Proposed 96 team NCAA Tournament bracket; for or against?

Estil · April 4, 2010 9:54PM

For those of you who haven't heard, the NCAA is proposing (perhaps as early as next season) a 96 team NCAA tournament bracket. This would make quadrants of 24 teams each with the top eight seeds in each quadrant getting first round byes. It'll be the first true expansion of the bracket since 1985 when we started the 64 bracket (that play-in game gimmick doesn't count). Now the question is, are you for it or against it? Here's the pros and cons I can think of:

+ Would eliminate the unnecessary and outdated losers tournament, eh, I mean NIT since it just so happens the expanded NCAA tournament format of 96 teams would be 32 more teams--the same number that go to the NIT.

+ Gives automatic bids to both conference tournament AND conference regular season champions; this would give the regular season (especially the last few weeks) more meaning. The fact that you can earn a first round bye also gives the regular season more meaning.

+ NEW TYPE of automatic bid; teams that win BOTH the conference tournament AND regular season automatically get a bye (seed no lower than 8). Even if all 30 conferences with tournaments get this "double automatic bid", that still leave two at-larges to spare.

+ Eliminates that stupid gimmicky play-in game, which I'm sure the losing team of that game must feel cheated and not feel like they got in the REAL NCAA tournament field.

- How the heck do you fit a 96 team bracket on a standard sheet of 8.5x11 paper??? This may sound silly to bring up at first but what do most people enjoy about the NCAA Tournament? Why doing your office pool of course! But that could be quite cumbersome to try to fit a 96 team bracket on a standard sheet of paper.

- You know how part of the fun of Selection Sunday is the "bubble" teams and wondering which will get in or not? With a 96 team field, this would greatly reduce if not almost eliminate any "bubble watching" as we know it, or am I wrong?

Now, where do I stand on this issue? Well, to be very honest (and please don't think I'm copping out), I'm not really sure...

Connecticoin · April 4, 2010 11:34PM

Against. Keep the losers in the Losers Tournament.

It's probably going to happen, though. So every Major conference team with a .500 or better record will be in. Thrillsville!

Michigan · April 4, 2010 11:34PM

The whole purpose of doing this is a money grab for the NCAA, it allows them to sell the tournament for
a higher price to a network because they have more games to show.

It does get rid of that silly play in game but I'm not sure the trade off of 32 more teams is really worth it.

Will having a lot more marginal teams generate more fan interest or just be more confusing in filling out a bracket?

I'm of the general opinion if something is not broke don't fix it.

sagard · April 4, 2010 11:36PM

Six team sub-regionals will be even more fun than the current format. This will lead to a #1 seed losing in their first game within five years. I think it will be awesome, but I like the early round games better than the final eight.

frankhardy · April 5, 2010 12:08AM

No one is complaining about the current format of the NCAA basketball tournament, yet they are probably going to change it. Everybody is complaining about the NCAA football format and would love an 8 team tournament and to get rid of the stupid bowl system, yet that will not get done in a million years.

My motto in life - if something makes sense, it probably won't get done, and vice versa.

larryallen73 · April 5, 2010 12:28AM

Well, I remember when it was 48 teams. Some of you remember when it was 32 and even less.... Each time the tourney increased it has gotten BETTER. I thus assume 4 or 5 years from now we will love the 96 team tourney. Then they will add a "play in game" or two and before you know it we will be at 128!

metsfan · April 5, 2010 1:57AM

Sounds like there will be 32 teams with bye's, how do they determine that? It will be interesting to see what rules they come up with to determine the 96 teams. It sounds like it's basically a tournament in a tournament- 32 first round round bye's and 64 other teams.

SanctionII · April 5, 2010 6:44AM

Clearly money is the motivating factor in any NCAA expansion of the men's hoops tournament to 96 teams (and then to 128 teams just to be fair and not give first round byes to the top 32 teams).

From a purely basketball point of view, I do not think that the NCAA should expand to 96 teams (eliminate the 64-65 play in game also, what is that about?) until at least one (I prefer five or more) #16 seed beats a #1 seed in the opening round of games. Expanding the tourney to 96 games just means that the quality of play in the tourney is going to drop.

