If there ever was evidence to expand to 96...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
and I love the conf tourney winners making it. That's all part of it. But if you wanted a case to expand to 96, this year is providing a lot of evidence.
All the conferences get an automatic bid, but they have to have a tourney. That way any team could win it all, becuase once the conf tourney started, they would jsut ahve to keep winning to keep playing.
Still, I think less is more, but you can never trust the NCAA to do the right thing, so it's really a tough call.</p>
Still, I think less is more, but you can never trust the NCAA to do the right thing, so it's really a tough call.</p>
Sets the field at 68. Make the worst 8 teams play each other to start the tournament off. They get to enjoy winning a game before getting destroyed in the opening round.
Even if we get snubbed, I am totally against expanding to 96. Part of the excitement is the bubble and knowing that games against Rider and Richmond really do matter. Going to 96 would kill that.
I am in favor of 68 teams which would mean 4 play-in games instead of 1. </p>
I am in favor of 68 teams which would mean 4 play-in games instead of 1. </p>
we are only talking about 3 or 4 teams getting snubbed and they can all look in the mirror. If anything, this year is providing evidence that we don't need 96 teams in the tournament. Where would the other 28 or so teams come from?
1) More games=more exciting finishes.
2) Expanding the field to 96 means more quality teams get in. Which after the first weekend a lot of the "weaker" competition would be eliminated, leaving more of the quality teams.
3) NCAA basketball currently has the lowest percentage of teams making is respective post season compared to any other sport (not only college but pro sports as well). Basically there are 347 teams in Division 1 and only 65 make it to the big dance.
2) Expanding the field to 96 means more quality teams get in. Which after the first weekend a lot of the "weaker" competition would be eliminated, leaving more of the quality teams.
3) NCAA basketball currently has the lowest percentage of teams making is respective post season compared to any other sport (not only college but pro sports as well). Basically there are 347 teams in Division 1 and only 65 make it to the big dance.
I could argue 64 or 96 and be happy with what I said. BUT...I wouldn't be upset if it were expanded to 96. I think its likely that teams 65-96 could reasonably compete well enough to win a first round game, given the right seeding, if they were placed in a 64 team tourney. Plus, I don't think it would ruin any regular season competition as highly ranked teams would be competing for the top 32 spots in order to receive a buy. Those buys would be very highly valued.
The problem then would be deciding who gets the top 32 spots and how conference tournaments come into play. That would get messy. And then you have another bubble. It would just be a shittier bubble that less people care about and likely would get more political as the RPIs, SOSs, etc. get worse. It would be easy to slide in a team that traditionally fares well that had a sub-par year over a mid-major that had better measurables without any backlash.
The problem then would be deciding who gets the top 32 spots and how conference tournaments come into play. That would get messy. And then you have another bubble. It would just be a shittier bubble that less people care about and likely would get more political as the RPIs, SOSs, etc. get worse. It would be easy to slide in a team that traditionally fares well that had a sub-par year over a mid-major that had better measurables without any backlash.
If anything, to me this year in particular provides further evidence against expansion. Frankly there probably aren't 64 teams that deserve to be in. Hell look at us we are right at the doorstep and we frankly deserve nothing but the NIT with as ****** as we have been all year. The only reason us or anyone else on the bubble is there is because how awful the bottom of the field is this year. How does that equal evidence for expansion? I know you said you were against it, but I just don't see the evidence that you see.
The one thing no one has mentioned in this thread is money. And that is the single reason going to 96 is even being discussed.
CBS paid a ton of money for the tourney and what do they get out of it. One full weekend (thrus-sun) one partial weekend (thurs-sun) then one weekend with 3 games.
The amount of money they are having to pony up is insane for the return they are getting in advertisements. They are beginning the process of evaluating their bid for the next contract and exploring ways to get more value out of the tourney. ESPN is going to be all over this bid (and probably end up winning anyway).
Adding an extra weekend would increase the money a network could make and thereby increasing the amount they could bid to win the tourney.
I think they have 3-4 more years on the current contract so I wouldn't expect to see any change until the next contract. Expansion will happen but it might not be up to 96.
CBS paid a ton of money for the tourney and what do they get out of it. One full weekend (thrus-sun) one partial weekend (thurs-sun) then one weekend with 3 games.
The amount of money they are having to pony up is insane for the return they are getting in advertisements. They are beginning the process of evaluating their bid for the next contract and exploring ways to get more value out of the tourney. ESPN is going to be all over this bid (and probably end up winning anyway).
Adding an extra weekend would increase the money a network could make and thereby increasing the amount they could bid to win the tourney.
I think they have 3-4 more years on the current contract so I wouldn't expect to see any change until the next contract. Expansion will happen but it might not be up to 96.
Again, why?
What right do Minnesota, MSU, Va. Tech, Florida, Illinois, Seton Hall, or any other bubble team have to claiming they are a true national title contender?
At the end of the day, when you're a bubble team, the only thing you're hoping for is a participation banner and maybe a shot to make a Sweet Sixteen run for a bigger banner. Did the bubble **** on you yesterday? Sure. Does that mean you should be in or that you have a legit right to gripe about not having a shot at the national title? Not really.
The system we have may have you left out just barely, but expanding the field to 96 wouldn't do anything other than give you a banner that would mean less than it does right now. You still wouldn't compete for a national title or even be in the hunt at the end of the tourney.
I saw an analysis they did about 3 weeks back showing who would be the last 4 in and the first 4 out if you expanded to 96 teams, and there was a team on the list that was 3-11 in their conference at the time. 96 teams is unnecessary. The current set up allows for at minimum the Top 40 teams in the country for the most part, usually the Top 45 or so, and the rest are auto-bids. You don't need more than that to determine a national champion.
What right do Minnesota, MSU, Va. Tech, Florida, Illinois, Seton Hall, or any other bubble team have to claiming they are a true national title contender?
At the end of the day, when you're a bubble team, the only thing you're hoping for is a participation banner and maybe a shot to make a Sweet Sixteen run for a bigger banner. Did the bubble **** on you yesterday? Sure. Does that mean you should be in or that you have a legit right to gripe about not having a shot at the national title? Not really.
The system we have may have you left out just barely, but expanding the field to 96 wouldn't do anything other than give you a banner that would mean less than it does right now. You still wouldn't compete for a national title or even be in the hunt at the end of the tourney.
I saw an analysis they did about 3 weeks back showing who would be the last 4 in and the first 4 out if you expanded to 96 teams, and there was a team on the list that was 3-11 in their conference at the time. 96 teams is unnecessary. The current set up allows for at minimum the Top 40 teams in the country for the most part, usually the Top 45 or so, and the rest are auto-bids. You don't need more than that to determine a national champion.