March Madness going to 96 teams Topic

_hannibal_
Posts: 455 (0)
Veteran
23
Prospect
Schroedess26, just want to say, I understand where you are coming from and I won't hold it against you that you are able to examine a situation from multiple POVs and provide pros and cons to each.

But, you should know, that is not how this game (Internet forum dynasty) is played. If you continue with this strategy I doubt you will ever get an invitation to the big dance aka the shtickless thread.
2/2/2010 9:55 AM
fd343ny
Posts: 2254 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 634 36
Veteran
whatever it is, I'm against it
2/2/2010 10:20 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/01/2010
Quote: Originally posted by schroedess26 on 2/01/2010 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.

Stupid. There is not 32 additional teams that deserve to make the tournament. Do you not understand that? It is an honor to make the tournament, adding any additional teams diminishes that. There is no reason to add more teams. Try and convince a level headed person that there should be more teams, on what basis does 66-anything have? There are not 32 more teams that deserve a chance to make it.

Dude, try to keep your tact together. Also, what's going to happen is, adding 32 teams would only push the automatic qualifiers into the shittier play-in games for the 13-16 seeds...it isn't going to be the North Carolinas and Louisvilles fighting for these spots..."BCS" conferences will almost always get a top 12 spot, this just screws the smaller conferences even more by forcing them to win 7 games for a title, while all others need to only win 6.

I'm completely with you that there aren't 32 more deserving teams out there...like I've said, at most 7/8...you get the most worthy bubble teams in.
2/2/2010 10:31 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Also, I just want to clear up my statement about byes....teams wouldn't really have a bye per se if the field expanded to 96 teams, its just that the "play-in" teams would have to win 7 games to win the NC while those already in the tournament would still only need to win 6. I personally like the equal opportunity of the current format, as the 96 team expansion would only go to hurt the smaller auto-bidders. So like I said, I don't want to see expansion, but if there ever was...no more than 72...the bottom 8 fight for the 15 and 16 seeds where teams are 4-200.
2/2/2010 10:38 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
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 finally read this in its entirety, and I like how you're talking about at-large teams and not screwing the lower end conference tournament champions.
2/2/2010 10:41 AM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by schroedess26 on 2/01/2010Well you can also look at it as lets go back to just 32 or 16 teams. Its all relative and people though 64 was WAY to huge. Another 15 years and 96 teams would seem normal.

Also, I don't agree though that the best teams won't win the tournament. The teams that are getting added would be like a 10-15 team seed. The #1 and #2 seeds rarely if ever loose to them anyways. I wouldn't worry about the top team not winning.

Expanding to 64 didn't give anyone first round byes. That's the worst part about this idea, by far.
2/2/2010 10:57 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
But unless they expanded to 128, they woudl HAVE to have first round byes
2/2/2010 11:29 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 2/02/2010But unless they expanded to 128, they woudl HAVE to have first round bye
no, they could just have play-ins for the 13-16 seeds and nobody really gets a bye...its just tougher for those 13-16s to win a championship because they'll have to win 7 games as opposed to 6. Those teams don't really have a shot in hell anyhow.
2/2/2010 11:37 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Well, there is a round where those teams don't play and others do> It might not officially be a bye, but it effectively is.

2/2/2010 12:09 PM
schroedess26
Posts: 54 (0)
All Star
29 1 1
Prospect
What do people think of splitting up D1 like football? This way you could eliminate the problem of having too many automatic bids filling up the tournament over time.

There could be a way for D1AA conferences to move up and replace current D1A conferences by looking replace and conference that either doesn't send multiple teams or does not win a game in the NCAA tournament over the course of 5 years.

Right now 17 conferences (made of 178 teams) have had multiple bids in a year:
(# of teams in conference) name - Last year to send multiple teams
(14) A10
(12) ACC
(16) Big East
(11) Big Ten
(12) Big 12
(10) Pac 10
(12) SEC
(9) Mountain West - 2009
(10) Horizon - 2009
(12) C-USA - 2008
(8) WCC - 2008
(12) Sun Belt - 2008
(12) CAA - 2007
(9) Big West - 2005
(10) Missouri Valley - 2005
(9) WAC - 2005
*(8) Ivy League - Founders Free Pass as a storied college conference

Then you have another 7 conferences (made of 73 teams) that have had at least 1 win in the tournament not including the play-in game.
(# of teams in conference) name - Last year to have win in NCAA Tournament
(12) Southern - 2008
(10) MAAC - 2009
(12) Northeast - 2008
(10) OVC - 2009
(12) Southland - 2006
(8) Patriot - 2006
(9) American East - 2005

This would send 7 conferences to a minor D1-AA level in which the top Conference over a 5+ year time period could take over for a team in the Major D1-A that has failed to A) Send multiple teams or B) Win a NCAA Tournament Game over that period.

I know its not perfect and it probably won't be received well but its just something that came into my head that we could take from NCAA Football. Also this would free up 6/7 or so extra at large bids and you could eliminate all the play-in games.
2/2/2010 1:28 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
D1 probably is too big, however creating a 1-AA would make 1-AA teams completely irrelevant, and I doubt they'll go for it. I guess I really don't mind the setup as is.
2/2/2010 2:01 PM
achampa1
Posts: 97 (0)
All Star
1 33 1 1
Prospect
The above set-up would screw very good teams in bad conferences. My girlfriend goes to Siena, a MAAC school, and they're a legit threat to make a run despite their mid-major status. How could this happen in the D1-AA setup?
2/2/2010 11:51 PM
schroedess26
Posts: 54 (0)
All Star
29 1 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by achampa1 on 2/03/2010The above set-up would screw very good teams in bad conferences. My girlfriend goes to Siena, a MAAC school, and they're a legit threat to make a run despite their mid-major status. How could this happen in the D1-AA setup?

They wouldn't be in D1-AA right now since their conference had a winner last year or in the last 5 years they would be in D1-A with all the big boys. Not saying its perfect just a thought.
2/2/2010 11:56 PM
schroedess26
Posts: 54 (0)
All Star
29 1 1
Prospect
What I was saying was a format like that of cycling or soccer over in europe. Only certain teams/conferences are in the top division and you have to earn your spot up there is all.

Doesn't really matter though 96 teams is basically a done deal. All the extra money they are going to pull in offsets anyone being opposed to the idea.
2/3/2010 12:14 AM
◂ Prev 123456
March Madness going to 96 teams Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.