96? 65?...68 is the answer Topic

alockwood86
Posts: 76 (0)
Hall of Famer
156 37
Prospect
I'm all for the 68 teams if they want to expand, but not with the at-large teams playing each other. I'd rather go with what some other people have said on here and have the 8 lowest seeded teams play each other in the "play-in games". This way it gets in 3 more at-large teams that could actually do some damage in the tournament and they'd most likely be seeded in the 11-13 range. Here's how it would have broke down this year.

The Opening Round Games

Arkansas Pine Bluff vs. Winthrop

Vermont vs. East Tenn St

Lehigh vs. UCSB

Morgan St vs. North Texas

The winners would then move on to play the 1 seeds in their region. They'd still be in the national tournament and would be in the spotlight on Tuesday and Wednesday night.

So if this would have been implemented this year than Illinois, Virginia Tech, and Miss St would all be in the tournament as an at-large. I think it adds alot more intrigue to the tournament as there are more chances for upsets as these teams could all have been potentially Sweet 16 teams.

I'm all for expanding the tournament, but only in this context not to 96.
3/17/2010 1:08 PM
rds_lsu
Posts: 145 (0)
Hall of Famer
241 2 39
Prospect
I like 64 but would limit the number of teams that can get in from a single conference.
3/17/2010 1:59 PM
fd343ny
Posts: 2254 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 631 36
Veteran
HD users waaaay ahead of the curve with the 68 team plan
4/22/2010 1:48 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 832 2
Pro
now they just must have the four games on Tuesday be the last four in v the first four out

welcome to "Put Up or Shut Up Tuesday"!
4/22/2010 2:21 PM
schroedess26
Posts: 54 (0)
All Star
29 1 1
Prospect
68 teams is completely pointless increase. I have a hard time believing that they will make the last 8 at-large teams play each other and miss out on the money from them on the weekend.

Oh well at least were on the right path, which in my mind is expansion upwards. Either kick teams out of D1 college basketball or increase the field size.
4/22/2010 3:32 PM
tmacfan12
Posts: 336 (0)
Hall of Famer
340 4 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by rds_lsu on 3/17/2010I like 64 but would limit the number of teams that can get in from a single conference.
Why? That would mean not all of the best teams can get in.
4/22/2010 3:36 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 4/22/2010
now they just must have the four games on Tuesday be the last four in v the first four out

welcome to "Put Up or Shut Up Tuesday"!

Agreed, you can't just cycle 6 conference tournament champions into those games just because they're the shittiest teams. The most logical way to do this is how you first suggested...which is the bolded above.
4/22/2010 3:59 PM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
Quote: Originally Posted By rds_lsu on 3/17/2010I like 64 but would limit the number of teams that can get in from a single conference.
Would a 16-team conference have the same limit as an 8-team conference?

4/22/2010 4:00 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 270
Prospect
68 is better than 96

i'd still rather see contraction to 16 teams
4/22/2010 4:01 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 4/22/2010
68 is better than 96

i'd still rather see contraction to 16 teams

Just curious what the reasoning to this is...because that's the amount of teams you think have a legitimate shot of winning the title?
4/22/2010 4:09 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 270
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 4/22/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 4/22/2010

68 is better than 96

i'd still rather see contraction to 16 teams

Just curious what the reasoning to this is...because that's the amount of teams you think have a legitimate shot of winning the title
because im not a "typical" american sports-fan who gets caught up by the media's seemingly hypnotizing sensationalism of cinderella teams and upsets.

get rid of automatic bids. regardless of conference, i want to see the best teams play the best teams. i know this is an unpopular view and would never ever happen due to money, nor convince all the cinderella-upset-lovers, merely my view. and yes, im a fan of the BCS in college football, or a 4 team playoff if the BCS were ever to disappear.
4/22/2010 4:14 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 4/22/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 4/22/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 4/22/2010

68 is better than 96

i'd still rather see contraction to 16 teams

Just curious what the reasoning to this is...because that's the amount of teams you think have a legitimate shot of winning the title?
because im not a "typical" american sports-fan who gets caught up by the media's seemingly hypnotizing sensationalism of cinderella teams and upsets. I'm not either, however I think the auto-bids for each conference (wish it was for regular season CCs, not CT champions) is suitable for a 65/68 team tournament, given that there are 347 teams in D1. 31 auto bids...34/37 at-larges...I think its very fair given the circumstances.

get rid of automatic bids. regardless of conference, i want to see the best teams play the best teams. i know this is an unpopular view and would never ever happen due to money, nor convince all the cinderella-upset-lovers, merely my view. and yes, im a fan of the BCS in college football, or a 4 team playoff if the BCS were ever to disappear. Ironically enough, I love the auto bids in NCAAB but hate/would hate them in NCAAF, I think because its a different can of worms. Let's face it, if NCAAF ever goes to a playoff, the largest they're going is 16 teams (out of 120)...if all conferences get auto bids, that only leaves 5 at-larges, which I think is ridiculous. Basically if you look how the BCS is now, there are 6 auto bids for BCS bowls and 4 at larges...still rather ****** if you ask me.

I think as long as lesser conference teams keep making the sweet 16/Elite 8/Final 4...there will always be a case that they should be in the tournament, regardless of how ****** the conference is.

4/22/2010 4:22 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 654 3
Pro
See? I don't disagree with you again. The world must be ending.

4/22/2010 4:29 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 270
Prospect
the last point colonels makes just makes so little sense to me. a 16 has never beaten a 1, 15s have won only a couple, and so on. teams below 4-5 seeds so rarely make the final four. all the early upsets do is just make for hype-creating drama. the line of thinking seems to be, "since it is possible upsets can happen, therefore we must allow the possibility for them to happen".

before anyone accuses me of "not getting it", i understand contraction will never happen, the small conferences will always fight for their mostly undeserved automatic bids, and the nation as a whole will root for cinderella.
4/22/2010 4:31 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 4/22/2010
the last point colonels makes just makes so little sense to me. a 16 has never beaten a 1, 15s have won only a couple, and so on. teams below 4-5 seeds so rarely make the final four. all the early upsets do is just make for hype-creating drama. the line of thinking seems to be, "since it is possible upsets can happen, therefore we must allow the possibility for them to happen". Trust me, I'm not on the Cinderella train...I think the fact that I want to see regular season CCs make it over CT champions proves that fact. I think you'd gripe about D1 being too big, and I agree with you, but I also think that in D1 NCAAB, that each conference should really have something to compete for, and if that means that you lose in the round of 64 or 32, or in the play-in game, then so be it...its a reward for winning your conference which doesn't change from year to year. If all games against these lesser conference champions are formalities, then why do the big boys lose sometimes? If we only had 16 teams in the tournament this year, we would have only seen 2 of the 4 Final Four teams in the Dance.

I guess my last/best argument for D1 CBB is, is that there's such a vast landscape and talent variation, etc amongst the 347 teams out there, that you should let in a few more, than a few less...and considering that an overwhelming majority thinks that the tournament works well as is AND that you want to cut it back by 48+ teams, I really see no reason to change. I think the auto bid argument is/would be valid for CFB...not here.

before anyone accuses me of "not getting it", i understand contraction will never happen, the small conferences will always fight for their mostly undeserved automatic bids, and the nation as a whole will root for cinderella. I personally don't think the Cinderella factor has anything to do with it....making the Big Dance is basically your reward for winning your conference...its not like D2 or D3 teams are in the Big Dance

4/22/2010 4:42 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
96? 65?...68 is the answer Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.