The field of 96?


#1

Have heard this come up a bit more lately in tv broadcasted debates… I was curious what feelings, thoughts had if the NCAA would expand to that many teams.

It would be curious how many teams the Big Ten would get in. Would this help the West Coast conferences, MACs of the world get more teams in the dance thus maybe causing more mid-seeds upsets? Just so many things this could change about March…


#2

I am okay with it if they don’t just reward big 6 conferences for being mediocre and make it a for mid-majors don’t have to sell themselves to the devil to have to make the field. I would be more in favor of the 68 team expansion and making the last couple of at-large teams have to play in the opening round games.


#3

No.

There are years where the bubble is tight, and many good teams are left out. And there are years where the bubble is soft, and some mediocre teams get in (this year). A 96 team field would leave a lot of mediocre->poor teams into the field. While it would include the 4-8 decent NIT teams that miss the field yearly (Baylor, ND, PSU, etc last year) it would bring a lot of unwanted teams too.

As Chaze said, a small expansion would be ideal.


#4

Was listen to the radio and Lavin proposed the idea of adding that there should be 4 games on the Tuesday instead of the one “play-in” game, that might be a worth while expansion. 72 team tourney if my math is right.


#5

Your math is wrong. Adding three extra play-in games would mean adding three more teams, making the total 68 teams, not 72.


#6

No No No A 64 team NCAA is fine. Would it not be nice to have a “fair” tournament where everybody played the same number of games.

Did I just put the words “fair” and “NCAA” in the same sentence. That’s a first! :wink:


#7

[quote=“tundra, post:6, topic:851”]No No No A 64 team NCAA is fine. Would it not be nice to have a “fair” tournament where everybody played the same number of games.

Did I just put the words “fair” and “NCAA” in the same sentence. That’s a first! ;)[/quote]

100% agree! Leave it where it is PLEASE!! (actually, isn’t it 65 now with the farce that’s a play-in game?) Good grief, it’s not broken, why are they trying to fix it!!! >:(


#8

I am against it since it won’t help PSU hoops. They would need to expand to 170-220 to consistently help us get into the tourney.


#9

I would probably consider no longer following the sport if they made such a move. It’s absolutely fine how it is now, and the automatic bid system ensures all the teams who deserve to be in are in. If you can’t win your conference tourney or prove clearly you deserve an at-large bid over the course of about 30 games, you don’t deserve anymore chances. It’s lucky for many teams each year that they give out as many at-large bids as they do, that should be looked at as a catching a break not a guaranteed right for every team.


#10

256 Teams

Start February Follies with a flurry and such wonderful matchups as #1 Kansas vs #256 Air Force and #2 Kentucky vs #255 IUPUI (love to see John Wall play both Indiana and Purdue at the same time :))

Hit March Madness with a maddening array to see if the Cinderella #181 Campbell Fighting Camels continue their shocking ways after wins over both #76 Wichita State and #53 Oklahoma State. They’ll get a stiffer test vs #12 Maryland.

Finally we waft onto April Armaggedon. Will it be Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse or the ultimate underdog, the #134 Chanticleers of Coastal Carolina?

Why stop at 64 or 65 or 68 or 72 or 96 or 128. In this day and age when every bumbling 5 year old gets a trophy for spinning around in the dirt at his shortstop position the entire season, why not reward participation. Who cares about wins and losses anymore, include everyone, throw everyone a bone and see them choke on it in brilliant HD on channels 9990, 9991. 9992. 9993. 9994, 9995, 9996, 9997, 9998, 9999. Of course for those with Comcast, that will be an addition charge of $1000 for the tournament to see these wonderful first round matchups.


#11

Good one Illini, :slight_smile:

chan·ti·cleer (chnt-klîr, shn-)
n.
A rooster.


[Middle English chauntecler, from Old French chantecler, the name of the rooster in the tale of Reynard the Fox : chanter, to sing; see chant + cler, clear; see clear.]

Do kids read Chaucer any more?


#12

[quote=“tundra, post:11, topic:851”]Good one Illini, :slight_smile:

chan·ti·cleer (chnt-klîr, shn-)
n.
A rooster.


[Middle English chauntecler, from Old French chantecler, the name of the rooster in the tale of Reynard the Fox : chanter, to sing; see chant + cler, clear; see clear.]

Do kids read Chaucer any more?[/quote]

Well a big Cock-a-doodle-doo to that idea. :slight_smile:


#13

[quote=“NittanyIllini, post:10, topic:851”]256 Teams

Start February Follies with a flurry and such wonderful matchups as #1 Kansas vs #256 Air Force and #2 Kentucky vs #255 IUPUI (love to see John Wall play both Indiana and Purdue at the same time :))

Hit March Madness with a maddening array to see if the Cinderella #181 Campbell Fighting Camels continue their shocking ways after wins over both #76 Wichita State and #53 Oklahoma State. They’ll get a stiffer test vs #12 Maryland.

Finally we waft onto April Armaggedon. Will it be Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse or the ultimate underdog, the #134 Chanticleers of Coastal Carolina?

Why stop at 64 or 65 or 68 or 72 or 96 or 128. In this day and age when every bumbling 5 year old gets a trophy for spinning around in the dirt at his shortstop position the entire season, why not reward participation. Who cares about wins and losses anymore, include everyone, throw everyone a bone and see them choke on it in brilliant HD on channels 9990, 9991. 9992. 9993. 9994, 9995, 9996, 9997, 9998, 9999. Of course for those with Comcast, that will be an addition charge of $1000 for the tournament to see these wonderful first round matchups. [/quote]

Actually the Chanticleers could easily be part of the field of 65 this season, and not need the expansion to 128, or 256 teams, assuming they can follow up a 23-5 season record thus far this season with a win in the Big South Tournament.


#14

I wouldn’t mind a field of 96 – if the NIT got eliminated. Or, as a compromise, the NIT field is made up of the 32 teams that lose in the first round. The NIT was fun last year. But it wouldn’t have been much fun watching the NEXT best 32 teams play (who won that other tournament?).


#15

NittanyIllini, your post reminds me of the infamous TheOnion video about NCAA tournament expansion. Must I post the link? I hope you’ve all seen it. :smiley:


#16

I have seen it…hill-air-ee-ass…Please, post away.


#17
NittanyIllini, your post reminds me of the infamous TheOnion video about NCAA tournament expansion. Must I post the link? I hope you've all seen it. :D

I have seen it…hill-air-ee-ass…Please, post away.

Rings a bell, but maybe not. Please post just in case.


#18

The business of college basketball


#19

Based on this article, the NIT would go away. That would mean one less teams gets to play extra games (65 + 32 = 97). I’m okay with that. It also means fewer games overall (the NIT field gets essentially one game, since after the first round there are 64 teams left). This is also a good thing for students. To hear it’s all about the money is refreshingly honest. Think how much more money the NCAA could make if it had an NCAA Championship in football too. My guess is that 98% number shrinks to about 25%.


#20

NCAA Expands March Madness To Include 4,096 Teams

Jerry Palm made a comment or two in his weekly podcast about what the field would look like if there were 96 teams this year… he said there are glaring holes in the resumes of almost 10 “IN” teams right now, imagine if 30+ more teams were added to the field? I completely agree… keep the field at 65, or very close to it. Just sayin… if this argument was even still going on in this thread.

The podcast is located here: http://collegerpi.com/