Of course, a more radical alternative would be to shorten the regular season to where it ends in mid February, scrap the conference tournaments and have an "Open", truly national tournament.

Let every Division 1 team into the national tournament, regardless of record. For the second half of February, all of March and the first Saturday and Monday in April all teams will play for a chance to win the national title.

This would give all teams a chance to be the champion and would create multiple cinderella stories that would captivate the nation in general and many small towns that are home to a small D-1 school.

Do the same thing for NCAA womens D-1 Hoops, along with men's and women's Division 2 and Division 3, along with the NAIA.

Sort of like what happens in some midwest high school basketball tournaments [i.e. Indiana, ala "Hoosiers"]

markj111 · April 5, 2010 6:45AM

I remember when it was 16. You had to win your conference to get in (if you were in a conference). The regular season meant something then. How many of you remember Marquette (who would have been a #1 seed) rejecting the NCAA for the NIT because the NCAA was going to send them out west?

ddfamf · April 5, 2010 1:23PM

Against. This is only a step to a 128-team tourney.

TomGshotput · April 5, 2010 1:41PM

It seems the vast majority of people are against it. Yet the vast majority of people will still watch

TomGshotput · April 5, 2010 1:45PM

<< The whole purpose of doing this is a money grab for the NCAA, it allows them to sell the tournament for
a higher price to a network because they have more games to show >>

Or multiple networks. And if money was never offered as an incentive, there would be no games on TV at all, ever

sagard · April 5, 2010 1:57PM

<< It seems the vast majority of people are against it. Yet the vast majority of people will still watch >>

Because that first weekend would be an incredible blood bath. Surviving a six team sub-regional would be a huge accomplishment. Basketball week would be awesome. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

Let's go to 96 for next year!

jdip9 · April 5, 2010 10:39PM

It seems the vast majority of people are against it. Yet the vast majority of people will still watch

People watch because they have money riding on it. Period. It has nothing to do with the quality of the product.

It's the same reason that the NFL has become the most popular sport in the U.S. Between internet sports betting, fantasy football, suicide pools, even the casual fan has skin in the game. They don't even have to be all that knowledgable about football to enjoy partaking in those activities. Same thing with the NCAA tournament. Most people don't give a rat's a$$ about college basketball except for 3 weeks in March, when they fill out a bracket and put some money on the line.

Expanding the field to 96 or 128 only means that there are 32 or 64 teams in the tournament that have no shot of winning it. Sure these extra teams might pull off an upset or two, but they will never win it....In the 25 years of the 64-team field, the lowest seed to win it has been a #8 seed (Villanova), and only twice has a team lower than a #4 seed won it.

Pure and simple, it's a money grab by the NCAA. If they could figure out how to get more money from a football tourament, they'd do it in a second.

Barndog · April 5, 2010 11:06PM

I'm for it only if the NCAA also starts a playoff system for football's national championship

TomGshotput · April 6, 2010 1:48AM

<< People watch because they have money riding on it. Period. It has nothing to do with the quality of the product. >>

Anyone who wants can have money riding on regular season games, too. If the quality of the product has nothing to do with it, why do far fewer watch those games?

jdip9 · April 6, 2010 10:20AM

Anyone who wants can have money riding on regular season games, too.

The casual fan, or more importantly, the person who watches ZERO college basketball, will NOT open up a online gambling account or call a bookie to get action on the game.

They will, however, give their co-worker $10 to fill out a bracket for the company office pool. Therein lies the popularity of the tournament. If participation in office pools carried a 1-year jail sentence (if caught), the TV ratings would be slashed in half, if not more, I promise.

In fact, you can look at the popularity of all the sports/events in the U.S. and rank them by how easily casual fans can participate via some form of gambling:

1. NFL
2. March Madness
3. MLB
4. NBA
5. NHL

estang · April 6, 2010 10:54PM

estang · April 6, 2010 10:55PM

I'm for it only if they give the players juice boxes and Teddy Graham crackers after each game, regardless of whether they win or not.

TomGshotput · April 7, 2010 2:26AM

<< will NOT open up a online gambling account or call a bookie to get action on the game.

