Thoughts on a 96 team field? Topic

westcoast22
Posts: 133 (0)
Hall of Famer
129 2 9
Prospect
I don't know about you but I'm excited to see Grambling and Providence be a first round game. Arent you?

Sigh.
4/2/2010 2:46 PM
aporter
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
319
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by 1peat on 4/02/2010Couple of thoughts in my head:If they do this, what arguement will they use to continue to avoid a D1 football playoff?Whom does this help more, the 10th or 11th team from a major conference or the 2nd team from a mid to lower conference?Obviously, conference tourneys matter less.  Will we see higher seeded school play with even lessenthusiasm because they're already in and "let" the lower seed win to get more bids for the conference?Will "making the dance" no longer be the bench mark for a coach to keep his job and be replaced with "making the round of 64"?

I doubt any team doesn't want to win their conference tournament.
4/2/2010 2:51 PM
1peat
Posts: 42 (0)
Hall of Famer
159
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By aporter on 4/02/2010
Quote: Originally posted by 1peat on 4/02/2010
Couple of thoughts in my head:

If they do this, what arguement will they use to continue to avoid a D1 football playoff?

Whom does this help more, the 10th or 11th team from a major conference or the 2nd team from a mid to lower conference?

Obviously, conference tourneys matter less. Will we see higher seeded school play with even lessenthusiasm because they're already in and "let" the lower seed win to get more bids for the conference?

Will "making the dance" no longer be the bench mark for a coach to keep his job and be replaced with "making the round of 64"?

I doubt any team doesn't want to win their conference tournament
The only schools where winning the conference tournament is important is the one-bed conferences. Do you think Mich State is bummed they didn't win the Big 10? If they go on to win it all, will it have even mattered?
4/2/2010 3:09 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 1peat on 4/02/2010
Couple of thoughts in my head:

If they do this, what arguement will they use to continue to avoid a D1 football playoff? This is an easy answer...the NCAA has ZERO CONTROL over the FBS football postseason process via a 1984 Supreme Court ruling. The argument against a playoff in any sport, less the EPL and their double round robin format, is preposterous.

Whom does this help more, the 10th or 11th team from a major conference or the 2nd team from a mid to lower conference?

Obviously, conference tourneys matter less. Will we see higher seeded school play with even lessenthusiasm because they're already in and "let" the lower seed win to get more bids for the conference?

Will "making the dance" no longer be the bench mark for a coach to keep his job and be replaced with "making the round of 64"?

4/2/2010 3:31 PM
alblack56
Posts: 3329 (0)
Hall of Famer
490
Pro
I think we'll see a dumbing down of the non-conference schedules. No. Carolina, after the NIT, had a 92 RPI with a 16-16- record. On their schedule were Ohio St; Syracuse; Michigan St; Kentucky; and Texas. Why take a chance on a losing record when it's so much easier to qualify for the NT?
4/2/2010 3:32 PM
cyric612
Posts: 29 (0)
Hall of Famer
116
Prospect
I don't understand why (well i can see the money grab angle) they would want to mess with something that is obviously working really well and very well liked and leave the football BS system place. Why not fix the broken one and leave the working one alone.
4/2/2010 4:12 PM
kmfloyd
Posts: 65 (0)
Hall of Famer
316 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By alblack56 on 4/02/2010 I think we'll see a dumbing down of the non-conference schedules. No. Carolina, after the NIT, had a 92 RPI with a 16-16- record. On their schedule were Ohio St; Syracuse; Michigan St; Kentucky; and Texas. Why take a chance on a losing record when it's so much easier to qualify for the NT
Allblack, I would be inclined to disagree. Because it will be easier to qualify, it might open up scheduling.
4/2/2010 5:24 PM
ermackey
Posts: 849 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 216 385 4
Prospect
I am apparently the only person in America that likes this idea. Personally, I think this will help many of the mid-majors. I think it is a travesty when a team wins their conference and loses their tourney. Expanding the bracket will let some of these teams in and compete.
4/2/2010 6:24 PM
gillispie
Posts: 1766 (0)
Hall of Famer
116
Rookie
Quote: Originally posted by ermackey on 4/02/2010
I am apparently the only person in America that likes this idea. Personally, I think this will help many of the mid-majors. I think it is a travesty when a team wins their conference and loses their tourney. Expanding the bracket will let some of these teams in and compete.
I am assuming you must have said something wrong there...
4/2/2010 6:31 PM
ermackey
Posts: 849 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 216 385 4
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
4/2/2010 6:34 PM
kmfloyd
Posts: 65 (0)
Hall of Famer
316 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By ermackey on 4/02/2010I am apparently the only person in America that likes this idea. Personally, I think this will help many of the mid-majors. I think it is a travesty when a team wins their conference and loses their tourney. Expanding the bracket will let some of these teams in and compete.
I would guess it will help some of the mid-majors, but how competitive will a 20-seed actually be? Basically, they are adding a full weekend of play-in games. I can't really get very excited about that.
4/2/2010 6:51 PM
kkyutzy
Posts: 9 (0)
Hall of Famer
275 4
Prospect
It's all about "THE MONEY". More teams, more games = MORE MONEY!
4/2/2010 6:53 PM
kmfloyd
Posts: 65 (0)
Hall of Famer
316 1
Prospect
I'd also like to see the NIT become the premere pre-season tournament. I mean there is no reason to get rid of the NIT name. But let's make it a 32 team field and really do it up right.
4/2/2010 6:58 PM
asher413
Posts: 609 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 9 2 25 248 23 73 4
Rookie
Okay, so I did a little research to see how I'd argue-

