No message.
The number of games in a tournament is one less than the number of teams in the tournament. 128 teams would be 127 games.
63 if you want to get nitpicky, since they already have that silly play-in game.
But the OP is asking a legitimate question: if you chose 64 (or 65) teams on an at-large basis–on the basis of record, RPI, strength of schedule, and whatnot–how many conference tournament champions would get bumped? Tournament winners usually fill up the bottom 16 seeds, and probably about 14 of those would get bumped if all berths were at-large.
Well of course it is. Why would anyone think anything different? 
You know, I had actually written a parenthetic that factored in the “Opening Round” game, but it got rambly and incoherent.
I think a better way to approach this question isn’t how many “undeserved” teams get in (because that’s not a very common term, or easily defined), but rather how many bubble teams get burst? “Bubble team” is a commonly used phrase on the networks, and would probably be easier to look up.
I am so strongly against adding another round it’s not even funny. I actually support the eventual removal of one of the current at-large bids so we can go back to 64. 64 is perfect. The regular season is sufficiently important, BUT, everyone who has demonstrated they are worthy of a shot at the championship gets it. Plus you get the perfect level of excitement and upset-potential.
And I think the minor-conference champions win and/or are competitive more than enough to justify their presence over a team like, say, this year’s Kentucky or whichever team ends up 11th in the Big East (to a couple of many possible examples).
Chuck, I don’t think that’s correct. While the SEC had one of the first tournaments, it did not have one from 1953-1978 Cite. The NCAA tournament expanded to accept more than one team from the big conferences in the mid-1970s. By then the ACC had the only conference tournamen going, and there was much controversy when Maryland, ranked #4 in the country, didn’t get a NCAA tournament bid in 1974 after it lost the ACC title game 103-100 to David Thompson’s NC State team. Maryland’s not getting a bid pushed the NCAA to open up the big dance.
Thank you, Freddy.
Sorry I used the word “undeserved” in the OP. I didn’t like it, but couldn’t think of a better term.
128 games in one day takes you right down to the original 64 .They all get their nose into the big dance and get eliminated in one night. But it increases the chance for a surprise team making a run.
Some teams who have narrowly missed bids, have gone through the NIT in an impressive style ,showing they deserved more respect from the NCAA. There are disappointed teams every year that have notched more than 20 wins.
Bzzt, wrong again. 128 games in the first day would be a 256 team tournament.
If the NCAA was always 132 teams, people would have no problem with the idea. Why is the idea of a huge tourney field so abhorrent? Yeah, with football it would stink- because teams can only play a game a week, it would take forever.
But what is so wrong about a 132 team basketball tourney? Of course the regular season matters, and would still matter a lot- high seeds give a team a huge advantage. Big individual sports tourneys routinely have over 100 entries. Why is it bad for teams? (For the record, I don’t particularly wish the field was any larger, but if it were, I wouldn’t be up in arms about it.)
It would destroy the last remnant of any feeling that making the tournament was something special. This is already watered down with a 65-team field, but would be worse with 128.
In a conference like the Big Ten, in a typical year, 9 or even 10 of the 11 teams would get in. Teams would get in with losing records. There would be no sense that the NCAA tournament was reserved for quality teams.
If I had my druthers, they’d go back to reserving the tournament for conference champions. I’m a round-robin, regular season kind of guy. I prefer a conference race that builds over two months to one-and-done elimination. I recognize that I’m in the minority on this.
I can’t argue with this, though I do think if it was just for conference champions, it would be terribly unfair to strong conferences who sometimes have 3 of the top 5 teams in the country, and way too fair to weak conferences whose top team can’t even be argued to be one of the top 80 teams in the country. And it would probably start a trend of conferences breaking up, and dozens of mini-conferences forming.
On a slightly related subject, is RPI still given a lot of weight to the selection process? I was just looking at the latest RPI rankings and I just can’t give any credibility to a system, heavily based on schedule strength, which says Utah has the 9th toughest schedule in the country, and UConn has the 39th toughest. Utah has played a total of TWO ranked teams all year. UConn has played 11 ranked teams. Utah has played one top 10 team, Uconn has played five. I don’t get it.
Actually I think the ACC tournament is the longest continuosly running tournament
The SEC started earlier (1933) yet there was no tournament from 1953 to 1978.
The ACC has had a tournament every year starting in 1954.
Yeh, I know. I was going to change it, but didn’t get back.
Does the impression exist that it is particularly special to get into the NCAA? Besides ,If they do not belong they would get beaten quickly. The most fun is when a 14 or 16 beats a no1 or 2 . Every year a team that squeaks in knocks off a highly rated team.
The tournament should go back to 64 teams. There’s no need for expansion.
Currently, there’s a chance to learn about a little bit about every team. Radford, Bowling Green, Binghampton, etc., they all get their 5 minutes of fame even if they’re losing by 40 to a #1 seed. By doubling the number of teams that make it to the tournament, you diminish the spotlight for these smaller schools.
For me, the tournament is just as much for the smaller schools as it is for the bigger ones. The first weekend is for Cinderella and after that the big boys get down to business. Increasing it to 128 just makes it less special.
Part of the reason for the appeal of the NCAA tournament is that is the first good gambling/office pool opportunity since the Super Bowl. 64 teams is doable. 128 teams? No way. It is fun to spend some time on a random Thursday in March and turn the office tvs off CNN for a few hours and put them on the tournament.
I wouldn’t mess with a good thing.
Yes, the impression does exist. For teams that do not routinely make the tourney it is a very big deal. For example, in my hometown, were SLU to make another NCAA appearance it would be considered a very big deal.
As far as whether the “most fun” is when a 1 or 2 seed loses in the first round, well, that never really happens (4 times total, all 2 seeds, as listed above). For me, the best part of the tournament is the regional semis and finals . You have 16 very good teams fighting to get into the final four with epic matchups common in the regional finals and extremely high stakes. Having to slog through an extra round of drubbings to get there doesn’t really appeal.
As far as the OP’s question I’d say there are generally about 12-15 teams that are probably objectively worse than teams that are left out of the tournament. This doesn’t really concern me though, because none of those “left out” teams have a legitimate shot to win the whole thing and they generally come from power conferences so they don’t really need the exposure/money.