PDA

View Full Version : NCAA: 96-team field


DBroncos4life
04-01-2010, 10:06 PM
INDIANAPOLIS -- The NCAA appears to be on the verge of expanding the men's basketball tournament to 96 teams.

Insisting that nothing has been decided, NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen nonetheless outlined a detailed plan Thursday that included the logistics and timing of a 96-team tournament, how much time off the players would have and even revenue distribution.

Shaheen said the NCAA looked at keeping the current 65-team field and expanding to 68 or 80 teams, but decided the bigger bracket was best fit logistically and financially.

It would be played during the same time frame as the current three-week tournament and include first-round byes for 32 teams.

Although the plan still needs to be approved by the Division I Men's Basketball Committee and passed on to the board of directors, most of the details already seem to be in place.

"We needed to make sure that we did everything possible to use the due diligence window to understand ourselves and understand what the future would hold," Shaheen said. "So that's what we're doing, that's the process we're undertaking. We've been handling it every day for the last several months and years, as we studied for the benefit of the organization."

O'Neil: Cold, Hard Cash

O'Neil If the NCAA is looking to sell a skeptical public and media on a 96-team tournament field, it didn't exactly get off a good start, writes Dana O'Neil. Story

Katz: Expansion to 68 is fine
Expand the NCAA tourney? Heresy!

The men's tournament last expanded in 2001, adding one team to the 64-team field that was set in 1985.

The 96-team tournament would likely envelop the 32-team NIT, though Shaheen said no decision has been made on what to do with the NCAA's other, independently operated season-ending tournament.

The new format would start two days later than the current 65-team field because it would eliminate the Tuesday play-in game and would conclude on the same day, a Monday. It would be played at one fewer venue -- again, the play-in game -- and the NCAA says it would include no additional travel time for teams.

The first-round games for the 64 non-bye teams would take place on Thursday and Friday, with the winners playing the top eight seeds in each region on Saturday and Sunday. Winners on Saturday would likely play again on Tuesday, and the Sunday winners on Wednesday.

Those winners would then move on to the regionals, playing alternate days starting on Thursday. Shaheen said the NCAA hasn't decided on whether to keep the same sites for second and first-round games or to make the midweek sites the same as the regionals.

He also said the amount of time student-athletes would be out of school would be roughly the same as the current model, but teams that play in the opening round and keep winning would actually be out an entire week of school instead of just a few days.

"On a 96-team basis -- vs. the current 97 teams that the NCAA conducts through the championship and the NIT, for example -- you have, on a side-by-side basis, a reduction in the travel time," Shaheen said.

Adding teams to the NCAA tournament could create some monumentally lopsided games, or seeds in the 30s and 90s playing each other. There might be less importance on the regular season and conference tournaments; the resume wouldn't need to be padded so much if more teams get in.

"I don't see any watering down at all," Minnesota coach Tubby Smith said. "I think there are a number of teams playing in the NIT that could have gotten in, and I think there will be more people and more excitement with more teams in."

Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said he would like to see regular-season and conference tournament champions get automatic bids to the NCAA tournament.

"The regular season would mean something," he said. "There would still be bubble teams and all that, but we would reward those teams accordingly. And I would still like the conference tournament champions. They make a lot of money and celebrate each conference. I think it's a way of each conference celebrating their conference, which is a good thing."

Any plans to expand the tournament hinge on the NCAA's $6 billion television deal with CBS.

The 11-year deal, signed in 1999, has a mutual opt-out until July 31. The NCAA has already spoken with numerous networks about expansion, so the opt-out is at least on the table, and adding 32 more teams is certainly going to bring in more revenue.

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.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800

houghtam
04-01-2010, 11:40 PM
I'm not voting because I don't think there's a problem with them leaving good teams out, but I do think an extra week of an already awesome thing would be fantastic.

Archer81
04-02-2010, 12:49 AM
There is 117 NCAA Div 1 schools, right?...why have a regular season at all if they expand the playoff field to 96 teams?


:Broncos:

Bronco CB40
04-02-2010, 02:38 AM
There is 117 NCAA Div 1 schools, right?...why have a regular season at all if they expand the playoff field to 96 teams?


:Broncos:

You are confusing Division I football with basketball.

There are 347 schools in Division I basketball.

I am against expansion of the tournament because it's already the best postseason format in sports. Why mess with a good thing?

