Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

64 or 96 NCAA Tournament teams

How many teams do you want in the NCAA Tournament?

  • Total voters
    191
3TrueFans said:
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?
Click to expand...

True. Are we to assume that all of those mid major teams will advance out of the 1st round? I would guess that at least 50% of the mid major schools will get bounced in the 1st round. Thus there will be less of a presence and a much smaller chance that any of these teams will advance past the 2nd round. This will effectively kill the reason that so many people tune in for the first weekend of the tournament.

I religiously watch the 1st round games the first 2 days because it is exciting and has compelling matchups. There isn't anything compelling about Robert Morris playing Northwestern in the 1st round. What is compelling is watching Robert Morris take #2 seed Villanova down to the final seconds of OT in the 1st round. So Northwestern in this scenario beat Robert Morris and now we have Northwestern vs. Villanova.... Is there any compelling story there? Is there any buzz? You couldn't pay me to watch that game. If Northwestern wins is it a win to celebrate? Does it create headlines? Nobody would even care. :confused:
 
68 and thats it


im almost appaled others want 96 teams...
 
Isn't the NCAA concerned about the academic impact of expanding the tournament? After all, we can't have a football playoff because it might interfere with academics... :jimlad:

I wonder if and when the NCAA will stop pretending any of this is about anything but money...
 
Cyclonestate78 said:
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.
Click to expand...

well said.
 
I would much rather see a double elimination tournament than the field expanded. It would double the number of games played and length the tourney - hence more $ for the NCAA. It would make it easier for the best team to win it by hedging against off nights (see: KU/UNI, ISU/Hampton). And depending on how the tournament was structured, it could generate a lot more interesting matchups with about the same number of blow-out matchups.
 
synapticwave said:
I would much rather see a double elimination tournament than the field expanded. It would double the number of games played and length the tourney - hence more $ for the NCAA. It would make it easier for the best team to win it by hedging against off nights (see: KU/UNI, ISU/Hampton). And depending on how the tournament was structured, it could generate a lot more interesting matchups with about the same number of blow-out matchups.
Click to expand...

It has to be a "one and done" tourney though. That is what makes it so great. You get one chance to go out there and keep your season alive. Blow it and you are done. It builds the suspense. Nothing more clutch then a big shot, buzzer beaters, comeback wins, etc... when their season ends if they fail.
 
Last edited:
synapticwave said:
I would much rather see a double elimination tournament than the field expanded.
Click to expand...

If $ are the key factor, this makes as much sense as anything as far as TV cash ...

It seems like the downside in that regard is, most of the first-round high seed losers would be the highest-profile draws (such as Vanderbilt) so there might be limited interest (unless a lot of top-5 seeds fall in round 1).

But I looked at this season's tournament and here's my "projected" Consolation Elite 8:

Midwest: (8) UNLV vs. (3) Georgetown
West: (4) Vanderbilt vs. (10) Florida
East: (5) Temple vs. (6) Marquette
South: (9) Louisville vs. (7) Richmond

Although I might pick UTEP in the 4-12 bracket and maybe Siena would top Louisville. And ...

We'd have another entire tourney pool on our hands!
 
Last edited:
Cyclonestate78 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Me! If they beat the 9th place ACC team, then they get a shot at someone better. Guess I don't know how people can argue against MORE basketball. Sure, none of those added teams are going to win the whole thing...so what? Bowl games are great because they allow us to watch our team play another game against a different opponent. We know that winning that bowl isn't the NC, but it doesn't matter. What's the difference here? It allows more teams to get in and show what they can do and allows the fans to follow their teams longer.

Besides, maybe if GMac can magically double his conference wins, we may be included someday.
 
Frak said:
Me! If they beat the 9th place ACC team, then they get a shot at someone better. Guess I don't know how people can argue against MORE basketball. Sure, none of those added teams are going to win the whole thing...so what? Bowl games are great because they allow us to watch our team play another game against a different opponent. We know that winning that bowl isn't the NC, but it doesn't matter. What's the difference here? It allows more teams to get in and show what they can do and allows the fans to follow their teams longer.

Besides, maybe if GMac can magically double his conference wins, we may be included someday.
Click to expand...

The tournament is great in it's current format. Why would we want them to water it down with a bunch of crappy teams that couldn't play their way in or at least build a resume good enough to get an at large bid?

Here is the deal.... The only way they can do this and not ruin the whole tournament is to make all teams that earned automatic bids exempt from playing in the 1st round. I don't see why teams like Robert Morris, Sam Houston State, etc.... should be penalized after they earned an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament. If you want to expand... fine.... let's just make sure that the teams that are getting "selected" by the committee have to play in the 1st round to earn their opportunity to play a conference champion. :yes:
 
That would make it a level playing field. I don't care if Kansas or Kentucky is 33-1.... If that one loss was in the conference tournament final then they have to play in the 1st round just like any other at large bid team does even if they are a #1 seed. Tough. It isn't fair to screw over the teams that did win theirs.
 
Why would we want them to water it down with a bunch of crappy teams that couldn't play their way in or at least build a resume good enough to get an at large bid?
Click to expand...
Couldn't you make this same argument about teams 33-65?
 
Cyclonestate78 said:
Let's see some examples... Once again.... Automatic bids for winning their conference tournament are exempt from this. Let's see some good examples. :yes:
Click to expand...
I just mean since none of them have ever won it all, isn't letting them in just watering it down for the teams that have a shot at winning?
 
3TrueFans said:
I just mean since none of them have ever won it all, isn't letting them in just watering it down for the teams that have a shot at winning?
Click to expand...

So do teams like George Mason who beat Michigan State, North Carolina, Wichita State, and UCONN on their way to the Final Four not deserve to get in the tournament even if they do win their conference tournament? Should UNI have been left out after winning the MoValley regular season & tournament titles because they don't have a chance to win it all? Michigan State is glad they were in the tourney this year. Kansas sure as hell isn't.

My point is that these teams have earned their way into the tournament by winning their conference tournament. Every team has a chance to do the same. If your team isn't good enough to play their way into an at large bid then they didn't earn it. Should Virginia Tech have gotten in this year with an RPI for their non conference schedule over 300? That is awful. They were one of the last teams out. That should tell you about the quality of teams that are getting left out of the 65 team field.
 
Should UNI have been left out after winning the MoValley regular season & tournament titles because they don't have a chance to win it all?
Click to expand...
If you're worried about watering down the tournament with teams that don't have a shot then yes.

The only reason they've earned their way into the tournament is because it was already expanded to 64/65 teams. They've already expanded it to the point where half the teams are just fodder, not really having a chance to win the whole thing, so what does it hurt to expand it a little more?
 
3TrueFans said:
If you're worried about watering down the tournament with teams that don't have a shot then yes.

The only reason they've earned their way into the tournament is because it was already expanded to 64/65 teams. They've already expanded it to the point where half the teams are just fodder, not really having a chance to win the whole thing, so what does it hurt to expand it a little more?
Click to expand...

Every conference is represented as it should be by their conference tournament champion. This is a good thing. Just because some of those small schools aren't household names like Duke and Kansas doesn't mean they aren't good. 15 of the mid-major automatic bids were teams that not only won their conference tournament but also captured the regular season title as well. They have definitely earned their slot more then a team like UNC who stunk it up all year and would have most certainly got a bid in a 96 team field.

Did UNC deserve to be in the NCAA Tournament this year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back