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

Lots of discussion of going to 96 teams - basically tomake more money with another round of games to televise. But, the argument is well made that this would put a lot of teams into the Dance that truly did not excel by any measure.

Still, is the current 65 teams the right answer?

No - the better answer is a 68 team tournament and here is how it works

Seed the at large and automatic bids, but the lowest AT LARGE slot in each gets two teams - it would be slots 12A and 12B or 13A and 13B however it works out

Get rid of the annoying playin game between the bottom two automatics - and instead we have four games on Tuesday - Play In Tuesday.....or Last Chance Tuesday....or whatever. The teams that would otherwise be the last four in and the last four out play each other to decide who gets in - a competitive solution.

Matchups might be something like

Minn v Miss State

Utah State v Illinois

Florida v Va Tech

Wake v Seton Hall

An afternoon and evening of great tv, but just the 8 teams at the margin.

68 is the answer
3/15/2010 10:09 AM
Agreed, love it.

And then we don't have to hear fans of Illinois, Miss State, etc. ******** ... they can show their worth on the court.
3/15/2010 10:19 AM
Put Up or Shut Up Tuesday
3/15/2010 10:21 AM
Love that idea, especially about making it 'at large' only.

But it wouldn't stop the ********; just switch it to different fans...Ole Miss, Rhode Island and UAB
3/15/2010 10:28 AM
Yeah al, I thought of that, too. But honestly, if your team's not good enough to even be one of the "Shut Up Tuesday" bubble teams, I just don't think you really have an argument.
3/15/2010 10:35 AM
Money rules all in the NCAA, so this point may be moot, but I'm not so sure that the little'uns would want to dump the play-in; they use it as a major recruiting tool.

In today's (Detroit) paper, they have a nice write-up on Greg Kampe and the Oakland Golden Grizzlies (Oakland County for those of you who don't know), and they actually list his NCAA record at 1-1, since Oakland won the play-in a few years back.

Take away the play-in, and you take away a lot of teams lone shot at an (albeit bullshit) NCAA tournament victory.
3/15/2010 10:52 AM
Just move all DII and DIII teams up and any JUCOs needed to to give you a field of 1024.

Play 1 round a week and after the 10th week, you have your national champion.
3/15/2010 10:55 AM
What? How can people like an idea that forces 12 and 13 seeds to play a "play in" game while every 14, 15 and 16 seed is automatically in the tournament.
3/15/2010 12:43 PM
I like the idea of expanding to 68, but make every play-in winner their region's 16-seed. Puts more at-larges in, doesn't oversaturate the market, and it gives the early part of the first week some juice. Two games Tuesday, two games Wednesday, and then you're into the actual tournament.
3/15/2010 12:52 PM
if you make the playin winner the 16, then are you having a playin between teams you would have seeded 16/17 - that is the worst automatic bids?

if so, will folks watch?

if not, then you are putting an at large that belongs at 12 or 13 into the 16 spot and shafting the #1 seed
3/15/2010 1:15 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 3/15/2010
Lots of discussion of going to 96 teams - basically tomake more money with another round of games to televise. But, the argument is well made that this would put a lot of teams into the Dance that truly did not excel by any measure.

Still, is the current 65 teams the right answer?

No - the better answer is a 68 team tournament and here is how it works

Seed the at large and automatic bids, but the lowest AT LARGE slot in each gets two teams - it would be slots 12A and 12B or 13A and 13B however it works out

Get rid of the annoying playin game between the bottom two automatics - and instead we have four games on Tuesday - Play In Tuesday.....or Last Chance Tuesday....or whatever. The teams that would otherwise be the last four in and the last four out play each other to decide who gets in - a competitive solution.

Matchups might be something like

Minn v Miss State

Utah State v Illinois

Florida v Va Tech

Wake v Seton Hall

An afternoon and evening of great tv, but just the 8 teams at the margin.

68 is the answer

I wish they'd go back to 64 to be honest...not that a play-in will ever win the tournament, but they'd have to win 7 games while everyone else has to win 6. Same thing happens with your setup and if I were to expand at all (not saying that I would) I would go to 72 teams....8 play-in games for the 15 and 16 slots since those teams are 4-200 all-time anyway.

With that said, I like how your concept preserves the automatic bid for the CT (should be regular season) champions, and they aren't having to play in the play-in games.

Bottom line is...I don't like 96 and I don't like some teams having to win 7 to win the title when some have to win 6. Like I said, I wish they'd cut it back to 64 because 2 of the CT champions always get screwed by having to play that play-in game that is virtually meaningless...it undermines making the tourney imo.

One last thing, I saw an interview with coach Jay Wright (Villanova?) on PTI and he was in favor of expansion of the tournament, but his reasoning was incredibly flawed. He talked about how only 18.8% or so (65/347) teams get to play for a postseason national championship in NCAAB while over half the teams in NCAAF make bowl games....uhhh Jay....2 out of 120 teams play for the NCAAF "national championship" thus if you're going to compare apples to oranges, you should make it apples to apples and include the NCAAB postseason teams in the NIT and CBI and compare that to the number of bowl teams. I can't stand when people piece-meal arguments together to make their case, and I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there now making that justification just because Jay Wright made it too.
3/15/2010 1:24 PM
I agree colonel - see, I said it - about playins for 15 and 16 from a competitive perspective

BUT, economically would folks watch playin games between teams that would have been seeds 15-16-17-18?

AND, politically what would the lesser conferences think about routinely having their champs play on the Tuesday before the Big Dance?

So I see 68 plan as a compromise between the competition goal and the economic and political goals....
3/15/2010 1:29 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 3/15/2010
I agree colonel - see, I said it - about playins for 15 and 16 from a competitive perspective

BUT, economically would folks watch playin games between teams that would have been seeds 15-16-17-18? My gut says no...only fans of the teams would go I think.

AND, politically what would the lesser conferences think about routinely having their champs play on the Tuesday before the Big Dance? I think this is the bigger issue. It undermines the automatic bid and the fact that all conferences are represented in the tournament.

So I see 68 plan as a compromise between the competition goal and the economic and political goals....

3/15/2010 1:40 PM
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/15/2010 1:46 PM
I never understood or liked how they do the play-in game. Every year its 2 teams that have automatic bids from small conferences that are in the play-in game. Well if you have an automatic bid, why should you have to play your way in? Didn't those teams already do that by winning their conferences? To me, the play-in game should be the last 2 at large teams that make it. That way it truely is a play-in game.
3/15/2010 1:57 PM
12345 Next ▸
96? 65?...68 is the answer Topic

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.