MLB (27%): 8 out of 30
NFL (38%): 12 out of 32
NBA (53%): 16 out of 30
NHL (53%): 16 out of 30
MLS (50%): 8 out of 16
Nascar (27%): 12 out of 45(ish) possible to have more than 10 as well

So why are we so mad about just 28% of the teams making it in the NCAA if we went to 96 teams?

I can see if you try to make the case that it feels perfect now, or that it will just end up with only BCS schools getting the extra bids and the mid-majors who deserve it would not be included. Also, I could even see the point of having the top 8 seeds having byes as opposed to 9-24 having to play an extra game.

Right now at least 4-8 teams every year come from really small conferences and have no chance at really winning a game against anyone and those teams are not the ones that will be added to the tourney in the expansion.

The teams being added though have beat good teams and sometimes the best ones in the nation even they were just not consistent and fell too many times.

Why did you make a thread to say what you've already said schroed?

I think the main argument not to change the tournament is the fact that there are/were really ZERO complaints with the tournament as is, thus why fix something that isn't broken? I think the tournament works well with 31 conference tournament champions and 34 at-large bids, and when you start getting into larger numbers and an NCAAB league that has 11 times more teams than any of the aforementioned pro leagues, percents mean less and less. Its one thing to add 50% of your previous capacity if your tournament had 8 teams (8 + 4 = 12) as opposed to 64/65 (64 + 32 = 96). In this instance the sheer number/volume of teams overrides the percentages.

Part of it is logistics too, the NCAA still wants to keep this tournament inside of 3 weeks, thus while a 32 team FBS playoff would matchup more closely with the 96 NCAAB team percentage, it would take 5 weeks, thus that's why 8 teams would work better, regardless of percentages.

Like I said, I've never heard ANYONE until the NCAA brass this year say that we needed more teams. Chances are bracket players still won't include the Tuesday games because its simply too hard to put your bracket pool players together in a day and a half...its essentially ruining the gambling side and the fun of the bracket.

I love metsmax's idea about a 68 team tourney because there are really only a handful of teams that get screwed out of the tournament, if any...so if you add 3 or 4 (hell I'd be willing to go up to 72) you're incorporating those "screwed" teams.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 4/04/2010
Why did you make a thread to say what you've already said schroed?

I think the main argument not to change the tournament is the fact that there are/were really ZERO complaints with the tournament as is, thus why fix something that isn't broken? I think the tournament works well with 31 conference tournament champions and 34 at-large bids, and when you start getting into larger numbers and an NCAAB league that has 11 times more teams than any of the aforementioned pro leagues, percents mean less and less. Its one thing to add 50% of your previous capacity if your tournament had 8 teams (8 + 4 = 12) as opposed to 64/65 (64 + 32 = 96). In this instance the sheer number/volume of teams overrides the percentages.

Part of it is logistics too, the NCAA still wants to keep this tournament inside of 3 weeks, thus while a 32 team FBS playoff would matchup more closely with the 96 NCAAB team percentage, it would take 5 weeks, thus that's why 8 teams would work better, regardless of percentages.

Like I said, I've never heard ANYONE until the NCAA brass this year say that we needed more teams. Chances are bracket players still won't include the Tuesday games because its simply too hard to put your bracket pool players together in a day and a half...its essentially ruining the gambling side and the fun of the bracket.

I love metsmax's idea about a 68 team tourney because there are really only a handful of teams that get screwed out of the tournament, if any...so if you add 3 or 4 (hell I'd be willing to go up to 72) you're incorporating those "screwed" teams.

The brackets wont be affected by timing. The proposal has the tournament starting on that Thursday just like normal. The extra round would be played on Tuesday and Wednesday of week #2

Ahhh, my bad. Still doesn't make the format any more appealing. Money grab central....

The reason I made a forum just about it is because a lot of the people that say that this is reason not to expand never seem to read this point that the % of teams lines up with the MLB and is under everyone else. They try to equate the bigger NCAA tourney to the same as the NFL or even NHL/NBA when in reality it still is much smaller.

Also, I never said it wasn't a money grab or any such. Personally I will like the expanded tourney but 64/65 is fine as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gambling I doubt will be hurt though, like you said you will probably do a first round bet on the games. Then after those games are done you will do a tournament wide bet for the championship at that point. More games="more" gambling in my head as the ones addicted can not get enough of the betting anyways.

Also, I didn't know about the schedule until now but I love the idea of an extra round on Tuesday/Wednesday as long as it doesn't become a Cluster F to get players and teams to their games. Everyone loves that first Thursday/Friday because there are SOoooo many games and its an all day event. Having an extra 2 days will only add meaning there.

In the end I made this tourney post mostly to attract the attention hopefully of those who feel there is too many teams and not for the other reasons not to expand.

Quote: Originally posted by oldave on 4/04/2010Also, I could even see the point of having the top 8 seeds having byes as opposed to 9-24 having to play an extra gameHuh?

I don't see the point cause they are not the ones fighting for the championship anyways, they are there for the experience and add depth to the field. The top 8 seeds earn their bye as a "leg up" for playing good throughout the season.

Schroed, in this case, the percentages are incredibly misleading and don't tell the entire story of the NCAAB tournament and the fact that its virtually perfect how it is now. Like I said, before all of this current hullabaloo, I heard NO ONE griping about the NCAAB tournament, rather many lauded the current format as being the most exciting 2 days/3 weeks in sports.

