68 Team Tourney instead of 64, 65 or 96

[OH10]

IMO, at least two of the four you listed are subject to argument. That aside, I still don't believe this demonstrates enough to counteract the negative aspects of a playoff. Among other things, as great as the NCAA tournament is, it has rendered the college basketball regular season virtually meaningless. The college football season as it currently is? The exact opposite.

Its not meaningless. Its just not the "end all, be all."

And the regular season in college athletics should not be more important than the post-season. Most college sports teams have a significantly different make-up from year to year, especially college basketball and football with the early entries. The NCAA imposes practice limits which all but assure that you are not going to have a polished product at the beginning of the season. So why should those games be more important than the games that could be played and, in basketball, are played at the end of the season?

The regular season should be the building and positioning portion. The post-season should be the culmination. I believe that to be true most especially with college athletics. This whole business about "the best two teams" leads to non-sensical debate between fat guys on couches.

 

[BB73]

A 96-team tournament makes the non-conference games in November and December almost as meaningless as preseason NFL games.

 

[Jaxbuck]

A 96-team tournament makes the non-conference games in November and December almost as meaningless as preseason NFL games.

Yep and this whole thing is an excellent example of what Jim Delany speaks to with his opposition to a CFB playoff.

Once you start, where does it end? There is always pressure to expand from 4 to 8 to 16 to 64 etc etc etc. Anyone who thinks football will be any different is fooling themselves.

 

[matcar]

The tournament is already a joke. Does anyone believe that the best team from 2009-10 will win the "NC"?

I love March Madness. I also think it's the best argument against a tourney for CFB. I don't want a "hot" fourth place Big East team upsetting a B10, B12, or even SEC champ, then claiming a National Title. [censored] that.

Rep this man. Solid post.

 

[OH10]

Yep and this whole thing is an excellent example of what Jim Delany speaks to with his opposition to a CFB playoff.

Once you start, where does it end? There is always pressure to expand from 4 to 8 to 16 to 64 etc etc etc. Anyone who thinks football will be any different is fooling themselves.

There has been very little pressure to expand to 96 teams. Most people are opposed to this.

And yet its still better than having the media and coaches select two teams to play for the national championship. Again, I cannot emphasize this point enough: If college basketball had a BCS system, it would have been Kansas vs. Kentucky for the national title and Ohio State would have been eliminated back in December when Turner broke his back. That would be a stupid system.

 

[RB07OSU]

The only group of people that would be more pissed about this than fans would be the NIT. Awful idea.

 

[buckeyesin07]

And yet its still better than having the media and coaches select two teams to play for the national championship. Again, I cannot emphasize this point enough: If college basketball had a BCS system, it would have been Kansas vs. Kentucky for the national title and Ohio State would have been eliminated back in December when Turner broke his back. That would be a stupid system.

Did you ever consider that what might be best for one sport might not be the best for every other sport? Or have you convinced yourself that because the NCAA tournament is best for basketball, then it necessarily must be the case that a playoff would be best for college football too?

 

[OH10]

Did you ever consider that what might be best for one sport might not be the best for every other sport? Or have you convinced yourself that because the NCAA tournament is best for basketball, then it necessarily must be the case that a playoff would be best for college football too?

I consider a playoff best for college football because the BCS is stupid. I don't want to complicate the issue much more than that. I have stated a more thorough opinion on it in another thread and this thread has been hijacked enough.

With respect to college basketball, my hypothetical BCS National Championship between Kansas and Kentucky demonstrates the necessity of the tournament. The fact that the tournament will lose millions of viewers by expanding to 96 teams demonstrates the absurdity of expanding said tournament.

 

[buckeyesin07]

I consider a playoff best for college football because the BCS is stupid.

That's a well-reasoned post.

With respect to college basketball, my hypothetical BCS National Championship between Kansas and Kentucky demonstrates the necessity of the tournament.

I don't know why you keep repeating your point about Kansas and Kentucky demonstrating the need for a tournament in basketblal--I don't think anyone's arguing that the college basketball tournament should be replaced with one game.

The fact that the tournament will lose millions of viewers by expanding to 96 teams demonstrates the absurdity of expanding said tournament.

Do you have a link to something that supports this? Because although I am not in favor of a move to 96 teams, I seriously doubt the truth of this "fact."

 

[NYBuckeye]

The only group of people that would be more [censored]ed about this than fans would be the NIT. Awful idea.

