🏈 march madness to 96 teams...is this legit?

[planomateo]

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-march-madness-with-96-teams-done-deal-27742

anyone else caught wind of this or is it a big bucket of poo (gotta love some Mike Rowe) ?

 

[LBS]

Apparently they have adopted football's 6-WIN rule for post season play.

96...because after the Conference Tourneys, we all just need some really bad basketball.

Anyone else see THE MOTHER OF ALL PLAYOFFS on the future with everyone in? Not too far of a leap now.

 

[planomateo]

looks like other news services are picking this up too http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/Goodman-NCAA-tournament-expansion-020110

The NCAA’s deal with the 32-team NIT also expires at the end of this season and, according to sources, one of the possibilities is to end the agreement and take 31 of those teams and add them to the NCAA tournament field.

it amazes me that basketball is willing to do this, but I'll be damned if football is willing to budge on this idea. they want to continue this mythical national champion BS.

 

[shipley00]

Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea. It only adds to the tourney if someone thinks a #80 through #96 could ever beat a top 16 team (without seriour injury issues). It would improve the chances for a 60's rank team to beat a 03's ranked team, but what are the odds they make it to the 2nd round? It also totally trivializes the regular season. No need to have a quality schedule if there are 96 slots. Right now they've extened it as far as it will provide any meaningful improvement. 4 times out of 88 games has a #2 seed lost (5%), but never has a #1 seed lost.

 

[252BAMA]

Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea. It only adds to the tourney if someone thinks a #80 through #96 could ever beat a top 16 team (without seriour injury issues). It would improve the chances for a 60's rank team to beat a 03's ranked team, but what are the odds they make it to the 2nd round? It also totally trivializes the regular season. No need to have a quality schedule if there are 96 slots. Right now they've extened it as far as it will provide any meaningful improvement. 4 times out of 88 games has a #2 seed lost (5%), but never has a #1 seed lost.

Actually, this would give the top 8 teams in each region a bye in the first round. A #24 would have to beat a #9 in order to play a #1. A #23 would have to beat a #10 in order to play a #2.

 

[UAgrad93]

I like March Madness, but 96 teams seems like it drags it on out into mid April before deciding a winner. By that time, the baseball starts to really heat up and seedings are taking place for their tourney.

 

[252BAMA]

I like March Madness, but 96 teams seems like it drags it on out into mid April before deciding a winner. By that time, the baseball starts to really heat up and seedings are taking place for their tourney.

Would not effect the end of the tournament. Would only take 2 additional days to do this, and they would be added to the front end of the tournament. Would be like the play-in game, except that it woud be play-in GAMES. Would be back down to 64 at the regular start of the tournament.

 

[alagator]

Anyone else see THE MOTHER OF ALL PLAYOFFS on the future with everyone in? Not too far of a leap now.

Well, for any conference that has a post-season tournament (and outside the Ivy League does not every conference have one) "everyone" in that conference currently finds themselves in a play-in situation.

Alabama will not win the SEC regular season title this year. But, get hot for four days at the SEC Tournament and win the thing and you are in the 'Final 64' tournament.

But I see your point.

Would be interesting to hear someone question the University Presidents and ask them why they would virtually devalue the entire basketball season by making it so easy for teams to qualify for the Final 64 tournament while at the same time arguing that the 'integrity' of the college football season must be protected by avoiding a playoff of four or eight teams at the end. (Especially since the argument is in part the concept of missed classes with a football playoff - yet thirty two more teams will be required to miss at least four extra days of class time with this idea.)

 

[psychojoe]

Alagator, you know better than to expect consistency from these guys. They still get a bit apoplectic when you ask why divisions 1AA, 2 and 3 can have playoffs that can extend the season 4 weeks for the final two teams. I guess its ok iif those guys miss classes.

In one way I like the idea of expanding the field, There are 312 D-1 teams in basketball now, a lot more than when the current 64 team field was established. Still, if the tournament is to decide the NC there would be maybe 20 teams tops that would have a shot at winning the big prize.

If you compare with football, there are 112 schools included in the BCS, and somewhere around 30 bowls. Half the schools get some sort of post season play. Applying the same logic to basketbal, yes we should expand the field.

 

[252BAMA]

Well, for any conference that has a post-season tournament (and outside the Ivy League does not every conference have one) "everyone" in that conference currently finds themselves in a play-in situation.

Alabama will not win the SEC regular season title this year. But, get hot for four days at the SEC Tournament and win the thing and you are in the 'Final 64' tournament.

But I see your point.

Would be interesting to hear someone question the University Presidents and ask them why they would virtually devalue the entire basketball season by making it so easy for teams to qualify for the Final 64 tournament while at the same time arguing that the 'integrity' of the college football season must be protected by avoiding a playoff of four or eight teams at the end. (Especially since the argument is in part the concept of missed classes with a football playoff - yet thirty two more teams will be required to miss at least four extra days of class time with this idea.)