I think the bottom line remains that IT WASN'T BROKEN and it isn't the BCS where we have 2 teams out of 120 playing for a NCAAF "national championship". If you like 96 out of 347 (27.7%) then you should like a 32 team FBS playoff out of 120 (26.7%), and I can't think of ANYONE off of the top of my head that was/is advocating a 32 team FBS tournament, thus the percentages don't necessarily work out as well as you portray them to be, especially given the fact that FBS football has 4 times the number of teams as the pro leagues and NCAAB has 11 times the number of teams as the pro leagues...key information that you're leaving out/disregarding.

NASCAR gets 12 into the Chase these days, not 10. 26.7%

The reason that no one is pushing for a 32 team BCS playoff is because they don't even have a playoff right now. If they had a 4 team playoff there would be call for a 8 or 16 team playoff at least.

Personally I think BCS football should go to a format like that of NCAAB where you have 4 regions (East, West, South, Midwest) and in each region you get 6 teams making for 24 teams total, basically the top 25.

First round is 3 v 6 and 4 v 5
Second round is 1 v (lower seed) and 2 v (higher seed) like the NFL
Elite 8 is the two winners
Final 4 is the winner of all four regionals
Championship would be for it all

Date Structure (2010-2011 version)
Conference Championships: December 3/4/5
First round: December 10/11 (Friday and Saturday)
Second round: 17/18 (Friday and Saturday)
Elite 8: 24/26 (no christmas games) (Friday and Sunday)
Final 4: January 1st, 2011 (Saturday)
Championship: January 10th or 11th, 2011 (Monday or Tuesday)

Also you are able to move up Conference Championship week into November and the either get a bye week around finals time or christmas time or play straight through and have the championship on the 1st each year.

I don't think 96 out of 360ish tells the whole story.

While all these schools are in the same division organizationally, the FBS/FCS divide absolutely exists in basketball, it's just not legislated.

Let's be realistic - the teams that legitimately start the year competing at the top plane of D-I hoops are as follows: The BCS conference teams, the top half of a handful of mid-major conferences, and a handful of teams at the top of other mid-major conferences. That's maybe 100-120 teams that are actually relevant to the championship picture in some way. If you remove from 96 the 8 teams that aren't really relevant but get in with auto-bids from low major conferences anyhow, you've got fully 75% of the teams that are really upper division getting in.

Also, for the pro leagues you mentioned, with the exception of the NFL which is a different beast altogether due to different practicalities, your playoffs are best of 5, best of 7, so your lower seeds have to go out and outplay the higher seeds over the course of a longer series. In NCAA hoops, all it takes is one bad night for a Kansas or a Syracuse to flush an entire season down the drain. I think those teams have earned the gimmie first round games they get now, and wouldn't get under a 96 team tournament, because that 16-17 seed they get in their first game would legitimately be one of the top 64 or so teams in the country, as opposed to what they get now.

In summary - if your primary interest is in creating a better TV product, more upsets, etc, then more is absolutely better. If you're interested in a championship format that maintains a higher chance of your actual best teams winning a championship, you hold the line.

Difference is that in NCAAB you only play teams 1 or maybe 2 times a whole season just like the NFL. While in MLB, NHL, NBA you play all the teams multiple times and in the MLB your playing some teams 10+ times a season. Hence a best of 5 or 7 makes sense.

In the NFL and such where you only play a team 1 time or maybe 2 times a season you get the single elimination again.

Also, right now the top 8 seeds will be getting possibly a bigger leg up even though they are playing more games. They will be getting a bye while other teams have to play that first game and be tired 2 days later against them.

In the end though if your looking for the most consistent and top talented team you need to go to a round-robin type of system starting in december. Each team plays home and away against all of the other top 32 to 64 teams. Then the team with the highest W/L record wins the championship. This would actually produce the best results.

Right now the #1 seed even though they get that first round bye are already not making it to the Final 4.

My problem with this is a strong assumption about the implementation. I think this will help out 9th and 10th place teams in power conferences WAY more than 3rd and 4th place teams in mid majors. This is a money grab.

Also, schrodess, comparing the stats in the NBA and NFL percentage wise to college basketball is disingenuous. Professional sports and collegiate sports are two completely different animals. There are SO many low-level D1 teams that technically constitute part of that percentage...but they will not be the ones benefiting from this decision.

Al Cheez - agree 110 percent! I also don't want 12 big east teams in the tourney every year! At least now regular season performance has some amount of significance.

I was not advocating for a best of 5/best of 7 in the NCAAs, I was stating why letting half the teams in isn't a big deal in the leagues that have it. It's not practical in the NCAA, just like it's not practical in the NFL.

I was also not suggesting that the current system is the best way to make sure the best teams win every year. I think the current system provides the best balance of access (via the auto-bid system with a significant number of at-large bids), rewarding the teams that were the best all year long, and maintaining the value of the regular season.

96 teams goes way overboard with access, puts extra obstacles in the way of the very best teams (I'll gladly take a matchup with a rested 15/16 seed in the current system over a 15/16 seed coming off a game played in a 96 team tournament), and further diminishes the importance of the regular season.

I'm not saying it can't work, I am saying I don't like the idea, and that going to 96 teams is about making a better TV product, not about making it a better way to determine a champion.