96 teams?
Why bother having a season. Just have an exhibition season of six to ten games and than a nationwide double elimination tournament from there on out.
Awful idea. 64 is almost too much.Thats the only reason.
Hell, think of it this way. The Final Four is tonight. I forgot all about it until I saw a link on ESPN.com. Imagine if the Final Four had to wait another two weeks to arrive. No one would care. I don't care as it is.
Besides money, has anyone stated a good reason for expanding the tournament?
and yet we still can't have a football playoff. Nor a good reason as to why....pathetic!
I think most everyone just sees the number 96 and doesn't give it much thought beyond that. It's a big number, but if you give the first 32 teams a bye for the first round, it's not that big of a deal.Okay...it's good. Actually it would be better doing it that way. There were 10 teams that should've been in the NCAA Tournament. Now, doing it that way, we'd get to see if those 10 or more teams deserve to be in the Tournament. Also, I would've loved seeing a Dayton/Kentucky matchup.
Look at the list below that are an example of the 32 teams that may have gotten in this year. I listed their RPI next to them. Notice that not one team is over 94 in RPI. If you're in the top 94 in RPI, you are in roughly the top 25% of all D-1 teams. Letting in teams that are in the top 25% of all teams is not watering it down.
To me, what it does is create a better field of 64 by adding only two days to eliminate the current #14, #15, and #16 seeds that are a waste of time (in most years). You could play those two days on the Monday and Tuesday of the current opening week. If the Monday team wins, they get to play one of the top 32 seeds on Thursday, just as we currently have scheduled.
In a field of 96, we would be adding 32 teams. It's actually not as hard as you think to find 32 teams that are as worthy as a lot of the teams that are in the current field (and more worthy than quite a few as well).
Team - RPI
Rhode Island - 40
Wichita State - 43
UAB - 45
Kent State - 46 (same as Cornell, UNLV, Notre Dame)
Memphis - 53
Dayton - 54
Mississippi State - 55
Virginia Tech - 59 (same as Minnesota)
William & Mary - 57 (same as Florida)
Seton Hall - 61
Ole Miss - 61
Cincinnati - 63
Arizona State - 63
UConn - -63
Va Commonwealth - 66
Marshall - 67
Nevada - 67
Tulsa - 69
South Florida - 70
Texas Tech - 73
Illinois - 74
Northwestern - 74
Charlotte - 77
St. John's - 82
Morehead State - 84
Saint Louis - 85
Akron - 89
UNC - 90
S. Carolina - 93
Miami - 94
NC State - 94
Arizona - 94
Below are the bottom 32 teams from this years field...which would be the 32 teams the above added 32 teams would have faced in the opening round (by the way, this format would only add one round to the tournament, not two extra weeks).
Team - RPI
Northern Iowa - 17
San Diego St - 18
Old Dominion - 27
Utah st - 30
Siena - 30
Georgia tech - 33
St Mary's - 35
UTEP - 37
Louisville - 37
Wake Forest - 37
Florida St - 41
Washington - 41
Missouri - 44
Cornell - 46
Oakland - 51
New Mex St -51
Murray St - 56
Florida - 57
Minnesota - 59
Sam Houston - 70
Wofford - 70
Ohio - 94
UC SB - 94
Montana - 94
Morgan st - 103
North Texas - 104
Houston - 107
Vermont - 117
ETSU - 117
Robert Morris - 127
Lehigh - 151
Ak Pine Bluff - 181
Notice in the 32 added teams, not one has an RPI over 100. The average RPI of those teams is 70. Of the bottom 32 teams in this years tournament, the average RPI is 68, with 8 teams with RPIs over 100.
As you can see, the weakest teams in a field of 96 are ALREADY in the current tournament of 64. We wouldn't be adding weaker teams and watering things down. For one, we would have better teams eliminating those pitiful teams that happen to get lucky and win their suck-ass conference tournaments. Secondly, we would no longer have to pick 15 teams out of a group of 30 teams that are all nearly identical (ie bubble teams). We can let those teams play their way in....as it should be.
