Quote: Originally posted by alblack56 on 4/02/2010I suspect the NIT, which is now owned by the NCAA, will die a slow death. To find 32 teams with winning records, I had to dip down to Hofstra, RP1 #151.

Maybe I am being naive here, but wouldn't the extra 32 teams just be the teams that would have been in the NIT?

Those will pretty much be it hannibal. And I would say that the NIT won't die a slow death, it will die a fast and immediate death.

I would switch the 1st and 2nd week schedule and play the 1st round games on campus then move the winners to tourney site for the 2nd and 3rd on Thursday through Sunday.

One word...AWFUL.

Its just a big money grab, it unnecessarily dilutes a "perfect" tournament, and nobody aside from the NCAA brass was/is clamoring for this. I haven't heard 1 fan say that this is a good idea...well maybe schroedess, but still.

Metsmax's 68 team idea with the last 8 at-large teams having a LAST CHANCE TUESDAY play-in is fantastic and should be implemented. I saw on ESPN's bottom line last night that supposedly 68 and 80 teams were considered, but that 96 is the number. I doubt the Brass is talking about anything close to mets' idea, though its easily the best out there.

As I've said before, its sad that EVERYONE sells out to the greenback nowadays.

Lastly, FWIW, there are currently 4 postseason tournaments in the NCAA....The Big Dance, NIT, CBI, and College Insider tournament that has absolutely awful teams.

I think unnecessary is the most fitting word here.

Quote: Originally Posted By alblack56 on 4/02/2010
I suspect the NIT, which is now owned by the NCAA, will die a slow death.

To find 32 teams with winning records, I had to dip down to Hofstra, RP1 #151.

I hate the fact that the proposed schedule is so compressed. This year, when Northern Iowa played Kansas, it'd be their 3rd game in 6 days. Due to fatigue, I think we'll find that fewer double-digit seeds make it to the Sweet 16. The BCS schools, who'd probably like to get rid of the mid-majors completely, are chuckling.

I heard that if this 96 team tourney goes through, that they're axing the NIT immediately. Supposedly the NCAA has had to pay extra money to the NIT over the last umpteen years because of some lawsuit.

Quote: Originally Posted By aporter on 4/02/2010I would switch the 1st and 2nd week schedule and play the 1st round games on campus then move the winners to tourney site for the 2nd and 3rd on Thursday through Sunday

Great point aporter. Some of the first round games this year were played before sparse crowds. Play them on campus and then move to neutral sites.

Oh wait, then instead of coaches bitc#in' about not getting in, they will bitc# about having to play at another team's gym.

playing those first round games on campus is a good idea - maintains a bit of the flavor of the NIT, keeps crowds higher. I like that...

Like it or hate it, the NCAA knows one thing. We'll (mostly) all still watch, now just more games. The tourney is a money maker, and will now make more.

Another thing about the economics. This will further lessen the importance (and ratings) of the regular season. But with the ongoing intrusion of football, most of the regular season is an afterthought for all but hardcore CB fans. So that impact will be minimal compared to the gain from extra "madness" games. Like it or not, CB has evolved to be concentrated into 3 weeks of notoriety. The NCAA wants to grow in revenue, just like everyone else, and the tourney is by far the easiest grab.

I disagree with the idea that it makes the last few weeks of the season worthless. You still have the bottom of the 96 competing to get in just like the bottom of the 64 do now.

I think it makes the committee's job harder, because they have to look at a LOT more teams. I think they'll have to use more automatic bids. For example, give each conference 3 automatic bids and let the conferences decide how they're given. That puts the burden more on conferences and not on a committee.

Quote: Originally posted by dacj501 on 4/02/2010playing those first round games on campus is a good idea - maintains a bit of the flavor of the NIT, keeps crowds higher. I like that...

In the history of NCAA basketball, a 24 has never taken out a 9. ;)

I'm guessing, with this format, it will make it easier for a 16 to take out a 1, since it will be sometimes a team from a major conference. However here are the cons:

The 16 will still need to beat the 17.

The 16 will have to play an extra game before they play the 1.

Expanding the tournament is a horrible idea.

i think this is an awful idea. the ncaa is clearly out of touch with reality. they need to replace the whole lot of those idiots. did i say idiots? i meant greedy money grubbing ***********.

Quote: Originally posted by gillispie on 4/02/2010i think this is an awful idea. the ncaa is clearly out of touch with reality. they need to replace the whole lot of those idiots. did i say idiots? i meant greedy money grubbing ***********.

You'll notice that university presidents aren't jumping out in front of this idea condemning it like they did a playoff system for football. Why? It's all about the Benjamin$.

Couple of thoughts in my head:

If they do this, what arguement will they use to continue to avoid a D1 football playoff?

Whom does this help more, the 10th or 11th team from a major conference or the 2nd team from a mid to lower conference?

Obviously, conference tourneys matter less. Will we see higher seeded school play with even lessenthusiasm because they're already in and "let" the lower seed win to get more bids for the conference?

Will "making the dance" no longer be the bench mark for a coach to keep his job and be replaced with "making the round of 64"?