• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Should NCAA Tournament Expand?

Should the NCAA change the number of teams in the Basketball Tournament?

  • No, 65 teams is the right amount.

    Votes: 29 85.3%
  • Yes, they should go to 128 teams.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, everyone should be in (like HS in Ohio).

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Yes, but to a lower number, 65 is too many.

    Votes: 4 11.8%

  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .

ScriptOhio

Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
Do you agree that the NCAA should expand the basketball tournament expand to 128 teams?


Updated: June 25, 2006, 12:44 PM ET
Field of 128? Hoops coaches want tourney expanded


Associated Press


INDIANAPOLIS -- In a perfect world, college basketball coaches would nearly double the size of the 65-team NCAA men's tournament field. Realistically, they'd accept a smaller victory.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The number of Division I teams has increased significantly since the last major expansion more than two decades ago. The field went from 48 to 64 teams in 1985, then added a 65th team to the field in 2001 when the number of automatic bids went from 30 to 31.[/FONT]
Motivated in part by George Mason's remarkable Final Four run last season, coaches will urge the NCAA to expand its most lucrative championship event during the men's and women's basketball committee meetings in Orlando, Fla., this week.
"They'd love to see the tournament double to 128," said Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches. "It's based on several things. First, there are a lot of good teams worthy of making the NCAA field, and second, the size of 64 or 65 has been in place for a number of years."
Potential models range from minor adjustments to major changes.
When Haney met with NCAA officials last month, he proposed the 128-team field in part because postseason bids may help coaches keep their jobs.
At this year's Final Four, though, Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim said he supported expansion on a smaller scale. Boeheim and others suggested adding three to seven teams, a move they claimed would allow as many as four opening-round games to be played in Dayton, Ohio, instead of the one now played between the two lowest-seeded teams in the field.
Some believe such a schedule would create a more realistic tournament environment since first-round sites also play four games on the first day.
But changes don't appear imminent.
In March, NCAA president Myles Brand said he didn't see much support to expand the field and vice president for men's basketball Greg Shaheen reiterated that point Friday.
"Many, many people believe the size of the championship is just right," Shaheen said. "A lot of people think there's enough recognition of teams that did well and there's a logical and timely conclusion to the season."
Shaheen said this week's discussions, which end Thursday, will mark the first time expansion has been on the agenda in several years. The reason?
After a four-year legal battle with the National Invitation Tournament, the NCAA agreed to buy the tournament for $56.5 million last August.
Expansion also faces additional hurdles.
If the NCAA opted for a 128-team field, the number of first-round sites would double and an extra week of play would likely be added. Plus, Shaheen said the NCAA would have to debate how best to provide maximum television coverage.
Shaheen said changes would also have to be made in conjunction with the women's tournament.
"There is no one model that is obvious here, and that's something we need to contemplate," he said. "The other issue is how the women's tournament would be similarly impacted here and they need to coincide."
The coaches, however, contend there are many reasons to expand. Among their arguments:
• The number of Division I teams has increased significantly since the last major expansion more than two decades ago. The field went from 48 to 64 teams in 1985, then added a 65th team to the field in 2001 when the number of automatic bids went from 30 to 31.
• George Mason, which was one of the last at-large teams to make the field this year, proved parity in college basketball is real. The combination of prominent programs losing underclassmen at faster rates and scholarship reductions have helped mid-major schools become more competitive. The coaches believe they deserved to be rewarded accordingly.
• Now that the NCAA controls both postseason tournaments, coaches think it's time to include some of the bubble teams that annually complain when they are left out.
Could it happen?
"I don't think the idea of doubling the field is going to happen right now because there are too many complications to do that," Haney said. "But I think the committee will seriously consider what the number will be. ... I think if it happens, it will have to happen soon because of the logistical issues."
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2500025
 
Last edited:
could there be a worse proposal? Why would you want to reward awful teams with a tourney berth?

Good point. I think that 65 teams is a perfect amount; and I think that may even be a too large amount.

It seems that sports organizations are trying to make so many changes to please and change the image of their respected sport to give it a positive image; when in reality they're making countless mistakes that reflect on the committee's stupidity. They should just leave it as it is.
 
Upvote 0
If anything, they should decrease it back to 64

Agreed 100%. IMO there are already too many teams that get in on at-large bids that don't deserve to be there, mainly b/c they have mediocre years in big-time conferences. If more teams are added, I think it does two things to hurt the tournament:
(1) it cheapens the honor of being there
(2) it makes it more likely that good teams won't be around at the end b/c they have another game to play, making it more likely they'll be upset.

Bad idea all the way around.
 
Upvote 0
They should give more of the new conferences automatic bids. If Clemson or St. John's or scUM goes 19-12-who cares if they don't go to the big dance. Let more conference champs in and fewer 6th place teams from the power conferences.
 
Upvote 0
What everyone else said. No, No, No.

It should go back to 64. If you go 19-12, and you don't get in, then maybe you should have won more of the 12. I always laugh when bubble teams bitch about not getting in. You should have done more to stay off the bubble.

Think about it like this. In basketball, the 66th team is bitching. In football, it's the 3rd team. Which is better?

EDIT: And college basketball is more like high school ball than people realize. Each team has a chance to win the national title after the regular season is over. A team could go 0-22, win their conference tournament, and still win the national title. Everyone has a chance.
 
Upvote 0
I actually don't care. 128 teans / 8 teams - I'm still only going to watch bits and pieces of the games Ohio State isn't in. But I thought it was funny what the jerk-off was saying on Rover's Morning Glory - that with 128 teams, they're going to have to start "March Madness" in December. Uhh - I know you don't have to have a PhD in Mathematics to be on the radio, but you probably need to have passed 6th grade math. It's one more flipping game!

Maybe they should wait for a #16 seed to actually win a game before they expand and have seeds 17-32 added.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top