68 Team Tourney instead of 64, 65 or 96

[CentralMOBuck]

Putting more teams in isn't the solution to the problem. Why don't you implement a set of rules for the selection committee when they are picking teams. I thought the BCS was a joke and now they are trying to one up it with the NCAA tourny.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany: NCAA tournament expansion 'probable' - ESPN

 

[Meyer]

Awful idea. Filling out a bracket is going to suck now and honestly that's a lot of the reason I love the tournament.

 

[FrancisSoyer]

The basketball tourney gets an additional 32 teams, yet football can't even get a simple 4 - 8 team playoff. But it's because they won't have time to study. Right?

 

[BB73]

There will still be a lot of attention to bubble teams in February and early March, it's just that most of these bubble teams will be 2 to 4 games below .500 in their conferences.

I think the idea sucks, but it means more money, so it'll probably happen.

The other factor is the difference between seeds 7-8 and seeds 9-10. Right now there's almost no difference in an 8-9 game, but I'd imagine the top 8 seeds (32 teams) will get byes, while everybody 9 and up has to play in the first round.

So there will be pre-tourney talk about which teams get above that line betwee the 8 and 9 seeds.

 

[BuckeyeTillIDie]

So dumb.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Putting more teams in isn't the solution to the problem. Why don't you implement a set of rules for the selection committee when they are picking teams. I thought the BCS was a joke and now they are trying to one up it with the NCAA tourny.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany: NCAA tournament expansion 'probable' - ESPN

Says who?

The problem: There's more money to be made.
The solution: Make more money.

 

[BrutusBobcat]

With conference tournaments, every single team in the NCAA is already "in the tournament". Expansion is ridiculous. The best team in the country isn't being left out somehow; no one can argue that any of the NIT teams would still be alive and kicking in the Final Four right now.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Says who?

The problem: There's more money to be made.
The solution: Make more money.

Bookie: I'm in the hole, I pay him two grand a week. There's no profit, I pay him two grand a week.

French: Well make more fuckin' money. This is America. You don't make money, then you're a fuckin' douchebag.

[Pulls Gun]

French: What you ganna do?

[kicks him]

Bookie: I'll make more money!

French: That's the spirit!

 

[Piney]

There will still be a lot of attention to bubble teams in February and early March, it's just that most of these bubble teams will be 2 to 4 games below .500 in their conferences.

I think the idea sucks, but it means more money, so it'll probably happen.

The other factor is the difference between seeds 7-8 and seeds 9-10. Right now there's almost no difference in an 8-9 game, but I'd imagine the top 8 seeds (32 teams) will get byes, while everybody 9 and up has to play in the first round.

So there will be pre-tourney talk about which teams get above that line betwee the 8 and 9 seeds.

This is the part that interests me... WHO gets these extra bids? Will it be the conference champions that don't win their conference tournaments (ie Kent St)? Will it be more mid-major teams getting in? Or will it just be the 16-16 BCS conference teams that don't have a winning record in their conference?

IF it is for the 1st 2 groups... I welcome it. But the realist in me says it will end up being option #3. Does the whole Big East get into the tournament now? (since they keep saying it is the biggest, best and deepest conference that rules the world *sarcasm alert*) So if we get an influx of .500 and below BCS teams then I don't want expansion.


Now BB's 2nd point about how the tournament will be run. The top 32 teams get a bye? This could be a blessing or a curse. Would you rather be an 8 seed and getting a bye, or the 9 seed that while they have to win their first game, at least they have an advantage of playing a game 2 days ago versus the #8 seed that could have not played a game for almost 2 weeks.

 

[Tonyank]

what a joke... like said above....money. It runs the USA. Horrible how Football cant even get a 10, 8 or 4 team playoff but they can can have 100 team.....ya its all about missing school and studying.....wtf

 

[Tonyank]

oh and now M*ch*g*n will get in.......Booo this man!!!!

 

[OhioState001]

I really dont see this happening when nobody wants it.

 

[BUCKYLE]

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. Fuck that.

 

[OH10]

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.

How is a "hot" team not better than the subjective "best team in the country" when the former beats the latter on the court? You think the media and coaches are more qualified to determine who the best team may be than the players themselves on the court? That's the joke.

You know what? You're right... forget the tournament. We should just have Kansas play Kentucky for the national champsionship. I mean that's who "everybody" thinks are the two best teams - never mind they failed to prove it.

Says who?

The problem: There's more money to be made.
The solution: Make more money.

There's no guarantee that more teams will equal more money. If the NCAA is thinking that, they are seriously underestimating the "office pool" factor on viewership. With an unbalanced bracket, the public is far less likely to get involved in such pools. Thus, you eliminate a significant rooting interest for the audience. No rooting interest = not watching.

I know that to be true for most women I know, including my mother and wife who watched a lot of the tournament this year. You take the bracket out of it, they could care less.

It's really a matter of understanding the success of your product. If they expand to 96 teams, they demonstrate a serious lack of understanding.

 

[BUCKYLE]

How is a "hot" team not better than the subjective "best team in the country" when the former beats the latter on the court? You think the media and coaches are more qualified to determine who the best team may be than the players themselves on the court? That's the joke.

You know what? You're right... forget the tournament. We should just have Kansas play Kentucky for the national champsionship. I mean that's who "everybody" thinks are the two best teams - never mind they failed to prove it.



There's no guarantee that more teams will equal more money. If the NCAA is thinking that, they are seriously underestimating the "office pool" factor on viewership. With an unbalanced bracket, the public is far less likely to get involved in such pools. Thus, you eliminate a significant rooting interest for the audience. No rooting interest = not watching.

I know that to be true for most women I know, including my mother and wife who watched a lot of the tournament this year. You take the bracket out of it, they could care less.

It's really a matter of understanding the success of your product. If they expand to 96 teams, they demonstrate a serious lack of understanding.

...because the tourney has always been 64 teams?

Unless everyone plays everyone, it's not really proving shit.