Horrible Idea Du Jour: Expanding the NCAA Tournament to 96 Teams

[Dan]

Don't mess with perfection.

SportsBusiness Journal got our attention by reporting that one of the items under discussion as the NCAA considers opting out of the final three years of its CBS contract is the expansion of the NCAA Tournament to 96 teams.

It was like being told the world will end in December 2012.

None of us wants to hear this.

Mike DeCourcy

[CrazedUIFan]

Ridiculous. Seriously?

[Dan]

At the very most, expand it to 68 and make it an even 4 play-in game for the 1 seeds. Then ESPN could have "Play-In Tuesday!", 10 straight hours of fundamentally unsound but passionate college basketball to kick off the tourney.

[United]

uhhhh lets hope not

[JW]

This seems to come up every season when some teams don't make the dance. 64 is an arbitrary number; but so is 32 or 96 or 100 for that matter. The only resolution, though, idiotic, would be to include all Div.1 programs. Let's just stick with the arbitrary cutoff of 64 and not mess with a good thing.

Part of the tournament's excitment is that some teams are overlooked. And some teams who don't deserve to be there, basically the winners of the weak conferences, are included.

[4LaCosaNostra]

weber and izzo want this badly.. something about keeping coaches jobs etc.

[buglebob]

Actually - many notable basketball types on TV - in the press etc. have supported a plan to expand the tournament to evry div 1 basketball program in the NCAA realm !

I think that is over 200 teams. They pointed out only two more games for a few teams, and no bubble teams or playin games.

It would still expand the tourn by a week I would think !

Game 1 would be Duke vrs Nova or maybe LaMoyne and LaMoyne would win !!!!! Oh wait - LaMoyne is Div 2 !?

Big Bob in Brandon

[IlliniKat]

I could buy a few more play-ins or whatever, but this is a bit much. Talk about milking the cash cow.

[illini4everjp]

Unbelievably stupid, so its only fitting that it came from that stupid association in Indiana.

[Dan]

The NCAA Tournament is the greatest show on earth.

Forgetting the "play-ins", 64 is the perfect number

Three straight weekends featuring two rounds of play. On top of that, add in the weekend before the tournament starts, with all those insane conference tournaments no one ever heard of in high school gyms, playing for their absolute basketball lives. It's fantastic.

And still, the regular season means a lot. Just look at Illinois, right now we're worried about making the tourney. That's a good thing.

Basketball coaches routinely complain about how hard it is to make the tourney, like Bobby Knight last season. That's a good thing.

Add another round(s), you screw up the perfect tourney schedule, and dilute the meaning of the regular season. Keep on keepin' on.

[IlliniFanZ]

That's like how we now have 10 films being nominated for Best Picture Oscar. You let in too many people it's not as elite...

[ChiSoxIllini82]

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

[BlindLoyalty]

Originally Posted by 4LaCosaNostra

weber and izzo want this badly.. something about keeping coaches jobs etc.

Bruce Weber Q & A 10/12/06

Q: In the offseason, with George Mason making the Final Four, there was a lot of talk about mid-majors and whether they belonged in the Tournament. That sparked talk of expansion. What are your thoughts on expanding the NCAA Tournament?

A: Well I think we need to expand to keep up with the number of teams that are now Division I teams. If you really study it closely — and we've looked at it at our NABC meetings this summer and also at the Final Four – the number of teams has expanded that can't play in the tournament but we have not kept up with the percentage of teams that get in. And I think there's always going to be somebody unhappy. Our group made a pass for 128 teams, and I think that's a little high, but I think we need another handful of teams to keep up with the percentage of those getting in. The other part we bring up is in football — half the Division I-A teams get into bowl games and we're nowhere near that percentage. I'm hoping the NCAA will strongly look at adding some teams in the next couple of years.

Q: You said that 128 teams was high. What kind of a number would you recommend?

A: Like I said, now you have the one play-in game. How about having four play-in games? And every No. 1 seed will play a play-in winner so you have some equality there. And you can have one site — Dayton (Ohio) has been a great site for those first-round games so maybe you could have all those teams go there. And then the mid-major – or even the high-major that gets left out – it might save a coach's job. We're always looking out for the coaches and it might make a big difference in the program. I know I sat on the bubble for several years at Southern Illinois and it's not a fun feeling to wait that 10 days to see if you would get in or not.

[moe.fan]

Let's get a tournament going in football before we ever think of something like this.

[BananaShampoo]

No. Just no.

As if it isn't enough work to have to fill in brackets for 65 teams. And do you really think any tournament selection committee would want to have to seed all those teams?