And for those who like to act like we should just play the whole season as a giant tournament...that's just retarded. There are 347 teams in D-1 basketball. This format will also put an emphasis on trying to make the top 32, so as to avoid the opening round game.
Instead of having Kentucky's first game be against ETSU (RPI 117), you might have Kentucky facing Dayton (RPI 54), who won the NIT this year, as their first game of the tournament. This wold be after Dayton eliminated ETSU and Kentucky had a bye. Dayton can beat Kentucky, ETSU cannot.
So after you get Monday and Tuesday out of the way, the remainder of the tournament is exponentially more interesting and undeniably more competitive in those next 32 days (compared to the current opening 32 games).
For me, my initial reaction was that I didn't like it. But if you actually go through the steps of what it would mean, and how it would actually improve on the deficiencies of the current format, I've decided I like it.
I think most everyone just sees the number 96 and doesn't give it much thought beyond that. It's a big number, but if you give the first 32 teams a bye for the first round, it's not that big of a deal.
Look at the list below that are an example of the 32 teams that may have gotten in this year. I listed their RPI next to them. Notice that not one team is over 94 in RPI. If you're in the top 94 in RPI, you are in roughly the top 25% of all D-1 teams. Letting in teams that are in the top 25% of all teams is not watering it down.
To me, what it does is create a better field of 64 by adding only two days to eliminate the current #14, #15, and #16 seeds that are a waste of time (in most years). You could play those two days on the Monday and Tuesday of the current opening week. If the Monday team wins, they get to play one of the top 32 seeds on Thursday, just as we currently have scheduled.
In a field of 96, we would be adding 32 teams. It's actually not as hard as you think to find 32 teams that are as worthy as a lot of the teams that are in the current field (and more worthy than quite a few as well).
Team - RPI
Rhode Island - 40
Wichita State - 43
UAB - 45
Kent State - 46 (same as Cornell, UNLV, Notre Dame)
Memphis - 53
Dayton - 54
Mississippi State - 55
Virginia Tech - 59 (same as Minnesota)
William & Mary - 57 (same as Florida)
Seton Hall - 61
Ole Miss - 61
Cincinnati - 63
Arizona State - 63
UConn - -63
Va Commonwealth - 66
Marshall - 67
Nevada - 67
Tulsa - 69
South Florida - 70
Texas Tech - 73
Illinois - 74
Northwestern - 74
Charlotte - 77
St. John's - 82
Morehead State - 84
Saint Louis - 85
Akron - 89
UNC - 90
S. Carolina - 93
Miami - 94
NC State - 94
Arizona - 94
Below are the bottom 32 teams from this years field...which would be the 32 teams the above added 32 teams would have faced in the opening round (by the way, this format would only add one round to the tournament, not two extra weeks).
Team - RPI
Northern Iowa - 17
San Diego St - 18
Old Dominion - 27
Utah st - 30
Siena - 30
Georgia tech - 33
St Mary's - 35
UTEP - 37
Louisville - 37
Wake Forest - 37
Florida St - 41
Washington - 41
Missouri - 44
Cornell - 46
Oakland - 51
New Mex St -51
Murray St - 56
Florida - 57
Minnesota - 59
Sam Houston - 70
Wofford - 70
Ohio - 94
UC SB - 94
Montana - 94
Morgan st - 103
North Texas - 104
Houston - 107
Vermont - 117
ETSU - 117
Robert Morris - 127
Lehigh - 151
Ak Pine Bluff - 181
Notice in the 32 added teams, not one has an RPI over 100. The average RPI of those teams is 70. Of the bottom 32 teams in this years tournament, the average RPI is 68, with 8 teams with RPIs over 100.
As you can see, the weakest teams in a field of 96 are ALREADY in the current tournament of 64. We wouldn't be adding weaker teams and watering things down. For one, we would have better teams eliminating those pitiful teams that happen to get lucky and win their suck-ass conference tournaments. Secondly, we would no longer have to pick 15 teams out of a group of 30 teams that are all nearly identical (ie bubble teams). We can let those teams play their way in....as it should be.
