Your thoughts on 96 teams in the NCAA tournament

[DontMissHim]

We have all heard the possibility of the NCAA tournament expanding to 96 teams. I was talking to one of my buddies, ehem-Great1, the other day about the expansion and he was ALL for it claiming the need/want for more Big 6 teams to get in the dance. What does BCT feel about a possible expansion?

For me- I like what we have now. It is very exciting as it is and 96 teams would be way too much. Take a look at the bubble teams this year-they just are not very strong...and pretty weak IMO. None of them have the ability to go and win a NC-heck if your seeded below 5 you barely have a chance anyways. The field would be waterd down much more with 96 teams when realisticly only the top 1-maybe 5 seeds have a legit chance at the NC. Why bring more teams in if thats the case?

 

[Cordon]

Agree, NO NO and NO. The "Play in game" is even too much....

 

[lumberjack]

We have all heard the possibility of the NCAA tournament expanding to 96 teams. I was talking to one of my buddies, ehem-Great1, the other day about the expansion and he was ALL for it claiming the need/want for more Big 6 teams to get in the dance. What does BCT feel about a possible expansion?

For me- I like what we have now. It is very exciting as it is and 96 teams would be way too much. Take a look at the bubble teams this year-they just are not very strong...and pretty weak IMO. None of them have the ability to go and win a NC-heck if your seeded below 5 you barely have a chance anyways. The field would be waterd down much more with 96 teams when realisticly only the top 1-maybe 5 seeds have a legit chance at the NC. Why bring more teams in if thats the case?

If anything less teams would be better. Only 10to 15 teams anyway have a legit chance to win the tourney.

 

[adrock]

It's 1 extra game for the current lower half of the bracket, not that big a deal. I like the current format better, I think, but I've heard a lot of talk on the radio and on television about how this would ruin the NCAA tournament. Overreaction. The NCAA tournament has been expanding ever since its inception. Just because we're used to a certain number of teams doesn't make it the right number of teams.

Besides, what are we worried about if these lower teams have "no shot?" Let them determine it on the court.

On the flip side, I can see this degrading the importance of both the regular season and conference tournaments.

 

[Kingsley Court]

I don't think it would ruin it as fans so much as what is the regular season worth then? And this year, the bubble is really weak, you think 30 or so more teams should get in?

 

[Thegreatone]

These bubble teams from major conference would get in from smaller conferences. Not as week as many want to believe. Just because Jay Bilas says so doesn't always make it true.

The expansion of the tournament would mean more Power 6 teams thus making it the best judge of talent. Mid Majors would be hurt by this. But Major and high mid majors (A-10, Moutain West) would benefit greatly from it.

 

[adrock]

The bubble's not that weak. Are you trying to say you don't think UConn can do some serious damage in the tournament? Or for that matter, couldn't we (if we could score some points)?

 

[DontMissHim]

The bubble's not that weak. Are you trying to say you don't think UConn can do some serious damage in the tournament? Or for that matter, couldn't we (if we could score some points)?

The bubble- to me=last four in first four out. Add in 2 teams.(usually the 11 or 12 seeds) 10 teams usually are on the bubble.
PER JOE LUNARDI's Bracket

First four out:
Notre Dame
Rhode Island
Dayton
Ole Miss

Last four in:
Virginia Tech
Saint Mary's
Mississippi State
San Diego State

11 seeds: Utah State, VT, Illinios, Florida.

12 seeds: Uconn, Sienna, Cornell, St. Marrys.

Yes, the bubble is very weak. None of those teams could come close to doing anything. Maybe Uconn has a shot at the sweet 16...maybe.

Heck, if you think 10 seeds might be bubble-lets take a look at those:

FSU, Old Dominion, UAB, UTEP

 

[TheShoeFits]

I think that I'm the only one who would like the expansion.

I argue on the other side of the spectrum that it will not be watered down but rather whoever the national champion be can say that they had to beat 31 more teams which makes their tourney run that much more impressive.

 

[Kingsley Court]

Now, and I know a lot of people supporting the Power conferences wouldn't agree, but what about giving all the regular season conference champs post season invites, as well as post season champs? Most of the time in the smaller conferences they are the same team any way, and I think this would still give a lot more power conferences chances to get into the tournament. There has been a lot of talk recently about how regular season conference champions deserve bids more then post season champs. This would help that IMO.