[zoggle101]

Originally Posted by Dan

At the very most, expand it to 68 and make it an even 4 play-in game for the 1 seeds. Then ESPN could have "Play-In Tuesday!", 10 straight hours of fundamentally unsound but passionate college basketball to kick off the tourney.

Originally Posted by buglebob

Actually - many notable basketball types on TV - in the press etc. have supported a plan to expand the tournament to evry div 1 basketball program in the NCAA realm !

I think that is over 200 teams. They pointed out only two more games for a few teams, and no bubble teams or playin games.

It would still expand the tourn by a week I would think !

Game 1 would be Duke vrs Nova or maybe LaMoyne and LaMoyne would win !!!!! Oh wait - LaMoyne is Div 2 !?

Big Bob in Brandon

347 teams. Didn't you read yahoo's top 347 like I did but I just rattle names off the top of my head. Jk, Wester. Just thought I'd point out that there are 347 teams.

Originally Posted by Dan

The NCAA Tournament is the greatest show on earth.

Forgetting the "play-ins", 64 is the perfect number

Three straight weekends featuring two rounds of play. On top of that, add in the weekend before the tournament starts, with all those insane conference tournaments no one ever heard of in high school gyms, playing for their absolute basketball lives. It's fantastic.

And still, the regular season means a lot. Just look at Illinois, right now we're worried about making the tourney. That's a good thing.

Basketball coaches routinely complain about how hard it is to make the tourney, like Bobby Knight last season. That's a good thing.

Add another round(s), you screw up the perfect tourney schedule, and dilute the meaning of the regular season. Keep on keepin' on.

It really is something great.

[FinalFour88]

One thing I would love to see happen: Stick to 65 teams, but make the play-in game between the last two at-large teams. So essentially, you'd have a play-in for one of the 12 seeds. I just don't think it's fair that two automatic qualifiers should have to play on Tuesday, and that the loser of that game will not have felt that they really went to the Dance. Besides, a play-in game between bubble teams -- say, Michigan and UNLV, for example -- would be much more interesting to watch and would get way better ratings.

[dabearssoxbulls313]

All the teams are already included. It's called conference tournaments.

[illini4everjp]

Originally Posted by dabearssoxbulls313

All the teams are already included. It's called conference tournaments.

+ 1

We had a massive discussion on that point last tournament time.

[ChitownIllini]

How about first expanding college football to 48 bowls, so we can get the Zookers another December game?

[Clete1]

I hate the idea of expanding. This is about TV money, but we'll still get the disingenuous fair play arguments from the ESPN talking heads about how unfair it is to leave out poor (fill in a Big East or ACC team) when they went 8-10 in the toughest conference in America, baby!!

If you are arguing that you belong in the tournament because you are the 64th best team in the country, not the 66th, then you're missing the bigger point. Whether you are 64 or 66, you really haven't done anything to deserve a shot at the national championship.

I'd go the other way

- Limit the number of teams from any conference to no more than half.

- Limit at large bids to teams with a better than .500 conference record.

This way, if you have an upset winner of your conference tournament they'd bump someone from your conference.

If you can't finish in the top half of your conference or win more than half the games, we already know there are at least five or six teams in your own conference better than you, and you don't deserve to play for the title.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by dabearssoxbulls313

All the teams are already included. It's called conference tournaments.

+2....except of course that the Ivy rewards the season long champ.

[danielb927]

It's the best three weeks in sports... why change? I can see four play-in games though. Three extra at-large bids, sure. The bubble will still be there. Why was the selection show so exciting for us in 2007? The bubble!

[borange]

Originally Posted by FinalFour88

One thing I would love to see happen: Stick to 65 teams, but make the play-in game between the last two at-large teams. So essentially, you'd have a play-in for one of the 12 seeds. I just don't think it's fair that two automatic qualifiers should have to play on Tuesday, and that the loser of that game will not have felt that they really went to the Dance. Besides, a play-in game between bubble teams -- say, Michigan and UNLV, for example -- would be much more interesting to watch and would get way better ratings.

Last year as we argued the finer points of an expanded tourney, I proposed this exact idea. You could even use these guidelines to expand the field to 68. It creates interest in the games (who wants to see 64 play 65?) and gives the bubble teams a (another) chance to earn their spot. I would think these bubble teams would have a greater fan following also, creating more revenue. Personally I think 64 teams is enough, but if you are going to add more teams, the games have to be more interesting.

As a side note, I remember being chewed out by another poster about how the play in games lose money for the NCAA and my idea was stupid. Maybe he will half read what we are saying now and chime in again.

[wILL-INI]

Its all about the Benjamins...