64 or 96 NCAA Tournament teams
- Thread starter SC Cy
- Start date
68, one play in game to go against each of the number 1 seeds. That way a couple more decent teams can get into the tournament. But in no way 96 teams.
over half of the eligible teams get bowl games - at least this is tournament style and still nowhere near 50%.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Unless the play-in game involves two at-large teams from major conferences that actually did have their shot and couldn't get it done. I hate having teams that took the time to qualify for the tournament get stuck playing each other in this play-in game.
96 teams would be horrible.
Unfortunately it is looking like this might actually happen. I hate it and so do all of my friends. Who cares about picking the winner of Oral Roberts vs. San Diego State in the opening round?
No, as it is now every team is in the tournament. The conference tournaments make it so every team has a shot. You can go 0-16 in the Big 12 and still have a chance at the dance.
I'll bet you anything 2-3 yrs after the change it will still be the "big dance" and everybody will still love it.
ok ... so every team is in the NC hunt for football too - whats your point?
It's not a true tourney for all the teams as they are seeded by conferences and not by percieved strengh (as the 65 teams currently are).
I think it needs to stay at 64 too.
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany: Tourney expansion 'probable' - ESPN
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany: Tourney expansion 'probable' - ESPN
The only reason I would like it is because of mid major teams like UNI and butler (mainly UNI) that would not make the tournament if they did not win their conference tournament. Other than that the only reason I would want it to expand is more basketball.
I say stick with the 65 team field. In any given year there are really only 1 or 2 teams that have a legitimate gripe as to why they were left out of the field anyway. Expanding the field to 96 will only water down the competition overall and will also give the top seeded teams a chance to rest and scout their opponents which I feel gives them an unfair advantage. Do we really want to see the power leagues getting an extra 20 at large bids so the teams in those leagues that finished in the bottom half of the standings make the tournament?
This will also take away the relevance of strength of schedule and RPI rankings. Should Virginia Tech who had over 20 wins make the tournament with a non conference RPI in the 300's? Do they deserve to be rewarded for playing one of the weakest non conference schedules in the country? Expand the tournament and there will be no reason for power conference schools to play any non conference games against quality mid major schools or any other quality power conference schools.
Did anyone miss watching UNC play in the NCAA tournament? They had an awful season but most certainly would have gotten a bid in an expanded field. That would have been a total disgrace.
This will also take away the relevance of strength of schedule and RPI rankings. Should Virginia Tech who had over 20 wins make the tournament with a non conference RPI in the 300's? Do they deserve to be rewarded for playing one of the weakest non conference schedules in the country? Expand the tournament and there will be no reason for power conference schools to play any non conference games against quality mid major schools or any other quality power conference schools.
Did anyone miss watching UNC play in the NCAA tournament? They had an awful season but most certainly would have gotten a bid in an expanded field. That would have been a total disgrace.
Expanding to 96 is ridiculous. The tournament already includes every team that has a legitimate chance at winning it. Other decent teams are able to play in tournaments like the NIT. The only possible reason to expand is money, which of course means that it will probably happen.
Yes, sadly none of GMs 1st 4 teams would have been included in a 96 team tournament.
Yes its all about money. New television contract up next year. The NCAA is not going to get as much per game with ad revenue down with the poor economy. The solution of course is more games.
I hate the idea of 96. Hate it. There's no way that teams 65-96 have any real shot at a title, and it only waters things down more. Don't fix what isn't broken, and if they do, it's purely a money grab. Eventually, things like this will make it that much easier to use to justify paying the players.
You just nailed two great points. You think the mid-majors complain about not being able to schedule the high-majors now...this could get ugly. We are going to see more and more schedules like Virginia Tech had this season.
Last night Roy Williams apologized for the bad basketball...and they are in the NIT finals! Yeah, let's include more teams where coaches are embarrassed by the quality of basketball...:no: