Probably not. But I do think there are more than 32. A quick glance at the bracket this year and I can see 5-8 teams that couldn’t have complained much if they were out. Of course, no matter what the size of the tournament there will never be much difference between the worst team in and the best team out.
Which is why the tournament should be 64 teams. 32 isn’t enough, and anything else introduces garbage like first round byes.
Sadly, it appears the worst case scenario is on the way. They want the “second class” participants to play a marathon of extra games right before the real tournament starts. Unbelievable. As if the seeding was anywhere near unbiased or fair enough to do this crap. The “first class” participants who win are now cheaters, and the “second class” participants don’t truly get the reward of making the real tournament.
What, the refs couldn’t save Georgetown from Ohio, so they blow up the whole tournament?
I do think one interesting idea if they go to 96 is to give the 31 automatic qualifiers the byes (pick the last bye however you want, really). That makes all of the teams that needed the at-large bids the ‘second class citizens’, and may help you in terms of upsets since the teams from the weaker conferences will have the extra days to rest and prepare. It also takes the byes out of the hands of the seedings… which are going to be a nightmare however you do it, really.
I favor 128 teams. Like Bo Shembechler said, he played for the big ten championship every year. If they went farther it was icing. But his aim was the Championship. Every league has a title to fight for. That is plenty of incentive.
The 1 team should play the 128 team. The 2 the 127, etc. That would add one game to the schedule. Think of it as a play in. Then I would get my amusement, a big favorite getting knocked off by a team with no standing.
Every year teams with decent credentials get eliminated from the tourney. There are plenty of arguments following the seatings and announcements of who is in. If all are in, that debate ends.
Personally, I don’t see why the kids cannot play on consecutive days like they do in the conference tournaments. They are all about 20 yrs old so it really isn’t that big of a deal.
I would start the tournament on Friday/Saturday and go three straight days. the next weekend would be Fri/Sat and Sat/Sun and the final weekend Saturday/Sunday.
It seems to me that playing on consecutive days could only decrease the total number of hours of televised games.
Now, if you had said the tournament should have 288 teams, and should start off with 256 of the teams playing 3 straight days of play-in games, then I could get on board.
Byes in the NCAA will be based entirely on biased and inaccurate opinions.
You can guess who will get the byes. Conference winners Northern Iowa, Cornell, and ODU? Nope. They’ll be hitting the road early for play-in games. A sucky Notre Dame team? Congratulations!
And a “single extra game” is huge. Obviously. Ask Georgetown if a “single extra game” against Ohio mattered to them. And even if you do manage to win, now you have played an extra game and been on the road longer than your next opponent.
Speaking of which, the potential of having to play 5 long distance road games in 10 days, a solid week and a half on the road missing class, is huge. It’s a joke really.
It is bad because the 96 team tournament plan is horrible.
Their motive actually makes it slightly more palatable, not less. The most common reaction I have seen is “this plan is repulsive, but at least I can understand they are doing it for the money.”
As I said earlier in the thread, the argument of “a meaningless regular season” was also offered ~30 years ago when the NCAA considered expansion from 48 to 64 teams.
And I suppose someone will argue that winning the conference championship is meaningless now. You can hold that position until they talk to players and coaches who bust their asses to win them. Success is a step at a time. Win the game ,then the championship and then think about the NCAA.
Insanity. “Every year teams with decent credentials get eliminated from the tourney” is a pretty lame argument to make. Fuck them. Play better and YOU WILL get into the tournament. The 64 team tournament is eminently fair right now to smaller schools. Butler is in the champ game. They were a nobody from a nobody conference 10 years ago. The system rewards continual success.
I’m with brickbacon, not in favor but not opposed.
If “meaning” in college basketball amounts to progress towards a national title, then the regular season is going to be more meaningless the lower you set the bar for making the tournament.
But as a college basketball fan, the most meaningful games for me are always going to be the in-conference rivalries, the chase for the regular season championship, and for most teams a conference tournament (Ivy League excepted). Winning those games aren’t just paths to increased NCAA seedings, they’re ends in themselves. If my team went 2-0 against its rival and lost early or even didn’t get a bid in the NCAA’s I’d still call that a good year.
