PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

VCU's run makes 96 team dance


#1

I have feeling we are going to hear a lot about the 96 team tourney talk again after this Final Four completes. VCU made the selection committee look great but do you think we will see something like that in the next 5 years or has it been a “fluke”.


#2

96, no. More than 68, yes!


#3

Not 96. But maybe it does prove that 68 was an okay idea.


#4

VCU or no VCU…68 is absolutely ridiculous …This is not a National Championship Tournament…is it a money making event…Especially for the networks.
People have short memories…look/listen what happened when the networks thought PSU would/might be selected over favorite son MSU…


#5

No…but it does support the play-in game for an at-large bid.


#6

Let it alone. They got their 68 (unnecessary, but OK). It was perfect at 64. Anything beyond 68 is the golden gooseneck meeting the blade. VCU made the most of their chance, and good for them, but there is a line somewhere between 64 and >68 where you’re diluting the greatest tournament in sports. The committee’s job is to PICK the bracket, not PREDICT the bracket. That a team between 64-68 excelled does not a case make for 84 or 96 or 192.


#7

It would support ‘96’ as much as it would support ‘128’ or ‘256’.


#8
I have feeling we are going to hear a lot about the 96 team tourney talk again after this Final Four completes. VCU made the selection committee look great but do you think we will see something like that in the next 5 years or has it been a "fluke".

It would support ‘96’ as much as it would support ‘128’ or ‘256’.

The more teams they add the less it becomes an accomplishment to make the tourney.

I support less teams…96 is crazy.


#9

I support more play-in games…but solely for at-large teams.


#10

Me too, and I have no problem with that happening.


#11

I like the results of the poll at the beginning of the thread… :o …heck next ESPN will talk you into wanting “play-in-games” to the “plays-in-games” and so on… Enough Already


#12
[quote="Tom, post:9, topic:2302"]I support more play-in games...but solely for at-large teams.[/quote]

Me too, and I have no problem with that happening.

I think that is a reasonable idea. So add another play in game between at larges per bracket? That adds 4 more teams? 72 is a nice number. I know that there another conference becomes eligible for an auto bid and a few years so that might be a good time to do bracket expansion.


#13

Just wish the other play-in game wasn’t a 16 seed game. Give them their own invite and have teams like VCU, etc. play their way into the tourney.


#14

I agree with at-large teams playing their way into the tournament. How about this idea? I counted 33 conferences. The winners of the top 32 conferences are automatically in the field. The 33rd champ and 63 at-large teams play in a one game play-in. You win and you are in the field of 64. Lose and you go to the NIT. That keeps things basically at 64 and 32 or 96 teams total – the number it used to be at. I know, the logistics would be a nightmare. But wouldn’t it have been exciting if PSU had beaten OSU for the Big Ten championship? We’d have been in the dance and the #2 team in the country would have to sweat out a play-in game. It sure would make the conference tournaments a heck of a lot more exciting for everyone – not just the bubble teams.


#15
Just wish the other play-in game wasn't a 16 seed game. Give them their own invite and have teams like VCU, etc. play their way into the tourney.

I agree with at-large teams playing their way into the tournament. How about this idea? I counted 33 conferences. The winners of the top 32 conferences are automatically in the field. The 33rd champ and 63 at-large teams play in a one game play-in. You win and you are in the field of 64. Lose and you go to the NIT. That keeps things basically at 64 and 32 or 96 teams total – the number it used to be at. I know, the logistics would be a nightmare. But wouldn’t it have been exciting if PSU had beaten OSU for the Big Ten championship? We’d have been in the dance and the #2 team in the country would have to sweat out a play-in game. It sure would make the conference tournaments a heck of a lot more exciting for everyone – not just the bubble teams.

That is the exact opposite of what I want to see happen. It just further diminishes the regular season, and makes those 30+ games more or less meaningless.


#16
[quote="pennstateno1, post:13, topic:2302"]Just wish the other play-in game wasn't a 16 seed game. Give them their own invite and have teams like VCU, etc. play their way into the tourney.[/quote]

I agree with at-large teams playing their way into the tournament. How about this idea? I counted 33 conferences. The winners of the top 32 conferences are automatically in the field. The 33rd champ and 63 at-large teams play in a one game play-in. You win and you are in the field of 64. Lose and you go to the NIT. That keeps things basically at 64 and 32 or 96 teams total – the number it used to be at. I know, the logistics would be a nightmare. But wouldn’t it have been exciting if PSU had beaten OSU for the Big Ten championship? We’d have been in the dance and the #2 team in the country would have to sweat out a play-in game. It sure would make the conference tournaments a heck of a lot more exciting for everyone – not just the bubble teams.

That is the exact opposite of what I want to see happen. It just further diminishes the regular season, and makes those 30+ games more or less meaningless.

Let me reset my position. I only like my idea IF they are going to expand to 96 teams anyway. I don’t like the idea of expanding to 96 teams though.