With football you are talking about adding weeks. With basketball it is days, not even the four you refer to. With a 96 team tournament you are starting with 32 with a bye. Starting on Monday, you play 16 games and Tuesday morning you now have 48 teams in. Tuesday you play 16 games and on Wednesdsay morning you have 64 teams in . The 64 teams that have already played have missed one day of class, either Monday or Tuesday. On Thursday you start your 64 team tournament, just as you would have if you had not added the additional 32 teams.

 

[ExiledTidefan]

Basketball is just a totally different animal than is football. In the pros, they play a best of series to determine moving on in the playoffs. You can play basketball on back to back days, but jut try and play more than 2 college football games in a 10 day span and see what happens. The sports just don't compare.

But the excuses for no playoff in D1-A end right there. This has gone on long enough. I do enjoy the fact that so much rests on regular season games as it currently stands, and I think that one fact alone may be what makes D1-A football such a big success. It's unlike anything else. I say keep it, and just keep tweaking the bowl structure, the BCS calc until it works close to flawlessly. It can be done. NO on a formal playoff for NCAA D1-A football.

As for expanding the field for basketball: the real reason to do this is greed. Vegas would LOVE IT. 65 teams right now is a nice and tidy solution, and the regular season's performance still matters. With 96 teams, we start having too much mediocrity leach in. Again, don't fix what AIN'T BROKE. Leave it at 65 teams.

 

[alagator]

I just love all the bunk about how the current BCS system protects the integrity of the regular football season, where EVERY game is a playoff elimination game.

Well, in 2007 I guess I missed it when LSU was 'eliminated' by losing their final regular season game AT HOME to Arkansas. Yes, I understand the relativity of the records of one team, but that would still be true with a playoff. My biggest complaint, is the intellectual dishonesty of those who advocate protecting the current system under the guise of academics or history (of the bowl system) or the importance of each and every regular season game (when the above LSU v. Arkansas game disproves that pretense) when anyone with a thinking brain can see that money is the sole factor. I would have much less a problem with the arguments if the BCS people would just come out and say "us big schools get to keep all the bowl money and until you present us with a NCAA-sanctioned playoff system that allows us to keep all the money we will continue with what we have." Now, that is much more the truth.

This proposed expansion of the NCAA basketball tournament is just to generate more cash and not to reward more 'deserving' teams with a spot in the tournament.

And good for everyone.

 

[psychojoe]

I bring this idea up about oncea year. It was first suggested by former Maryland and Georgia State coach Lefty Driesell. Do away wit all the conference tournaments. Seed the entire 312 teams in D-1 and invite them all. It would actually end up with fewer games than are played now with all the conference tournaments, and could be played out in the same time span.

That is the way the high schools do it, and it does add a lot of charm to the tournaments. That poor downtrodden team that catches fire for the tournament keeps on playing as long as it keeps on winning.

 

[reger60]

Although I like the 64 team format (hate the "play-in" game), it's (of course) all about the money. Depending how the tournament is restructured, 32 additional tourney teams potentially means 28-30 additional regional/national television broadcasts. In this economy, if I'm the NCAA (or CBS) I'm all about potentially increasing ad revenue by double digits.

I'm sure that folding a poorly performing, nearly invisible NIT tournament into a sure-fire ratings powerhouse like the NCAA tournament looks great on paper. There are likely a hundred ways to fiscally justify it. It'll happen eventually. I'm afraid it's only a matter of time.

Will I like it? Not at first. But I'll probably get used to it.

 

[alagator]

Kind of changing the subject, but in the same line of thought.

Anyone else remember back in the early 1970s when there were only about 16 teams in the NCAA Tournament and a team had to win their conference regular season title advanced to the tournament - or if the conference had a tournament (I think only the ACC did back then) only that tournament winner advanced (meaning an undefeated team could lose its first game in their conference tournament and NOT advance to the NCAA Tournament - talk about pressure on each game and even ball possession)?

And the NCAA had a rule that if a school hosted tournament games on their campus their team was automatically disqualified from being one of those who played in the tournament?

And where one of CM Newton's teams went something like 24-4 overall and 16-2 to win the SEC and did not even get to play in the NCAA Tournament because we hosted two rounds in Tuscaloosa (Marquette won the Tuscaloosa Regional - either the year they won the NCAA Tournament or the year prior)? Instead, Kentucky (or maybe Vandy) got to go in our stead).

Everyone always says how 'basketball smart' Newton was, but that decision alone causes me to doubt that perception. Why in the world would you even bid on hosting games when a successful bid would disqualify your team from participating? Just dumb. The argument that hosting the event would build local interest in the tournament pales to the local interest to be drawn by your team being one of only 16 teams with a chance to win it all. And only having to win two games to make the Final Four. Almost forty years later, I still scratch my head over that thought process.

 

[UAgrad93]

You said it Alagator, "the bottom line is about making more money and not allowing more deserving schools a chance to play in the tourney!"

 

[Oiler99]

Everybody makes some sort of post season play now as it is. There is, of course, the NCAA tournament, the NIT, the College Basketball Invitational, the College Insiders.com tournament, and I think, one other. So, basically, they would just be unifying all these post season tournaments into one. But, here's what I don't get. What motivation does this give the perennial contenders? I mean, if the field is up to 96, that just means it's almost impossible NOT to make the post season.