And for those who like to act like we should just play the whole season as a giant tournament...that's just retarded. There are 347 teams in D-1 basketball. This format will also put an emphasis on trying to make the top 32, so as to avoid the opening round game.
Instead of having Kentucky's first game be against ETSU (RPI 117), you might have Kentucky facing Dayton (RPI 54), who won the NIT this year, as their first game of the tournament. This wold be after Dayton eliminated ETSU and Kentucky had a bye. Dayton can beat Kentucky, ETSU cannot.
So after you get Monday and Tuesday out of the way, the remainder of the tournament is exponentially more interesting and undeniably more competitive in those next 32 days (compared to the current opening 32 games).
For me, my initial reaction was that I didn't like it. But if you actually go through the steps of what it would mean, and how it would actually improve on the deficiencies of the current format, I've decided I like it.
I just don't believe that. The Big East teams can't sand bag a season, they have to play each other. It's like saying SEC teams sand bag in football because they don't play a tough NC schedule. And remember, most people say that it would do that because "everyone" would get in. But like I mentioned, there are 347 D-1 teams. Everyone is not getting in. And by opening it up to 96, for every St. John's and Illinois that thinks they're getting now, there is a Dayton and a Rhode Island fighting for a spot too. There would still be no guarantees.^^Bingo^^
As for scheduling, unlike football, the top teams in the country don't play other top teams so much to boost their resume (although that is a small part of it), they primarily play those teams to prepare for March. That would not change. I guarantee you that Tom Izzo would NOT cease to schedule Texas and North Carolina because there are 96 teams in the tournament. Syracuse wouldn't stop scheduling Florida and Memphis. Boeheim plays those games to prepare for the NCAA tournament, and nothing more. He would continue to do so.
Also, you would see teams fighting to be in the top 32 so that they can avoid the first round games. It would be a new challenge and goal. You'd see teams that are normally "safe" in the 64 team field now concerned with making sure they are part of the top 32 teams.
To me, there would be minimal change to the regular season. Teams still want to get better for the tournament, they still want to get a high seed, and they still have to play their conference schedules and tournaments.
At the worst, it would make conference tournaments less important for bubble teams (like Auburn and Kentucky last year, or Ole Miss, Florida, and Mississippi State this year). But beyond that, I don't think it would change much.
If the NCAA can make a 96 team bracket fit on one page, and be easy to fill out for people that have no phuking clue what they are doing, then the tourny will still be successful. If they can't, a lot of the fair weather fans are not going to fill out as many brackets and interest is going to fade. Part of the reason this thing is so popular now is because everyone and their mom fills out a bracket. If you make the poop too complicated and people don't fill out there brackets, people will not follow the tourny as close. No one will really give a damn if Purdue is upset by Milwaukee-Wisconsin or not...especially if they don't have brackets filled out...
It's like you read my mind...or my earlier posts. :)
I said it much betterer...
phuk you...people live for my take. I'm well respected by very important people. I once drove a Volvo.
INDIANAPOLIS -- The NCAA hopes to expand the men's basketball tournament from 65 to 68 teams beginning next year, and announced a new, $10.8 billion broadcasting deal with CBS and Turner Broadcasting on Thursday that will allow every game to be shown live for the first time.
The three-team expansion is much more modest than 80- and 96-team proposals the NCAA outlined just a few weeks ago at the Final Four. The move coincides with the new, 14-year broadcasting arrangement that interim NCAA president Jim Isch said will provide an average of $740 million to its conferences and schools each year.
The NCAA badly wanted every tourney game broadcast live.
"It was a goal from the very, very beginning, and I believe it's what our memberships want and it's want our fans want across the country," Isch said. "I think without question, it was one of the driving factors in our position and why CBS and Turner make such great partners."
