heyholetsgogrant Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Sources: 96-Team March Madness Is “Done Deal”Posted by Brooks on Feb. 01, 2010, 1:29pmSources at ESPN and inside the administration at a powerhouse NCAA basketball school told me today that the NCAA basketball tournament going to 96 teams is a “done deal.” An ESPN source said, “It’s a done deal with the expansion of the tournament. Depending on how soon a (TV) deal is done, the added teams could start next year. The NCAA confirmed that bidders would be interested in 96 teams, so they’re going with it.” Another ESPN source confirmed to me that the network was in the formative stages of pondering a bid for the expanded tournament. John Ourand and Michael Smith of SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL reported this morning that if the NCAA opts out of its current broadcast rights deal with CBS, the governing body will consider, “expanding from a 65-team tournament to either 68 or 96 teams.” The NCAA-CBS broadcast rights contract has three years and $2.131 billion remaining. SBJ reports, “the NCAA has until Aug. 31 to exercise its right, though it hopes to conclude the process much earlier.” A 68-team field would add three games to the current 65-team format, and a 96-team field would add 31 games to the tourney. Source: Sports by Brooks Link: http://sportsbybrooks.com/source-march-madness-with-96-teams-done-deal-27742 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Don't ya hate it when the article doesn't deliver on the headline? Obviously, changing the tournery in any significant way would be a massive mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 that plan is an abortion. i know money is everything, but the ncaa has to realize that this devalues the regular season. who wants to see the 10th best Big 12 team vs the 12th best BE team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Don't ya hate it when the article doesn't deliver on the headline? Obviously, changing the tournery in any significant way would be a massive mistake. Why? It wouldn't be the first time. Hell, it wouldn't even be the first time in the past decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 This is ****ing ridiculous. There is no reason to change the current format. A 96 team format lets in every bubble team. No one is left out. A lot more venues. Whose bubble gets burst? Nobody. When you look at the Selection Show every March, they have 5 or 6 teams that are on the bubble. So you add those teams. And then what? What other teams do you add that were on the bubble? Do we really want a system such as college football where you need only fare .500 or above to get in the playoffs? This is a horrible mistake by the NCAA if true. Stop with the political correctness. The current system provides what is so great about the sport, the teams getting their bubble burst at the final day, the bubble teams getting in at the last second on the show. This won't happen if 96 teams are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braxford Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I love college basketball, but are there really that many other deserving teams that get left out? I don't want to see teams that can't even go .500 in a mid major conference playing each other in the tourney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 The only promise of this plan is a perceived merger between the NIT and NCAA into a mega-tournament. If all the NIT teams get into the NCAA tournament things could get a little interesting with a 96 team field. Imagine Penn State and GMU last year playing UNC, MSU, Kansas, etc. Wouldn't be bad at all. The only way I'd be behind this plan is if this knocks the NIT out. No one watches that **** anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Why? It wouldn't be the first time. Hell, it wouldn't even be the first time in the past decade. What significant changes have they made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 Don't ya hate it when the article doesn't deliver on the headline? Obviously, changing the tournery in any significant way would be a massive mistake. leave it to the NCAA to destroy the best sporting even in the country and unchange the one everyone hates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I can understand maybe adding 12 or so more schools....but 96 is ****ing ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 This gives me hope that maybe one day Towson University can be destroyed by a top ranked team in an extremely irrelevant 96 team tournament game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Terrible terrible mother ****ing terrible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I don't see the point of expanding from 65 to 68 teams. That seems like a "who cares" issue. But 96 teams? Gimme a break! Tournament expansion is all about $$$$$. Nobody from the bottom half of the 65 team field has ever won it all, so expanding the field has nothing at all to do with the notion of sporting fairness. It's not like college football, where voters and secret computers narrow the entire championship field to just 2 teams before a single postseason game is played. College basketball actually gets it right, and if anything the tournament is already a bit too big. (I like it that way though.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 This **** better not ****ing happen. It would piss off a bunch of people. A WHOLLLEEEEEE BUNCH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 leave it to the NCAA to destroy the best sporting even in the country and unchange the one everyone hates. Seriously. March Madness and the NFL playoffs are the best postseasons in major American sports. The NHL and NBA let too many teams in, MLB lets too few in, and we all know about the abortion that is the BCS. But The League and college basketball have it down. Yet we're on the verge of losing one of them? Nauseating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 isn't one of the main "reasons" for not adding a college football playoff is the amount of time the "students" would be out of class? :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 65 to 68 makes sense: 4 play-in games. between AT-LARGE teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Half of the arenas to start the tournament would be empty and the TV ratings will not be high at all. This plan is just plain retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 What significant changes have they made? Its only been 64 since (I believe) the early to mid 80s. And in the past decade they've added the play-in game. Per wiki - they went to 64 teams in 1985: The NCAA tournament has expanded a number of times in the last 65 seasons. This is a breakdown of the history of the tournament format: 1939–1950: eight teams 1951–1952: 16 teams 1953–1974: varied between 22 and 25 teams 1975–1978: 32 teams 1979: 40 teams 1980–1982: 48 teams 1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament) 1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament) 1985–2000: 64 teams 2001—present: 65 teams (with an "opening round" game to determine whether the 64th or 65th team plays in the first round) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I'm not a fan of this move, but if they do it, I hope they don't just clutter up the tourney with a bunch of mediocre teams from power conferences. I'd much rather see the best mid-major squads that would otherwise just miss the 64-team cut get in, rather than seeing the dregs of the ACC make it. Otherwise, why even have a regular season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 No big deal really. Everyone plays one more game. The fans truly benefit from this move because it will certainly encourages top teams to schedule mid majors during the regular season, in additional to more regular season inter conference matchups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 One thing I have heard about this is the conference winner AND the tourny winner from each conference get an auto bid. This would be HUGE in rewarding teams from smaller conferences that dominate the entire season then lose in the tourny in a fluke way. The amount of "at large" schools will go up some, but not to the point a .500 or below conference team is getting in all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Whining babies like Gary Williams shouldn't be rewarded for their mediocrity. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I posted this yesterday in the CBB Thread. I think its a horrible idea. There's no point in even having a regular season if you go to 96 teams. I mean I understand there are a few good teams left out every year, but not 31. Where are they going to find 31 deserving teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 If this were 1985, you would all be ****ing "They can't change from 52 teams...it will ruin everything!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.