They will, however, give their co-worker $10 to fill out a bracket for the company office pool. >>

How many college basketball games are there on a weekend in February? Someone could easily set up a $10 office pool using those games. The reason they don't is because the product is not the same

Like the Super Bowl and NFL, people watch March Madness because they gamble on it

Also like the Super Bowl and NFL, they gamble on it because it is a good product, unique and marketed well.

Adding 31 extra games will not deflate that quality and uniqueness enough to turn viewers away. Therefore, selling 31 extra games that people can gamble on and watch makes complete sense

MajorDanby · April 7, 2010 3:23AM

<< Adding 31 extra games will not deflate that quality and uniqueness enough to turn viewers away. Therefore, selling 31 extra games that people can gamble on and watch makes complete sense >>

You're probably right. This is all about money and all about entertaining. Jim Boeheim and Gary Williams talk about expansion for the purposes of the "scholar-athlete." Let them have the chance the play for a championship...it's all about experiences and having fun. Denying a kid to play for a championship takes away from their "scholar athlete" experience, so these coaches say.

Fine. Most fans of college basketball dont really care about the statistical properties that underlie what a fair and unbiased championship playoff/tournament should look like. More teams = more fans involved = more buzz around college campuses. And more importantly, more tickets being sold, more souvenirs to be sold, more advertisements and more money. Most people dont care that more teams = less "statistical fairness" in the tournament. In a dream world, i would have either a fair tournament where a true champion is crowned....or, a tournament that "lets everybody and their moms in," but is explicitly stated that the team who wins really shouldnt be considered the best team. Coach K shouldnt be heaped with loads of praise for producing championship teams. There shouldnt be so much pressure on kids and coaches to win a "championship" that doesnt really reflect the strength of the team.

Mickey71 · April 7, 2010 4:00AM

against it

ziggy29 · April 8, 2010 1:44AM

Stupid, stupid, stupid. No team that's currently not in the field of 64 (65) has any credible claim to be worthy of competing for the championship. Making it 96 won't eliminate the controversy; we'll still just be arguing over which .500 team got "snubbed" by the committee.

This isn't the broken BCS. Any Division 1 team -- all of them -- controls their own fate; win the conference championship and you can play for the "national championship." That's all you can ask for. You don't get into the tourney, well, win your conference championship next time.

Estil · April 8, 2010 5:36AM

Here's something I don't think any of us took into consideration; how many Division I schools were there in 1985 (when the 64 field was made) compared to today (there's now 342 schools with seven transitioning into Division I within a few years)? After all, using MLB as an example, they did their major postseason expansions (1969 after the leagues getting 12 teams and 1994 after the NL got 14) in response to expansion. So if there is a far greater number of Division I schools now compared to back in 1995, then that would be another reason why a 96 team field would make sense. Even with a 96 team field, only 28% of Division I schools will make the NCAA tournament, so all these people saying it's like "everyone gets in" is completely false. To put that in perspective, it's not much different than the percentage of MLB teams who make their postseason (8/30 or 26%) and no one is saying (except maybe Bob Costas) that too many teams qualify for the MLB playoffs.

Basically, if the 96 field means getting rid of that idiotic play-in game I'm all for it.

baseballfan · April 9, 2010 12:34AM

against

Estil · April 26, 2010 9:09AM

Well, it looks like we're getting only a 68 team field. At least now the brackets are even again with a play-in game in all four quadrants. That I can live with.

coinkat · April 26, 2010 11:40AM

96 is just too much

Estil · March 29, 2011 5:15AM

Another idea that could be done with the 96 team field; teams that win BOTH the conference regular season and conference tournament championships automatically get a bye (and thus a seed no lower than 8). This gives the "mid-majors" a fair shot at not only making the field, but also getting decent seeding.

larryallen73 · March 29, 2011 8:34AM

VCU making it's way to the Final Four show there are more teams capable of winning the whole tourney since they were #66 or 67 this year! Like it or not we are heading to a bigger tourney soon!

Brick · March 29, 2011 10:09AM

How about a 32 team double elimination tournament?

SanctionII · March 29, 2011 10:47AM

How about the NCAA expands the field to 256 (or all 345 D-1) teams and do what the NAIA has done with its national tournament for decades.

