaa).

-it's not nonsense that a plan for revenue sharing has not been presented. maybe if they presented one that was sensible and that didn't create an even bigger discrepancy between the top and the bottom, i'd be more in favor of it. the way it looks now i fear that several conferences are going to end up with less....both directly and indirectly because of this.

-it's not nonsense that it keeps the players away from class longer, even though they said it wouldn't. it will, and everybody knows it. for starters, in their missed class proposal, it was presented as if the only days the players would miss is the days of their actual games. that simply isn't true. teams that advance as far as the regionals would be gone for nearly two weeks, and this is the sport that is scrutenized the most for it's academic performance.

-it's not nonsense that it would force deserving teams (most of whom are non-bcs teams) to play an extra game to qualify for a round that they would otherwise be in simply to make room for more less accomplished teams and give them the same opportunity. it's not about giving more teams a chance. it's about giving an additional chance to teams that blew their first and second chances and putting them on equal status with the teams that actually took advantage of their chances.

-it's not nonsense that it could potentially damage the conference tournaments for leagues that genuinely depend on them to fund not just basketball, but the championships and tournaments for all their sports. this ties into several leagues potentially getting less revenue as well.

-it's not nonsense that it waters the season down.

-it's not nonsense that it will impact non conference scheduling in a bad way.

-it's not nonsense to be concerned that casual fans will be less likely to tune in to the opening round. i think you'd have ratings that bore a stronger resemblance to the opening round of the big twelve tournament than to the current first round of the ncaa tournament.

people that are against it are against it for legitimate reasons. it's not just because they feel 64 is a magic number. it's very reasonable and informed to fear that this change will cost way more than what it gains. whether your for expansion or against it, you have to at least acknowledge that. as for the people that are being dismissive and saying "well, they just think 64 is a magic number" THAT is what is nonsense. to want the field to expand because you want it to be easier for your team to get in is also nonsense.

yes, they've expanded the tournament before, but that was a different time and different circumstance. the revenue that it generated and the way div1 membership depended on it wasn't the same as it is now. they weren't a substantial number of programs and conferences that were faced with the possibility of having less access and less money to operate with. by "access" i don't just mean inclusion into the field. i mean to the mainstream sports market and to the revenue it provides. robert morris earning a #23 seed and playing against #10 seed old dominion on thursday afternoon in the city of cleveland is not the same as playing villanova in the modern ncaa tournament structure. not even close.

i haven't really mentioned how i feel it ruins the product yet, and as big of a concern as that is, it really isn't the biggest one that most people within intercollegiate athletics have. however, on that note, i do believe in the concept of a sweet spot, and i think college basketball is nailing better than any other sport. you could have too many, or you could have too few. yes, the field has expanded before, but that was because there were too few teams and weren't hitting the sweet spot. the reason i don't want it to expand now is the same reason i think it was a good thing for them to expand before. you'd have too many teams. you'd be outside the sweet spot. i think it's perfect the way it is, and that's what scares me. the ncaa is like that kid from the goonies. rarely do they touch something and not screw it up.

SideshowBob · #94 04-06-2010, 10:16 PM

That all sounds like nonsense to me.

UACFlyer · #95 04-06-2010, 10:58 PM

Brew, this is not brain surgery, rocket science, the search for a cancer cure.... It's about basketball.

All these earth shaking "non-sensical" issues you raise are trivial in the grand scheme of things. And, they could have been said (and probably were) when the tournament went from 48 to 64, and from 40 to 48, and from 32 to 40,....or whatvever the actual screwball increments were.

This is about a game brew,....a college sport.

Flyer'95 · #96 04-06-2010, 11:59 PM

Will you guys still be for 96 teams if the first round is on the home court of the favored team (i.e., the bcs team)?

Will you guys still like the expansion when the underdog will be playing their third game in 5 days vs. a favored team that will only be playing their 2nd game in three days? I felt like in the kstate/butler game, kstate visibly ran out of gas due to the double OT vs. X. That's no fault of butler's, but I think that playing that many games in that few days will have a similar effect vs. a team that hasn't had to do it. It goes against what the tourney is about.

