96 Team NCAA Tournament Revisited

Is VCU and Butler proof that expanding the tourney to 96 needs to be reexamined?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/03/ncaa-tournament-expansion-renew-argument-vcu/1

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/03/28/cinderella-officially-departs-ncaa-tourney/#

Butler is an 8 seed and an autobid, what the crap are you talking about?

Butler is an 8 seed and an autobid, what the crap are you talking about?

That’s what the author of the article says, not me.

The point of the article is VCU barely got in the tournament.

A team capable of making the final four should be in the tournament. Also, KY was a three point shot away from being knocked out of the tournament in the first round by Princeton.

I think the argument is parity exsists to the point that expanding the tournament is worth exploring.

So the argument becomes, if you expand the tournament does it make the regular season and Conference tournament bids less important? Maybe

Does it water down the tournament or create more excitement? If our Niner’s start slow next year but finsh the season strong with a record of 20-11 we don’t make the tournament. With a field of 96 teams we would be in. That works for me.

If it goes to 96 teams you will have a ton of below .500 conference record Big 6 conference teams getting bids.

I say if they go to 96 then both the Regular season champ and conference tourney champ should both get auto bids if it is a different team. That would deter the BCS take over.

Obviously. This was their plan. You don’t do an asinine move like make the “First Four” be called an entire ROUND and not have plans to actually make it an entire round. They just got ultra lucky that the very first year they have the First Four, they have a F4 cinderella as one of the teams.

I… disagree. 68 to 96 is 28 spots. If you do what you are proposing, you are adding about 18 teams that probably wouldn’t do anything. Leaving 10 more at-larges, they’d likely just give 8 more spots to shitty BCS teams, and 2 to deserving non-BCS teams.

If you want to counter a further BCS takeover, it has to be something like you must have a .500 or better in conference, or above .500 in-conf to be eligible for at-large.

I, for one, would love expansion of the tourney.

Let eveyone in, let the top 48 get bye and the rest play it down to 64.

In a way, its like combining the NIT with the NCAA tourny

I am ok as long as they require a .500 or better record in conference. If you can’t win half of your conference games you don’t belong.

This would though effectively kill the NIT.

More teams=more rounds=more money. It will happen. As to what the appropriate number of teams to have to be fair in theory, I have no idea. As long as human beings pick the teams, somebody will be wronged each and every year, no matter how many teams get to participate.

Agreed on the higher than .500 in conference requirement.

Other arguments for expanding:
Richmond was a bubble team before winning the conference championship. They then made the Sweet 16.

UConn finished in a three-way tie for 9th in the Big East. The BE got 11 teams in the tourney, with UConn being tied with the last 3 in terms of regular season record.

I dont like it. Just personal preference. I think it demeans the accomplishment.

There are 345 D1 teams IIRC. @ 68 invites, 19.7% get in. That’s 1 in 5. At 96, 27.8% get in, that’s more than 1 in 4. Even with the regular season champ rule, you’re just going to water it down with more mediocre BCS teams. You can pretty much just add the NIT field to what we have now. Aside from 2 or 3 teams, is that really worth it?

At some point, the toruney becomes too long. I’m not sure when that is, but do you want to flirt with overkill knowing how hard it would be to go back ($$$)?

Arent there like 34 bowls in FBS football, and about 120 teams? That means half the teams in the country play in a bowl game. It’s stupid, boring, and IMHO takes away from the sport. I’d prefer that was scaled back as well.

The postseason in any sporty should not reward mediocrity or the regular season becomes largely irrelevent.

[quote=“NinerAdvocate, post:13, topic:25204”]I dont like it. Just personal preference. I think it demeans the accomplishment.

There are 345 D1 teams IIRC. @ 68 invites, 19.7% get in. That’s 1 in 5. At 96, 27.8% get in, that’s more than 1 in 4. Even with the regular season champ rule, you’re just going to water it down with more mediocre BCS teams. You can pretty much just add the NIT field to what we have now. Aside from 2 or 3 teams, is that really worth it?

At some point, the toruney becomes too long. I’m not sure when that is, but do you want to flirt with overkill knowing how hard it would be to go back ($$$)?

Arent there like 34 bowls in FBS football, and about 120 teams? That means half the teams in the country play in a bowl game. It’s stupid, boring, and IMHO takes away from the sport. I’d prefer that was scaled back as well.

The postseason in any sporty should not reward mediocrity or the regular season becomes largely irrelevent.[/quote]

Could not agree more. Let’s just hand out medals and stickers to everyone and call everyone a winner. Please.

[quote=“NinerAdvocate, post:13, topic:25204”]I dont like it. Just personal preference. I think it demeans the accomplishment.

There are 345 D1 teams IIRC. @ 68 invites, 19.7% get in. That’s 1 in 5. At 96, 27.8% get in, that’s more than 1 in 4. Even with the regular season champ rule, you’re just going to water it down with more mediocre BCS teams. You can pretty much just add the NIT field to what we have now. Aside from 2 or 3 teams, is that really worth it?

At some point, the toruney becomes too long. I’m not sure when that is, but do you want to flirt with overkill knowing how hard it would be to go back ($$$)?

Arent there like 34 bowls in FBS football, and about 120 teams? That means half the teams in the country play in a bowl game. It’s stupid, boring, and IMHO takes away from the sport. I’d prefer that was scaled back as well.

The postseason in any sporty should not reward mediocrity or the regular season becomes largely irrelevent.[/quote]Agree. It would be like NBA teams bragging that they made it to the playoffs. Who doesn’t make it? (Okay, no Bobcat jokes are necessary.)

My acceptance of it is dependent upon the NIT going away in conjunction with the expansion. If they’re going to continue to have the NIT, which I haven’t anything in regards to it going away, IMO it would be better just to put them in the field of the NCAA.

I agree, in an ideal world I would leave it at the NCAA field of 64 and that would be it. But it seems we’ve already crossed that bridge and they’re not going back.

Something will go away if the NCAA field expands. Not sure if it will be the NIT, CIT, or CBI, but if the NCAA Tourney adds 32 teams one (or two) of them will need to go away. None of these tournaments are, or have ever been, “significant”, even when the NIT fields were stellar back in the 70’s.

BCS + 1 that went from 4 to 5 BCS Bowls didn’t end a bowl.

NCAA to 96 won’t end NIT, CBI, or CIT.

If you expand to 96, it needs to be for deserving non-BCS teams. BCS teams already get plenty of opportunities. I want assurances agains sub .500 BCS conf. teams. And assurances agains 11 teams from the same conf. if they have that many at or above .500.

And it’s BS that 4 of the 8 teams in the 1st 4 were auto bids. No auto bid should play in. 32 conferences, 32 byes in 96 team field. 64 at large play-in to face the 32. I’m tired of seeing teams with very awesome records being forced to the CBI or CIT because they can’t even get in the crappy NIT because of non-BCS bias.