Expansion is inevitable though because:

1. 96 team tournament brings more money

2. There is a union mentality among basketball coaches that expanding the tourney will save more jobs. They are pissed that over 50% of football programs go bowling, but only 18.7% of basketball schools make it into the tourney.

I personally like the NIT and think it's a worthy consolation, but in our sports culture it's a failure to be in it unless you are a mid-major like Dayton and win the whole damn thing.

tsiguy96
04-02-2010, 03:56 AM
You are confusing Division I football with basketball.

There are 347 schools in Division I basketball.

I am against expansion of the tournament because it's already the best postseason format in sports. Why mess with a good thing?

Expansion is inevitable though because:

1. 96 team tournament brings more money

2. There is a union mentality among basketball coaches that expanding the tourney will save more jobs. They are pissed that over 50% of football programs go bowling, but only 18.7% of basketball schools make it into the tourney.

I personally like the NIT and think it's a worthy consolation, but in our sports culture it's a failure to be in it unless you are a mid-major like Dayton and win the whole damn thing.

this is a big thing with it, its embarrassing for teams to be playing in NIT because perception is you were not good enough to play in the real championship bracket (and its true). expansion i think is not necessarily bad, like someone else said it will eliminate some small school teams who got a free ride because they won a really bad conference but cant beat any of the big teams.

ColoradoDarin
04-02-2010, 12:40 PM
I don't like the idea, just because I don't like basketball - I'd rather not be subject to yet another pointless week of playing. Of course, if they cancel the regular season and just have this, I'd be in favor of it. Presason -> tourney, skip the regular season.

Pick Six
04-02-2010, 12:50 PM
Your "no" option was too weak. It's a "HELL NO" for me. I know good teams get left out every year, but that's what makes it so great. It's supposed to be the elite of college basketball vying for the crown (with some minor conference champions mixed in). It should be the goal of every team to get into the NCAA tourney. This guarantees that some teams with an average year will get into the tourney, so why bother with trying to get quality wins? This is a horrible idea. I like watching the bracket buster games, as well as seeing if a team with an average year can win their conference tournament and qualify for the Big Dance....

DB-Freak
04-02-2010, 01:51 PM
The best postseason in sports gets bigger?

Epic.

robbieopperude
04-02-2010, 07:52 PM
I have to agree. If you add another 30 plus teams you are watering down the field. I like that UNC and UConn stunk it up this year and didn't make the dance. I don't care that a team like Ohio got in because the won there conference. The best part about the dance is the possiblilty of first round upsets. You take that away from the smaller guys when they have to win one just to get a chance to play a Kansas. Some of those guys from those small schools will tell their kids they played Duke or Kentucky this year. If they were to lose to FSU a day earlier they probably wouldn't say anything about losing to a 18 and 11 team who took 6th in the ACC. Nor would it be a huge accomplishment if they defeated them.

That One Guy
04-02-2010, 08:08 PM
I think the number is perfect right now, myself. No #16 has ever defeated a #1, right? Now they're gonna add even worse teams to the mix.

TexanBob's thread on the play in game from the NCAA forum applies to this as well. http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=90052

In a scenario where the best team plays the worst, what do you really provide by just expanding the number of bad teams. Just makes the blowouts worse and you get more "upsets" because teams that weren't really good anyways before and would've been on the fringes of tourny play will now be playing other not good teams. Is conference tournaments and season play not enough bad team competition? Why not make the entire season just one big tournament where everyone gets to play it? Why have conference tournaments at all if any teams going to be reasonably competitive in the conference tourny will be playing in the dance anyways?

It's like they're at a triple elimination status. Don't win your season, try winning your conference tournament. Don't win the season or the tourny? Well, just be good enough to be one of the top 25% of all teams and then struggle to win in the tournament.

I really think if they're gonna do this, conference tournaments need to go.

oubronco
04-02-2010, 08:12 PM
I could see them adding 5 teams but thats about it cause there is always teams left out who deserve to be in

KipCorrington25
04-02-2010, 08:15 PM
They'll ruin it.

That One Guy
04-02-2010, 08:19 PM
I could see them adding 5 teams but thats about it cause there is always teams left out who deserve to be in

And anytime you're picking the top X you will have a team that barely misses the cut and feels they should've been above team Y. When you consider whether the Arkansas Pine Bluff's of the world REALLY were a necessary contender for the national championship though, it makes the point pretty moot.

Is there any real chance that the additional 32 teams will produce a national champion in the near future or... ever? Would anyone here take 100-1 odds that the national champion will come out of those teams who would've previously been destined for the NIT? If none of them are really contenders to be the national champs, why include them?