Specifically, have the tournament start on a given day and play one round each and every day until a champion is crowned.

The NAIA (at least when I played NAIA small college hoops in the 1970's) held a national 32 team tournament in March at Kemper Arena in Kansas City. Day one had 16 games, day two had 8 games, day three had 4 games, day four had 2 games and day five had 1 game to decide the championship. To win the title you had to play and win five games in five days. It was madness I tell ya.

jdip9 · March 30, 2011 8:25AM

<<<VCU making it's way to the Final Four show there are more teams capable of winning the whole tourney since they were #66 or 67 this year! Like it or not we are heading to a bigger tourney soon!>>>

There have been other double digit seeds to make the Final 4, and there were no cries to expand the field. However, I think you are right and that the powers that be will see a mid-major in the championship for the 2nd straight year, and think it is a great time to expand the tournament, under the guise that "anyone can win". All expansion does in my eyes, is cheapen an already semi-meaningless regular season, and make the conference tournaments all but worthless.

If they expand (and I hope they don't), I hope they are smart enough to not have "play in" or "1st round" games on Tuesday after Selection Sunday, because that will completely ruin their ratings, since not enough people will find the time to fill out a bracket on such short notice. Add to the fact that everyone's brackets will be busted at Final 4 time since there will more opputunity for upsets, and it will be a recipe for ratings disaster.

There are too many chances for the law of unintended consequences to come into play.

Estil · April 3, 2011 3:27AM

Bascially I just have a feeling that the "First Four" gimmick was only a trial run and the NCAA has every intention of making a 96 team field anyway. I mean, we've had the 64 team field now for over 25 years, so maybe it is time to make it a 96 team field. I do think it'd be cool to have the three types of automatic bids like I suggested:

* The usual bid for winning the conference tournament
* Winning the regular season conference championship (which currently gets you an automatic NLT bid if you don't make the NCAA's; these automatic bids would be transfered over to the 96 team NCAA field with the NLT being disbanded)
* Winning BOTH of the above gets you an automatic bye; thus a seed no worse than 8; with the so-called "mid majors" becoming more and more competitive over the past several years, I think it's about time they finally get a fair chance at decent seeding. With 32 teams in the field getting a bye, and with 30 D-I conferences with a conference tournament (and the Ivy League which doesn't have one), there's enough slots for these "double automatic bids" with 1-2 to spare even if EVERY conference gets one (not very likely obviously).

But above all else, no more of these stupid play-in or First Four gimmicks and especially no more of the NLT that no one cares about.

Brick · April 3, 2011 4:45AM

I have an idea that will expand the tournament and give more prestige to the NIT. Allow the winner of the NIT to play the winner of the NCAA for a true National Champion. In years past this game would be a rout. Now I'm not so sure the NIT winner couldn't pull it off.

Estil · April 3, 2011 8:02AM

<< I have an idea that will expand the tournament and give more prestige to the NIT. Allow the winner of the NIT to play the winner of the NCAA for a true National Champion. In years past this game would be a rout. Now I'm not so sure the NIT winner couldn't pull it off. >>

Didn't they used to do that years ago?

SanctionII · April 3, 2011 8:33AM

I seek to recall that in the 1940's the NCAA Champion did play the NIT Champion, at least for a year or two. The NIT was the big name post season tournament for many years, until it was eventually surpassed by the NCAA tournament.

Do you remember in the 1960's when the NCAA tournament consisted of a field of 16 teams? Out in the West, that meant that UCLA was pretty much the only Western team that made to tournament, leaving out in the cold some other very good teams from the West.

jdip9 · April 3, 2011 11:23PM

I could be wrong but don't believe the two tourney winners played to determine a champion - the NIT was the recognized championship tournament.

I liken the expansion of the NCAA tournament to the World Series of Poker. All expansion does make it increasingly likely that the best team will not win the tournament. And just like how I don't care who wins the WSOP when there are 9 no-names at the final table, I won't care when my bracket is busted and George Mason, Old Dominion, Butler and VCU are in the Final 4.

Proposed 96 team NCAA Tournament bracket; for or against?

Comments