 

[DontMissHim]

Now, and I know a lot of people supporting the Power conferences wouldn't agree, but what about giving all the regular season conference champs post season invites, as well as post season champs? Most of the time in the smaller conferences they are the same team any way, and I think this would still give a lot more power conferences chances to get into the tournament. There has been a lot of talk recently about how regular season conference champions deserve bids more then post season champs. This would help that IMO.

If anything-that would give power conferences less chance to get into the tournament. A reg. season power conference champ will be in the tournament anyways. Now, I agree that I think the reg season champ should be the auto-bid-showing why throughout the whole season instead of getting hot in the post-season tournament.

 

[Thegreatone]

Now, and I know a lot of people supporting the Power conferences wouldn't agree, but what about giving all the regular season conference champs post season invites, as well as post season champs? Most of the time in the smaller conferences they are the same team any way, and I think this would still give a lot more power conferences chances to get into the tournament. There has been a lot of talk recently about how regular season conference champions deserve bids more then post season champs. This would help that IMO.

Given the added teams I would be all for that. No reason a team dominates all year and then someone gets hot at the end and takes away a legitimate champions spot.

 

[Kingsley Court]

Not true. In the very worst case (every reg season conference champion doesn't win post season tournament) there would be 64 teams already in the field. Leaving 32 teams left to get at large bids. Right now I think there are 33 at large bids? Not sure, but the worse case would be the at large would be like it is today. In most cases I think that you would add close to 15 more teams getting into the tournament, that wouldn't have if the field was still at 65.

My response was to dontmisshim

 

[catsfan32]

I like the idea. Give the regular season champs auto bids, have the conf tourney champs bids, and you are left with probably a 15-20 at large bids. I like it as it will make the field of 64 that much stronger and more interesting. Think a 16 seed that would be from a power to mid-power conference, now that would be something!

 

[DontMissHim]

Not true. In the very worst case (every reg season conference champion doesn't win post season tournament) there would be 64 teams already in the field. Leaving 32 teams left to get at large bids. Right now I think there are 33 at large bids? Not sure, but the worse case would be the at large would be like it is today. In most cases I think that you would add close to 15 more teams getting into the tournament, that wouldn't have if the field was still at 65.

My response was to dontmisshim

I thought you were talking about how the tournament was set up as it is. If it is expanded to 96 teams I dont care- I wont watch. Interesting point made on the herd today- If its not about money (some that are for the idea say its just about getting better games etc.) then why not expans the womens tournament also?

 

[Thegreatone]

I thought you were talking about how the tournament was set up as it is. If it is expanded to 96 teams I dont care- I wont watch. Interesting point made on the herd today- If its not about money (some that are for the idea say its just about getting better games etc.) then why not expans the womens tournament also?

Doubt that very seriously.

96 teams, more people will watch.

 

[DontMissHim]

Regular season would be pointless. I love the NBA-moving to 96 teams would finally push me over the edge and like NBA more then college.

NBA is the only sport I can turn a game on with two random teams and enjoy watching it. (For example, I would watch the Raptors vs. the Sixers and really enjoy it, but could not watch say Depaul and BGSU)

 

[swg]

I say go back to the 32 team field and make the tourney actually mean something. It would also give the NIT a huge boost, making it much more relevent again.
.500 teams, even in the BE shouldn't be playing for a national title. Sorry.
Also, the team who wins the conference during the year should be the one who goes, not the winner of the tourney. Why play all the games if they are meaningless? Just forget that, and go straight to the conference tournament?
Just my opinion.

 

[Thegreatone]

Regular season would be pointless. I love the NBA-moving to 96 teams would finally push me over the edge and like NBA more then college.

NBA is the only sport I can turn a game on with two random teams and enjoy watching it. (For example, I would watch the Raptors vs. the Sixers and really enjoy it, but could not watch say Depaul and BGSU)

Regular season would be pointless for some. Not people like us who would watch out team compete verse the best in the country.

 

[Kingsley Court]

It still would be pointless. Yeah you get to watch them compete against the best teams in the country, but the results aren't nearly as big of a problem as they would be now. 96 teams UC easily gets in this year, meaning what UC has done so far against the top teams is meaningless. Put it like this, do you think a team doing what UC has done has earned a spot to go for the national championship? UC has the talent to be able to play for it, but they haven't produced on the court. Yet you think they should reward that?

Thats the whole point of the regular season being meaningless. I think, unless they go with my idea of reg and post season champs get auto bids, it only helps the big power conferences. They would then have no reason to schedule decent OOC opponents. Thus making it nearly impossible for non power schools to improve year to year.