Bronco CB40
04-03-2010, 01:21 AM
Is there any real chance that the additional 32 teams will produce a national champion in the near future or... ever? Would anyone here take 100-1 odds that the national champion will come out of those teams who would've previously been destined for the NIT? If none of them are really contenders to be the national champs, why include them?

This is my feeling as well. 64 is indeed a perfect number.

In the current system, a school has to win six straight to win it all, four in a row to get to the Final Four.

I don't like the idea of adding long-shots to the tournament and then asking these borderline teams to win seven straight games! You're right, that's not happening. It just seems like they are putting these schools in so they can get their free participation t-shirt.

BroncoBuff
04-03-2010, 01:40 AM
Beyond nonsensical.

robbieopperude
04-03-2010, 04:48 AM
I think the number is perfect right now, myself. No #16 has ever defeated a #1, right? Now they're gonna add even worse teams to the mix.

TexanBob's thread on the play in game from the NCAA forum applies to this as well. http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=90052

In a scenario where the best team plays the worst, what do you really provide by just expanding the number of bad teams. Just makes the blowouts worse and you get more "upsets" because teams that weren't really good anyways before and would've been on the fringes of tourny play will now be playing other not good teams. Is conference tournaments and season play not enough bad team competition? Why not make the entire season just one big tournament where everyone gets to play it? Why have conference tournaments at all if any teams going to be reasonably competitive in the conference tourny will be playing in the dance anyways?

It's like they're at a triple elimination status. Don't win your season, try winning your conference tournament. Don't win the season or the tourny? Well, just be good enough to be one of the top 25% of all teams and then struggle to win in the tournament.

I really think if they're gonna do this, conference tournaments need to go.

The only thing you didn't think of is that the Arkansas Pine Bluffs would likely lose that additional game to the Florida States and UNC's. That would just setup more competition for the 1-8 seeds in the next round. Since the proposal gives them a by while the lower seeds duke it out.

gunns
04-03-2010, 06:38 AM
Your "no" option was too weak. It's a "HELL NO" for me. I know good teams get left out every year, but that's what makes it so great. It's supposed to be the elite of college basketball vying for the crown (with some minor conference champions mixed in). It should be the goal of every team to get into the NCAA tourney. This guarantees that some teams with an average year will get into the tourney, so why bother with trying to get quality wins? This is a horrible idea. I like watching the bracket buster games, as well as seeing if a team with an average year can win their conference tournament and qualify for the Big Dance....

I agree, although an extra week wouldn't be a bad thing during. While I've tired of NBA basketball, I do like college and I want to see those that have tried their damndest to get in.

FADERPROOF
04-03-2010, 07:51 AM
Gotta point out the hypocricy in this as well, the NCAA keeps claiming that football cannot format a playoff system because these are STUDENT-athletes and they cant afford to miss school for an extra week or two.

In basketball, not only do they have a 3 week playoff that students miss school for, but now they are talking about expanding it for an extra week with more teams in the tournament.

Talk about a watered-down regular season if they do this as well, Mississippi state was the only team that really had a gripe about not getting in this year and now we're about to let 31 undeserving teams in.

Bronco CB40
04-03-2010, 01:34 PM
Talk about a watered-down regular season if they do this as well, Mississippi state was the only team that really had a gripe about not getting in this year and now we're about to let 31 undeserving teams in.

The same Mississippi State Bulldogs that lost to North Carolina in the second round of the NIT? I think all of the schools that were left out of the tourney were excluded for good reason.

FADERPROOF
04-03-2010, 05:28 PM
Yes that team that was .4 seconds away from beating kentucky in the sec title game and earning an automatic bid.

SoCalBronco
04-03-2010, 05:30 PM
Yes that team that was .4 seconds away from beating kentucky in the sec title game and earning an automatic bid.

Good to see you back posting again, Pat.

FADERPROOF
04-03-2010, 05:33 PM
Good to see you back posting again, Pat.

thanks, its great to be back and im here to stay!

loborugger
04-03-2010, 09:29 PM
This is just a way to fleece a few more Alums. I can hardly wait to watch #17 Nebraska battle it out with #24 Buffalo for their chance to get crushed by #1 Duke.

I say wait until a #16, #15, or #14 seed reaches the sweet 16. At that point, you can make an arguement that the 78th best team in the nation was 'robbed' by not getting into the tourney.

And for those that voted yes, I wonder how many of them watched the play in game this year?