It's consciously creating an unfair playing field. I think it's a big mistake. I'd almost rather 128 teams than to have anybody get a bye or the possibility of anybody getting a home-court game.

There's no doubt in my mind that BCS teams will be even LESS likely to schedule meaningful non-con games. Why should they? They don't really need to prove anything anymore. They're rpi and sos from their conference play alone will virtually guarantee that 80% of them make the tourney. The regular season will not only have less meaning, the games and the opponents will be worse. And it's hard to believe that a lot of BCS teams could schedule worse than they currently do, but they will.

I also can't wait to see the percentage of BCS teams that just happen to 'earn' a bye.

xubrew · #97 04-07-2010, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

Brew, this is not brain surgery, rocket science, the search for a cancer cure.... It's about basketball.

All these earth shaking "non-sensical" issues you raise are trivial in the grand scheme of things. And, they could have been said (and probably were) when the tournament went from 48 to 64, and from 40 to 48, and from 32 to 40,....or whatvever the actual screwball increments were.

This is about a game brew,....a college sport.

that's the thing uac. it's actually about more than that. it's about revenue sharing, operating budgets, missed class, scheduing, etc. most people don't find those matters to be trivial, nonsensical issues. you wouldn't say it was trivial if you were an athletic department that relied on that money as a major means to running your operation and were suddenly faced with the real possibility of having less to work with. that's not only not seeing the big picture, it's failing to realize that a picture is even there. that's honestly like telling people that their salary is trivial, and that they shouldn't worry about a decision that could result in them making less.

when the tournament expanded before, there weren't the same concerns because no one was being faced with having less of anything. that is not the case now. expansion now and expansion in the 1980s isn't even like comparing apples to oranges. at least apples and oranges are both round pieces of fruit that are similiar in size and that grow on trees. it's more like comparing apples to celery. you cannot even point to that because it has so little relevance. what it means now and what it meant thirty years ago aren't at all the same.

...and if it makes so much sense, and it's better for everyone (and maybe it is), why are they side stepping every single direct question and concern that is being raised?? if that doesn't raise concern, i don't know what the hell does.

San Diego Flyer · #98 04-07-2010, 10:32 AM

Who votes on this change to 96? Is it the NCAA governing body? All AD's? Who and how many?

UACFlyer · #99 04-07-2010, 10:42 AM

Brew, you are making it sound as if the remaining uncertainties threaten all of college athletics.

At 64 only about 20% of Div 1 teams participate...and not the same ones each year. The percentage will be approaximately3 30% at 96,...again, not the same ones each year.

For the programs that really do make it each year,...BCS, for the most part,...the revenue from the Dance is certainly no big deal compared to other sources.

Playing on the higher seeds home court, if that happens,....playing at Cincy and Illinois didn't seem to bother the Flyers, a notoriously poor road team.

Missing class? Give me a break!

As for sidestepping concerns....it's not because of a conspiracy. The details simply have yet to be worked out. Legitimate concerns will be dealt with;...and I'll bet that when they are you'll be satisfied. (If you want to be concerned about details brew, think about the new health care bill!)

Brew, the guys that aree responsible for making this work are as concerned about continued success of the Dance as you are,....they will benefit from input from every imaginable source,....then will finalize details. Until that happens, there is no need for hand wringing or worry.

xubrew · #**100** 04-07-2010, 12:31 PM

i agree that they're not sidestepping concerns because of a conspiracy. i think they're doing it because they don't have any good answers, or simply don't know and are going to try and rush into it anyway. it wouldn't be the first time they've used a sledge hammer to try and fix a screw. if anything, that seems to be commonplace over there. i fear that they're so anxious to jump to a new tv deal that they're not even taking the time to look into whether or not it even makes sense.

Legitimate concerns will be dealt with

the ncaa?? well, i guess there is a first time for everything.