The NCAA owns the NIT so when this happens the 32 teams that are in the NIT will become part of the NCAA tourney. Will save the NCAA loads of cash by running one tourney instead of two. Not saying expansion is a good idea just pointing out the NIT is unlikely to be [censored]ed since it is an NCAA entity.

 

[Jake]

If college basketball had a BCS system, it would have been Kansas vs. Kentucky for the national title and Ohio State would have been eliminated back in December when Turner broke his back. That would be a stupid system.

And few would've complained because the line would've been "everyone knows" Kansas and Kentucky are the two best teams in the country.

Did you ever consider that what might be best for one sport might not be the best for every other sport? Or have you convinced yourself that because the NCAA tournament is best for basketball, then it necessarily must be the case that a playoff would be best for college football too?

Every sport on the planet has a playoff, including college football at every other level. It's amazing how if you do something long enough - no matter how absurd - some people will find it hard to imagine it any other way.

Choosing two teams to play in a "championship game" using votes and computers is asinine. That's why no other sport - including every other level of college football - uses such a system.

 

[OH10]

Do you have a link to something that supports this? Because although I am not in favor of a move to 96 teams, I seriously doubt the truth of this "fact."

Good point. I hate when people pawn off opinion as fact, and I just did it myself.

Having said that, I have been conducting my own informal survey. I have not met a person yet that would be willing to join an office pool or fill out a bracket if there are 96 teams. The reason is that most people give is that filling out an unbalanced bracket with that many teams would be too confusing/complicated. Most of those people (unanimous among women) only watch games not involving their favorite team because they root for their bracket. Take away the bracket, and they are disinterested.

My prediction is that you will see this in action next season after expansion. This year, if you went to BWs on the first Thursday of the tournament, packed. Next year, crickets. I'm a huge fan of college basketball, but I myself must admit that I will probably only watch OSU and Big Ten teams next year.

The NCAA simply does not understand the popularity of their product. The money is in the bracket. The ratings derive from office pools. Take those away and watch the money/ratings walk away as well.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

I just don't get that. I can bomb on a 96 team bracket just as easily as I can on a 64 team bracket.

 

[OH10]

I just don't get that. I can bomb on a 96 team bracket just as easily as I can on a 64 team bracket.

Me too, but its just not as much fun if I'm not losing to my wife and mother-in-law.

 

[matttank]

First off, I am in agreement with all who hate the idea of expanding to 96 (which is to say, everyone). It obviously waters down the tournament and is completely unnecessary as it relates to accomplishing the real goal of the tourney: crowning a worthy and deserving national champion. Heck, the 65 team field is already too large (seeing as an 8 seed is the highest seed to win, 32 teams would work), but since they give automatic bids to all 31 conferences-including those that have no chance of producing a NC year to year-they had to go to 65 to provide a balanced tournament capable of including all championship caliber teams.

I will say that I really haven't heard too many people arguing that it better accomplishes that goal than the 65 team field. Most of the NCAA brass have said that they view it as giving a "reward" to more teams for good seasons (bullshit if you ask me I'm sick of the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality permeating our culture today), and some have been even more transparent and let the real reason (more $$$) be known.

Unfortunately they are probably right. Pools are important to ratings but getting 32 more games on the air will off-set the slightly lower ratings and ultimately gain more money for the ever greedy NCAA.

As for the secondary topic of whether or not a football playoff would better decide a national champion than the BCS, I think that answer is a resounding yes.

For those that think a playoff would water down the regular season, I ask what exactly does the regular season accomplish now? IMO, it really only determines which team is the best in each respective conference (Note: except for our beloved B10, which neither plays a round-robin nor has a conference championship game). The sample size of non-conference games is so small (and the matchups between top teams from each conference smaller) that we really base relative strength of conference on nearly complete conjecture (and seem to always forget when doing so that the transitive property does not apply to sports). Then we usually use these relative strengths of conferences to determine who the best of the Conference champions are, and then somehow select the "best 2" to play in the BCSNCG. I think that sounds ridiculous and not in the nature of competition, and thus makes it obvious that a playoff of some sort is needed.

Now the point brought up about "well how big and where would it end" is legitimate, and IMO major conference re-alignment would be necessary so that all conferences have a championship game or round robin format and some smaller conferences get combined/eliminated. But without drawing up a huge plan and hi-jacking this thread further, I think nothing greater than a 16 team playoff would be necessary and I think it would always crown a worthy and deserving champion.