Quote: Originally Posted By Weena on 2/01/2010Any additional teams added would just be cannon fodder. This would be done strictly for TV revenue and to cut down on potential lawsuits. The BCS football format is currently slated for review by the feds because of legal challanges from Utah Senator Orin Hatch. I think football needs to go to a playoff system myself but that is a totally different subject.

Back on the topic of cannon fodder, the last non-BCS team to win the NCAA tournament was UNLV in 1990. There is absolutely no chance any added team comes even close

not true in my plan, see above

Quote: Originally posted by cthomas22255 on 2/01/2010I read this article today, not sure of its merits. But it's a shame. "The NCAA reportedly wants a new, 14-year deal with its network partner(s) with an early opt-out only available to the NCAA. (Overplaying its cards?) As my sources indicate, the NCAA is already dead-set on expanding to a 96-team hoops tournament.
Statistically, this reduces by a good bit the odds of the BEST team winning the tournament...

I completely disagree with this statement. If 32 teams are being added, then the top 32 seeds are getting byes in the first round. If they are still playing 6 games the TOP 32 teams have the exact same odds of winning the NC.

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 2/01/2010
I would like to note for posterity that we have here Colonel Klink and Zarfman agreeing!

Here's my plan. 96 is too many. But this one playin game is hokey. What we need to is to create another cool tv event and the answer is Four count them four playin games. A full slate of four games on Last Spot Tuesday.....or some better name.

BUT, the playin games are not the worst of the at large teams. The play in games are between the bottom two at large teams in each regional seeding - playing for the right to continue as the 12th or 13th or whatever seed would be assigned to the last at large in that region. This should make them games that will be attractive to tv - often BCS teams with fan recognition - teams that have been the subject of bubble talk for a couple of weeks - teams that folks want to see on tv.

So, we have say seeds 12A and 12B in a couple of regions and maybe seeds 13A and 13B in a couple - depending on how the seedings work out. You have four dynamite games in Dayton. Just like the first day of the Tune-a-ment, you have 1:00, 3:45 and then 7:30 and 10:00 games. Making the "last four in" a reality, decided on the court the way it should be.

I like the idea mets, seems like it could work.

Too bad it has 0 chance of happening because many of these teams would be the few bcs teams who think they should get in w/o a playin game.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 2/01/2010I think 20% is that "butter zone" per se....72/347 gives you 20.7% I don't see a reason to go over that quite frankly. I have always found it odd that they only added 1 "play-in" game...not 4

They added one play-in game when another new conference became eligible for an automatic bid. I think that made it 31 conferences. Rather than eliminate an at-large berth and go with 31 automatics and 33 at-large, they expanded the field to 65 and kept the 34 at large and increased the automatic bids from 30 to 31.

There currently is only one conference "The Great West" that doesn't get an automatic bid. But with a handful of new teams every season added to D1, there most likely will be a few new conferences created along the way.

Quote: Originally Posted By Iguana1 on 2/01/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 2/01/2010
I think 20% is that "butter zone" per se....72/347 gives you 20.7% I don't see a reason to go over that quite frankly. I have always found it odd that they only added 1 "play-in" game...not 4.

They added one play-in game when another new conference became eligible for an automatic bid. I think that made it 31 conferences. Rather than eliminate an at-large berth and go with 31 automatics and 33 at-large, they expanded the field to 65 and kept the 34 at large and increased the automatic bids from 30 to 31.

There currently is only one conference "The Great West" that doesn't get an automatic bid. But with a handful of new teams every season added to D1, there most likely will be a few new conferences created along the way.

As an FYI, to become eligible for an automatic bid, a conference must maintain a membership of a minimum of 6 teams with continuous membership in that conference for a period of 4 years. The NCAA may have made an exception to that when Conference USA was formed, but that's the standard criteria.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 2/01/2010I think 20% is that "butter zone" per se....72/347 gives you 20.7% I don't see a reason to go over that quite frankly. I have always found it odd that they only added 1 "play-in" game...not 4

The 1 play in game was added when a new conference earned an auto matic bid. They threw in the play in game so they could keep the same amount of at large teams.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Oh, its subjective . . . but its highly likely that the quality as an aggregate of teams 65 - 96 is lower than that of 33 - 64. And therefore, mathematically, if they are at all lower, the probability is that they would end up weakening the field above them at least a tiny bit.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 2/01/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 2/01/2010
We don't need the auto-bids though do we? 80% of them won't win a game or won't get out of the second round anyways.

But it's good for conferences to get at least 1 rep in, also helps them with revenue. Sure this proposed idea would do the same, but seriously we don't need the 2nd best team from the Sun Belt conference in the big dance

this proposed expansion will only help with revenue for the short term. After a few years at the 96 team mark. The NCAA would have a hard time drawing the attention of the fans as games would have television Time slots that would not draw ratings. and many fans would not tune into the early games because matchups would be completley onesided. There is always that #4 vs #12 seed matchup that is and expected upset. under the proposed system that would be a #4 vs #20 seed and not nearly as attractive. If they expand it will make the early games draw ratings near what ESPN draws for championship week, and those rating get worse every year. I know I consider myself a fan of NCAA basketball, and I havent watched a Championship week game in about 4-5 years.

If you a fan of NCAA basketball and don't watch championship week at all then your not a true NCAA fan. I know not every game is great but to not watch a single game? Now that is just weird.

Also your going to be adding teams like North Carolina this year, who probably will miss the tourney. Also teams like Northwestern, Virginia, and Illinois will be making the tourney and draw big numbers.

Also these first games will eliminate a lot of the auto-bid team. Last season this is a few of the teams that would have made it.

Baylor (20-14, 5-11 Big 12)
Georgetown (16-14, 7-11 Big East)
Kentucky (20-13, 8-8 SEC)
Miami (18-12, 7-9 ACC)
Nebraska (18-12, 8-8 Big 12)
Notre Dame (18-14, 8-10 Big East)
Virginia Tech (18-14, 7-9 ACC)
Washignton State (17-15, 8-10 Pac 10)

Would you rather to see Duke vs Sam Houston? or see Duke vs Georgetown?

THat is true. I hadn't considered the bad teams that often make it in by auto bids.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ncaa_expands_march_madness_to

how about 4096 teams?

seriously, i think they should eliminate an at large and go back to 64 teams. having two teams play in the play-in game on tuesday, before anyone else plays is embarassing.

Honestly I always thought at least the top 4 seeds should get a bye the first round. Having the 13-16 teams play a play in game is a good idea in my mind. It would add 32 teams and eliminate all the auto-bids from the actual tournament but would still give them the chance that we all want them to have.