So as far as I’m concerned they could expand to 256 teams without making any games “meaningless.” Would the hundreds of players on the 300-plus Division I teams without a realistic shot at winning the title be wasting their time during the regular season? During the early rounds of the NCAA tournament? Why are they playing anyway?
Expanding the tournament to 96 would lead to more competitive matchups in the round of 64. And probably a few fun games in the first round. More chances for more teams to do well. And as brickbacon suggested, spreading the money around the college world is good for the students, ultimately.
The only downside I’d mention is more missed class time.
Not lame at all. There are teams that feel they played well enough to make the NCAA. They have been rejected. Saying play better is a lame argument. They played well enough to get in. If you hear the selection comitteee people every year after the selection show, they explain how difficult some of the decisions are. If it were as simple as you pretend, they would simply say the teams did not play well enough. But they feel sympathetic for the teams that deserved to make it ,but were rejected because the spots were filled by so many that are guaranteed in. Do you think some outside teams would agree that Oakland University was the correct team in?
Why do you think people watch regular season college basketball games? The reality is that the vast majority of people who watch college basketball games are fans (usually the big schools), alumni, or basketball fans who tune in to see a major game or rivalry. You couldn’t even view all of Butler’s games without going far, far out of your way to do so. The ratings for most college basketball teams are ridiculously low, assuming they are aired (nationally) at all.
By definition, no undeserving team can win the title anyway. How can you tell me a team who has great regular season, and wins 6 games against the best teams in the country, is undeserving?
Besides, there are ways to incentivize regular season excellence even if you have a 96-team tournament. By giving the first round byes to conference champions, you ensure the importance of winning games throughout the year. Also, as a side benefit, mid-level teams in good conferences have an incentive to play better out of conference games to appeal to the selection committee. You’ll see more teams like Maryland play teams like Cornell.
Either way, you guy keep missing the point. Right now, with 64 teams, you have 32+ teams that will never win. The historical outlier, #8 Villanova, would never have won if there was a shot clock in place at the time. Any honest person looking at that game will recognize that such a thing would likely never happen today. Even being generous, you have 20 or so teams that have a legit chance to win it all in today’s game. The tournament would be just as “efficient” and “utile” with just those teams. However, the powers that be have decided efficiency and utility are not the most important factors.
A #1 playing a #128 is an effective bye anyway. With 64 teams, the #1 seeds have never lost in the first round. The #2 seeds win 95% of the time. Surely, those numbers hold/go up when you expand the tournament. Why bother making the best handful of teams in the country play a game they are certain to win? It’s the kind of pseudo-fairness arguments that pisses me off. It’s like Hannity and Colmes’ old show. That’s not fairness any more than making Bill Gates pay the same total amount in taxes that his secretary does. I mean, it’s fair right, since they are both paying 10k? :dubious:
Sorry, but you aren’t making any sense. The current plan is for 32 teams to get first round byes.
That includes the 8 seeds, who have a losing record all time against the 9 seeds. Northern Iowa, Cornell, and Old Dominion would have been sent on the road early due to biased seeding, leaving them vulnerable to inferior opponents. Crappy Notre Dame would have been given a bye.
And yes, it is hugely unfair.
The “second class” participants will be faced with the potential of an 11 fucking day nonstop cross country road trip, missing school the whole time, playing 5 games in that time against teams which were allowed to leave later and play less games.
Have you looked at the plan? It isn’t right. It just isn’t.
Sports contests are often about match ups. There are some teams that miss that rely on speed and end to end running. A highly rated team with 7 footers might be vulnerable to them. A 3 point shooting team can knock off any one on a hot day. Let the games begin.
Wouldn’t these games basically by 30 seeds vs 90 seeds? If a 30 seed is vulnerable to a 90 seed, they don’t deserve to have a bye in the first place. If they aren’t vulnerable, not having a bye won’t matter.
I agree that if they go with this 96 team plan, the automatic qualifiers should get byes. Won’t happen. They’re going to 96 teams for money, pure and simple. Leaving the smaller conference winners around isn’t going to make them more money. They’re going to shovel them into the play-in round.