The NCAA said the Division I Men's Basketball Committee unanimously passed the proposal and it will be reviewed by the Board of Directors next Thursday.
The men's tournament last expanded in 2001, adding one team to the 64-team field that was set in 1985. Talk of tweaking March Madness again generated a lot of chatter from fans worried the competition would be watered down and those who feared the additional bracket guesswork needed to predict a winner.
Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim, who favored expansion, said the proposal was "better than nothing."
"As a coach I'd like to see more people get in, but 68 is a good step and the easiest way to have the least amount of turmoil," Boeheim said. "There's really no way to do a little bit bigger expansion. You can't expand by eight, 10. There's no way to figure that out. This is the easiest way, and hopefully down the road there will be a bigger expansion."
Fellow Big East coach Jim Calhoun of Connecticut was less enthusiastic. He pointed to this year's tournament, which included deep runs by Cornell, Northern Iowa, Xavier and national runner-up Butler.
"I have a tough time seeing why we have to change a concept that has been so good," Calhoun said. "This year, the parity was incredible. If you have something that has become magical and what has enhanced it is not more games, but the Butlers and the parity. Those things are what have done it. George Mason. It's been proven time and again."
Less than four weeks ago, turning the NCAA's signature event into a 96-team field seemed like all but a done deal.
During the Final Four, NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen talked extensively about plans to go to 96, saying the three-week event would start two days later and eliminate the play-in game. But more games would have been added to Week 2, and that caused concerns about how much class time the athletes would miss.
Shaheen also cautioned then that nothing had been decided.
Any move hinged on the NCAA's $6 billion, 11-year television deal with CBS Sports, which has broadcast championship games since 1982. The deal, signed in 1999, had a mutual opt-out until July 31, and the NCAA took it amid speculation that ESPN might become a partner in one of the most popular and lucrative tournaments in sports.
"We made an aggressive bid and believe our combination of TV distribution, digital capabilities, season-long coverage and year-round marketing would have served the interests of the NCAA and college fans very well," ESPN said in a statement. "We remain committed to our unparalleled coverage of more than 1,200 men's and women's college basketball games each season."
The NCAA's agreement with CBS and Atlanta-based Turner Broadcasting System Inc. runs from 2011 through 2024. It means every game next March will be shown live -- on CBS, TBS, TNT or truTV -- for the first time in the tournament's 73-year history.
Next year, everything through the second round will be shown nationally on the four networks. CBS and Turner, an entity of Time Warner Inc., will split coverage of the regional semifinal games, while CBS will retain coverage of the regional finals, the Final Four and the championship game through 2015.
Beginning in 2016, coverage of the regional finals will be split by CBS and Turner; the Final Four and the championship game will alternate every year between CBS and TBS. Under the agreement, the NCAA and CBSSports.com will again provide live streaming video of games, although Turner secured rights for any video player it develops.
"This is a landmark deal for Turner Broadcasting and we're extremely pleased to begin a long-term relationship with the NCAA and our partners at CBS and to have a commitment that extends well into the next decade," said David Levy, president of sales, distribution and sports for Turner Broadcasting.
How critical is the deal to the NCAA? More than 95 percent of the governing body's total revenue comes from the broadcast rights to the men's basketball tournament.
And it clearly was important to New York-based CBS. Sean McManus, president of CBS News and Sports, said the "new strategic partnership" was a core asset and a profitable one, although he hinted that the annual payments of $700 million over the last three years of the original deal were a load.
"We were prepared to do the last three years of the current deal; it was no secret that those three years would be very challenging," he said. "But this deal was based on the NCAA coming to us saying that we would like a new deal in place."
The National Association of Basketball Coaches has long advocated expansion, citing the fact that while the number of Division I teams has increased greatly over the past quarter-century, the tourney has added only one team.
A 96-team field likely would have enveloped the 32-team NIT, the NCAA's other, independently run season-ending tournament.
The proposal is strictly for the men's tournament. Another NCAA committee is looking at whether to expand the women's tournament or keep it in the current format.