The teams that would've made the field assuming it was straight RPI for the next 32- I also added the approx seed that they would have received.

12- Rhode Island
Wichita St
UAB
Kent St
13- Memphis
Dayton
Mississippi State
William and Mary
14- Virginia Tech
Seton Hall
15- Ol' Miss
Arizona State
UConn
Cincy
16- VA Commonweath
Marshall
Tulsa
S. Florida
17- Texas Tech
Nevada
Illinois
Northeastern
18- Illinois St.
Charlotte
La. Tech
Portland
19- Wright St.
Fairfield
St. John's
IUPUI
20- Morehead St.
Weber St.

Yes- that's a lot of mid majors (more than I expected)

Now, let's take this a step further (reminding you all this is far from exact)-

First round matchups we would have seen (just doing the midwest)-

9 N. Iowa vs. 24 Lehigh- winner gets UNLV
10 Ga Tech vs. 23 UCSB- winner gets Okla St.
11 SDSU vs. 22 Ohio- winner gets Tenn
12 Rhode Island vs. 21 Houston- winner gets Mich St.
13 Memphis vs. 20 Morehead St.- winner gets Maryland
14 Va Tech vs. 19 Wright St- winner gets Georgetown
15 Ol' Miss vs. 18 Illinois St- winner gets Ohio St
16 VA Commonweath vs. 17 Texas Tech- winner gets Kansas (yes, they probably would move Tech due to conferences)

Those matchups personally don't make me feel like I'd take two days off of work like I did this week. And then I wonder what kind of weekend games we'd see with the lower seeded teams one game further in (They could be more crisp, or they could be tired).

After trying to even convince myself I like this- I can't stand it. 64 meant you had to A. win your conference or B. be one of the top 30 or so teams that didn't win their conference. Every team can play their way in through the regular season and conference tourneys (unless you're Ivy), and if you didn't make the top 30 non-conference winner- you really can't argue that you 'deserve' to be playing for a championship.

I for one would simply not watch the first two days, maybe even sparsely on the second two if this changed- and if even 20% of the people feel this way, they will actually lose the money they are greedily hunting.

::steps off soap box::
4/2/2010 7:53 PM
newmex
Posts: 67 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 37 43 67 2 11
Prospect
I didn't like this idea at first but now, I don't have a problem with it. The top 8 seeds in each region will still only have to win 6 games to win the championship. When is the last time a 9 seed or lower won it all anyway? You just fold this season's NIT field into the tournament. Are you really not going going to watch the early rounds? I mean, come on, it's still March Madness. They just added 31 more play-in games.
4/2/2010 8:20 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
Thoughts on a 96 team field? 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.