Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Sports by Brooks: Sources: 96-Team March Madness Is “Done Deal”

heyholetsgogrant

By heyholetsgogrant
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
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?

Adding 32 teams is going to require that they pull from power conferences AND mid-majors. That's a lot of additional teams to fill out the bracket.

You'll see some conferences with only a handful of teams NOT in the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted
Would they add another region? Talk about watered down competition. Number 1 seed against the number 24 seed. My March Madness bracket will now be in book form.

My guess is that this would create byes for a lot of the higher ranked teams - which is how the tournament worked until the 80s.

As far as I can tell, John Wooden never had to win more than 4 games to be national champion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovetoaster

lovetoaster

Posted
Posted
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.

That's exactly what they are going to do though. The big proponents that I have seen are guys like Donovan from Florida and Hamilton from Florida State. They do not make it to the tournament every year, but under a 96 team field they would.

They might say that it would give more mid-major teams an opportunity, but it would end up just being more mediocre major conference schools. More big conference schools bring more money that mid-majors can not guarantee.

You know what, if you want to make the NCAA tournament? Win more games. We don't need more than a quarter of Division I teams in the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjah

mjah

Posted
Posted
Just go back to 1 bid for winning your conference tournament. No more at large garbage, if you can't win your league have fun in the NIT.

Ugh, that system was awful. The best conferences got punished mightily for no good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of

Ghost of

Posted
Posted
Ugh, that system was awful. The best conferences got punished mightily for no good reason.

I agree. Not to mention it totally ruins the point of the regular season. You could have a tournament and go right into the NCAAs if you wanted to go that route. It always upset me when those smaller conferences had a team that lost like a handful of games and somehow didn't make the tourney because they lost their tourney title game on a last second shot.

If anything, they should do away with the conference tournaments. And yes, I know that'll never happen. I thought the regular season was the tournament to determine who won the conference anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattFancy

MattFancy

Posted
Posted

Well let's look at this compared to other sports. Here's the percentage of teams that make the postseason in each sport.

NCAA Basketball: 19% (65/347)

NFL: 38% (12/32)

MLB: 27% (8/30)

NBA: 54% (16/30)

NHL: 54% (16/30)

So even if they do expand to 96 teams, that's still only 28% of the teams. So if you look at it that way it kinda makes sense. And I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure that Division I has added some teams inbetween when they made the switch to 64 teams and now.

I still don't agree with making it 96 teams though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted
Well let's look at this compared to other sports. Here's the percentage of teams that make the postseason in each sport.

NCAA Basketball: 19% (65/347)

NFL: 38% (12/32)

MLB: 27% (8/30)

NBA: 54% (16/30)

NHL: 54% (16/30)

So even if they do expand to 96 teams, that's still only 28% of the teams. So if you look at it that way it kinda makes sense. And I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure that Division I has added some teams inbetween when they made the switch to 64 teams and now.

I still don't agree with making it 96 teams though.

What percentage of D-1 football teams go to bowl games? 50 percent?

I wouldn't have a problem with a system where #1 and #2 seeds get a first round bye. Imagine the debates that would ensue between the #2 and #3 seeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattFancy

MattFancy

Posted
Posted
What percentage of D-1 football teams go to bowl games? 50 percent?

I wouldn't have a problem with a system where #1 and #2 seeds get a first round bye. Imagine the debates that would ensue between the #2 and #3 seeds.

Well there's 34 bowl games so 68 teams out of 119. So that's 58%.

I wouldn't mind giving them byes either. In fact, they would have to almost. Because if you follow the tournament now, it would go 96-48-24-12-6-3. That doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattFancy

MattFancy

Posted
Posted
what's funny is the NCAA said they don't want a playoff system for football because it keeps kids out of classes for too long and yet they are doing this which would add 32 more games to the NCAA tournament.....

Well this and the BCS show that the NCAA is all about the money. They don't want to mess with the Bowls because of all the money they bring in from the sponsors and tv. They want to expand the tourney so they are more games which means more tv and more sponsors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
ixcuincle

ixcuincle

Posted
Posted

This is bumped because there is rampant speculation in the Washington Post (especially by writer John "Junior" Feinstein) that this is the last tournament with 65 teams. In a blog Feinstein strongly believed that this was the last time we would see a 65 team field.

http://feinsteinonthebrink.com/index.php?id=4715981535986366296

For the past few weeks I’ve been saying and writing that those of us who love college basketball had better savor this coming Selection Sunday because it is likely to be the last one with the kind of suspense we have become accustomed to on the second weekend in March. When the NCAA expands the tournament—which I think is almost inevitable—teams like Illinois, Seton Hall, South Florida, Georgia Tech, Arizona State, Florida, Wichita State and Northeastern—all of whom are on the bubble this year, will already have locked up bids.

It’s worth nothing that none of those teams has done anything particularly special this season. They’re all just solid teams that may (or may not) get squeezed out by the numbers game. That’s part of what the process so much fun: who gets in and who gets left out and the fact that each of those teams has SOME claim to a spot in the field. That will be gone with a 96 team field we all know that. The NCAA knows that and doesn’t care as long as the money offered by ESPN or (less likely) CBS-Turner is so out-of-whack that they can roll around in it for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsandCanes

SkinsandCanes

Posted
Posted
what's funny is the NCAA said they don't want a playoff system for football because it keeps kids out of classes for too long and yet they are doing this which would add 32 more games to the NCAA tournament.....

That's always been the biggest lie the NCAA tells. Last time I checked, Division 1-aa, II, and III kids are all still student athletes and they miss classes for playoff games. Plus, 1-AA just expanded and added more playoff games for next year. F%$K the NCAA!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...