I don't mind going to 96 teams as long as the conference champions don't have to play in the opening round of 32 games. Basically, I would like it if those extra 32 teams were only at-large bids.
64 or 96 NCAA Tournament teams
- Thread starter SC Cy
- Start date
I'd rather not make the 64 team tournament field than make the 96 team field with a stellar 17-14 record.
Yep.... I know I will tune in to ESPN to watch that early season tourney in Maui with matchups like Chaminade vs. Savannah State, Chicago State vs. IUPUI, etc.... Why would any major program even want to go there when they can just stay at home and play their local D-II schools instead? How awesome will it be when the Top 25 rankings come out a few days prior to conference play beginning and every single ranked team is undefeated?
How many teams whose seed falls into the 32-65 range are teams that actually earned their way in by winning their conference tournament?
I won't, but my daughter will, so it will still be on in our house. I'm stubborn.
Two great points, among those I use to argue against expansion.
People who argue for expansion under the guise of "fairness" tend to forget, the 65-team field isn't really a 65-team format — it's 34 of the best teams and 31 automatic qualifiers (in reality, it's 40/25, because the BCS conference champion is almost always going to get in).
So you're already getting the top 40 teams. If you're Team 41 and were left out, and you think Team 39 is no better, well, that's a bummer, but there were 31-plus games to play your way into it.
On top of that, few at-large teams below the top 25 even *make the Final Four* (let alone win the title). Fewer than 10 in a quarter-century, is it? Two 11 seeds, three or four 8's, a couple of 6's? Almost none of the "expanded 32" would ever make a serious run.
The current 31/34 format is a nice balance between (1) rewarding regular-season success and (2) a fair playoff to determine a champion.
I would love to expand to 96 - it's better for teams, schools, and their fans. Over 90% of the NCAA's revenue comes from the this basketball tournament. If the schools are going to financially support the NCAA through this tournament, there should be more teams given the chance to compete in it.
More upsets, more games - this is a slam dunk.
More upsets, more games - this is a slam dunk.
No seed below a 5 has ever won the tournament. So going to 96 is purely a money grab, as well as an attempt to kill the NIT.
I do like the opportunity, however of allowing both regular season and tournament champions an automatic bid. I think Miller/Deace talked about that recently.
Regardless, by adding more teams, you are not going to crown a champion that wouldn't already be one of the top 5 seeds anyway.
I do like the opportunity, however of allowing both regular season and tournament champions an automatic bid. I think Miller/Deace talked about that recently.
Regardless, by adding more teams, you are not going to crown a champion that wouldn't already be one of the top 5 seeds anyway.
It will effectively ruin the tournament. It's all about the matchups. It is fun to watch matchups like Wofford vs. Wisconsin, Sam Houston State vs. Baylor, Robert Morris vs. Villanova, etc.... because it is exciting to see the little guys go up against some of the best teams in D-1 and see if they can play with them. Who wants to watch Wofford vs. the 9th place team in the ACC, Big 10, or Big XII?
Why will it get rid of those types of matchups though? Once you get back to 64 after the first set of games you'll be right back where we are now, right?
It will guarantee less upsets. The mid major schools will rarely qualify for a "protected seed" that gets a bye in the 1st round. Thus the better schools will be more rested and have more time to prepare for them if they manage to win their first round game anyway. Chances are most of them will get knocked out in the 1st round or will advance to play a more rested big school who will have had extra time to scout them. This formula will lead to more upsets?
