96 Teams Next Year?


#1

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-03-30-ncaa-tournament-expansion_N.htm


#2

Heard the first few minutes of the Dan Patrick show this morning. His poll question was:

Which would you prefer, an 8 team playoff for football or 96 teams in the basketball tournament. DUH!!! Only one choice is a positive in my opinion.


#3

I don’t like the idea at all. but I think it’s nearly a foregone conclusion. They can’t agree for a even a 4 team football playoff, but now 96 for hoops?


#4

Fail…


#5

I don’t like 96 at all. I could probably go along with 72, but I don’t even like the current play-in game let alone adding 7 more of them. 96 is just way too many.


#6

For teams like Penn State its good. Gives us a shot to get in the tourney.


#7

and if Ed doesn’t make it next year, or the year after, or the year after that, maybe people can beg for it to be expanded to 128 teams.


#8

It’s such a terrible idea. How would they even set the bracket up? Do you give a bye to the top 8 seeds in each region and then have teams 33-96 play an opening round? I don’t think that’s a good idea because you’d likely end up with far fewer David v. Goliath type match-ups in the new round 2. Do you have the crappiest at-large teams all play each other for a shot at the 7-14 seeds in the round of 64? Not sure the high majors will go for that. Is it possible to have a mixture? Have the 16 worst teams play each other for the 15-16 seed lines, have the 16 worst high-majors playing for the the 11-12 see lines.

I know the last thing the NCAA cares about is the gambling that surrounds the tournament through bracket pools, but if they screw with people’s ability to do so, interest in the tournament will PLUMMET. They have to recognize that office pools and gambling are what have allowed March Madness to grow into what it is. It’s not just about the excitement of the games.


#9
For teams like Penn State its good. Gives us a shot to get in the tourney.
and if Ed doesn't make it next year, or the year after, or the year after that, maybe people can beg for it to be expanded to 128 teams.
Maybe their vision was us dancing when it expands to 96. I'm connecting the dots now ;)

#10

Hate this, like most of you.

Here’s my thing - if I thought this was done for ANY sort of way that was meaning to add to the competition of the sport, I’d probably understand. But it’s clearly, above all else, only about money for the NCAA. How can you continually preach to these kids and programs that this is amateur athletics when your only concern is your bottom line…


#11

Man, I’m feeling so powerless lately. Just like Obamacare, I can see things going in the wrong direction and it seems like an inevitable force pulling it the wrong way, despite the cries of the masses. (hey, not trying to be politcial, but if you didn’t like Obamacare either I bet you understand just how I FEEL, OK :wink: )

Is there any way to send an e-mail campaign to Spanier to get him to vote “no”. Would it make ANY difference???

Just like the people in Mass chanted “41” thinking they were saving the day, our chants of “64” are going on deaf ears. :’(


#12

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:10, topic:1072”]Hate this, like most of you.

Here’s my thing - if I thought this was done for ANY sort of way that was meaning to add to the competition of the sport, I’d probably understand. But it’s clearly, above all else, only about money for the NCAA. How can you continually preach to these kids and programs that this is amateur athletics when your only concern is your bottom line…[/quote]

This


#13
[quote="Craftsy21, post:10, topic:1072"]Hate this, like most of you.

Here’s my thing - if I thought this was done for ANY sort of way that was meaning to add to the competition of the sport, I’d probably understand. But it’s clearly, above all else, only about money for the NCAA. How can you continually preach to these kids and programs that this is amateur athletics when your only concern is your bottom line…[/quote]

This


x2

#14

GREED! ???


#15

It also gives less of a reason to worry about RPI


#16
[quote="hoops19, post:6, topic:1072"]For teams like Penn State its good. Gives us a shot to get in the tourney.[/quote] It also gives less of a reason to worry about RPI

Absolutely!! We’ll get in with a half-decent conference record now regardless of the OCC. Get ready for the parade of cupcakes… >:(


#17
[quote="hoops19, post:6, topic:1072"]For teams like Penn State its good. Gives us a shot to get in the tourney.[/quote]

It also gives less of a reason to worry about RPI

Still need to worry about RPI. Only difference is that what used to get you into the NIT will now get you to the big dance. Ho Hum.


#18

Hate it! Makes a somewhat meaningless regular season for a lot of teams ever more meaningless. It should be hard to make the Big Dance, and aside from 1 vs. 16, 2 vs.15, it should be hard to advance. Why change the best sporting event of the year? The answer is the almighty dollar, and that’s sad!

We can’t have a football playoff. One of the reasons I’ve heard is over missed class time concerns, but yet we can add a week to the NCAA Tournament…The NCAA is a joke.


#19

[quote=“Pezlion, post:8, topic:1072”]It’s such a terrible idea. How would they even set the bracket up? Do you give a bye to the top 8 seeds in each region and then have teams 33-96 play an opening round? I don’t think that’s a good idea because you’d likely end up with far fewer David v. Goliath type match-ups in the new round 2. Do you have the crappiest at-large teams all play each other for a shot at the 7-14 seeds in the round of 64? Not sure the high majors will go for that. Is it possible to have a mixture? Have the 16 worst teams play each other for the 15-16 seed lines, have the 16 worst high-majors playing for the the 11-12 see lines.

I know the last thing the NCAA cares about is the gambling that surrounds the tournament through bracket pools, but if they screw with people’s ability to do so, interest in the tournament will PLUMMET. They have to recognize that office pools and gambling are what have allowed March Madness to grow into what it is. It’s not just about the excitement of the games.[/quote]

I think the opposite…

The NCAA bracket is one of the greatest marketing tools in the entire sporting world. No exaggeration.

So many people who know absolutley nothing about college basketball will fill out a bracket, and follow the tournament to an extent, because of their bracket. Fans from non-bracket teams will do the same. Poeple who cdon’t even like basketball will fill out brackets and follow the tournament.

Officially, the NCAA will frown on it. But in reality, I think they know it’s by far the best promo out there !!!


#20

[quote=“danlauver, post:18, topic:1072”]Hate it! Makes a somewhat meaningless regular season for a lot of teams ever more meaningless. It should be hard to make the Big Dance, and aside from 1 vs. 16, 2 vs.15, it should be hard to advance. Why change the best sporting event of the year? The answer is the almighty dollar, and that’s sad!

We can’t have a football playoff. One of the reasons I’ve heard is over missed class time concerns, but yet we can add a week to the NCAA Tournament…The NCAA is a joke.[/quote]

BTW… Coach John Thompson, on his radio show, said that if this year’s tournament had 96 teams, then 13 of the 16 BIG EAST schools would have made it.
…think about that…