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

[GoSkins561]

I think its a great idea, the smaller schools won't feel robbed and there is a chance some of the big division schools that don't make the tourney reak a little havoc.

Picking a bracket is going to be brutal.

[John Lydon]

So know we're gonna have to watch teams like Cal Poly tech get destroyed by the powerhouses. Why NCAA? Why would you destroy the best tournament in the world?!

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Worst idea ever, the vast majority of teams in a 64 team tournament have no chance of winning anyway. When a 16 seed beats a 1 seed then you can convince me that more teams are needed.

I think that would be a great rule of thumb too. Nice post.

[SkinFaninOKC]

I would probably stop filling out brackets and watching the tournament. 96 is way too many. Plus I am tired of hearing analysts(Skip Bayless for one) talk about having the 64 best teams. By his logic George Mason wouldn't get to go to the Final Four or Davidson doesn't get to the Elite 8 or maybe Kent State doesn't get to make its run. Some people want to take away what makes this tournament so great, watching big time programs lose to smaller ones. Sorry Cleveland State, your Sweet 16 appearance 20 years ago never should have happened.

[MattFancy]

I see this thing from both sides.

I can see expanding it since there are now 347 Division 1 basketball teams. Only 18% make it to the tournament right now, which is the least out of any sport (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, College Football). Even if they do make the tournament 96 teams, only 28% would make the tournment and it would be the 2nd least behind MLB at 27%. It could work if you give out 2 auto bids for each conference, one of the regular season and one for the post season. So that could help the mid-majors get more teams in.

I see why people don't want to expand either. I mean, are there really 31 more teams that should be in the tournament? There seem to be a few every year that are snubbed, but not 31. It seems that adding 31 teams is purely for money. Will any of the 31 they add win it? Probably not, so what is the point?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It seems that adding 31 teams is purely for money. Will any of the 31 they add win it? Probably not, so what is the point?

Well, if you are going by that logic, then they should cut the number of teams in half since the highest seed to ever win is an 8.

I agree with you overall that this is all about money, but I don't think "likelihood that they can win" should be a consideration or you'd be advocating contracting the field.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I can see a 68, but a 96 team tournament come on what is the point?

Tournaments are for the best teams, this is the NCAA not pee-wee league where everyone gets a trophy.

Please NCAA don't water down the Big Dance!!

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I can see a 68, but a 96 team tournament come on what is the point?

Tournaments are for the best teams, this is the NCAA not pee-wee league where everyone gets a trophy.

Please NCAA don't water down the Big Dance!!

The Big Dance has been continuously watered-down since the 70s or 80s I believe. It's been tweaked multiple times and is only recently a 64-team tournament.

[ixcuincle]

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

[ACW]

Darth Vader hates this idea.

[ixcuincle]

It's basically done

The NCAA appears to be on the verge of expanding the men's basketball tournament to 96 teams.

Insisting that nothing has been decided, NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen nonetheless outlined a detailed plan Thursday that included the logistics and timing of a 96-team tournament, how much time off the players would have and even revenue distribution.

Shaheen said the NCAA looked at keeping the current 65-team field and expanding to 68 or 80 teams, but decided the bigger bracket was best fit logistically and financially.

It would be played during the same time frame as the current three-week tournament and include first-round byes for 32 teams.

Bolded basically only reason. Makes no sense logistically to allow more mediocre teams in the tournament. It's a privilege to play in the NCAA tournament. It shouldn't be a given.

[TimmySmith]

A whole one more game. Big whoop. The NCAA should have really done something great. Limited the season to 25 games and put EVERY single team in Division I in the tourney.

[Thiebear]

If all they are doing is adding the NIT i have no issues with it..

and it does remove the bubble aspect..

[ixcuincle]

If all they are doing is adding the NIT i have no issues with it..

and it does remove the bubble aspect..

It does, but there are only 5 or 6 teams on the bubble every year. So what other teams would occupy the remaining slots?

Teams like North Carolina, who ended up .500 and have no business even being in the NCAA tournament.

While the new format does allow all bubble teams in it also allows mediocre teams in too...the teams that should stay in the NIT.

[DCranon21]

They should wait til 2014, because that is when the TV deal is done, and re-negotiate. But I'll say this again, it's dumb. Keep it at 64.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

This will be interesting...that's for sure.

[abdcskins]

Not sure how I feel about this, seems to place less emphasis on the regular season. Sweating the bubble is fun, it adds some drama to late season games.

[MattFancy]

The only way this works is if the regular season conference champ gets an auto bid too

[mjah]

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

Just to revisit this a bit: we saw an earlier answer to this question of 58%. I think the question needs to be changed a bit' date=' though, if you want to be apples-to-apples with other sports. And the answer is very surprising.

To explain why, consider college basketball, where today 65 teams make the Big Dance from a field of 347, for a ratio of 19% (value lifted from an earlier post). But the Big Dance is not the only Div I men's basketball postseason. There's also the NIT with its 32 teams, plus the CBI with its 16 teams. So you could argue that there are actually 113 teams in postseason men's Div I basketball, meaning that 33% of the teams make it to the postseason.

BUT, you say. BUT those other two tournaments aren't the same thing. They're for lesser teams that don't deserve a shot at the National Championship. They're, in a sense, dead-end competitions played for little more than prestige and money. Not a real championship.

And you're right.

And you're [u']also[/u] right when you say the very same thing about 33 of the 34 Div I football bowl games, because just like the NIT and the CBI, they're dead-end games irrelevant to the championship picture.

I can hear it already: "They're totally different sports you can't compare blah blah blah." No, actually you can compare in this case. Obviously the Peach Bowl, the (non-NC) BCS bowls, etc. are more prestigious than the NIT, but the end result is the same for each sport's championship picture: win big and you're still going home with no national championship trophy. The sport has already judged that you aren't good enough to even be given a chance at proving yourself in championship-eligible postseason play.

Which leads to an interesting observation, if you want to make it apples-to-apples with other sports: College football -- at the Div I level anyway, since every other level has a legitimate playoff -- seeds exactly 2 teams in its championship-eligible postseason tournament.

Two.

2 / 119 = 1.7% of Div I football teams in the championship postseason tournament. Let's be generous and call it 2%.

Obviously that needs to change, though not by much -- somewhere between doubled and quadrupled -- lame utterances of "but the regular season is the postseason" notwithstanding. It will still be the most exclusive postseason club in all of major American sports, by far.

Interestingly, college football has 2% and college basketball has 19% (soon to be 28%) in their respective championship postseasons for exactly the same reason: money.

[ACW]

As Wilbon said, they expand the hoops tourney, which is the closest thing to perfection in sports (though personally, I'd either make it 64 or 68 with bubble teams in play-in games), yet those idiots WON'T have a tourney in football, but use the B©S.

[Riggins77]

It does, but there are only 5 or 6 teams on the bubble every year. So what other teams would occupy the remaining slots?

Teams like North Carolina, who ended up .500 and have no business even being in the NCAA tournament.

While the new format does allow all bubble teams in it also allows mediocre teams in too...the teams that should stay in the NIT.

Here's the thing about UNC, they sucked all year long (yes I'm a Tarheel fan) and didn't deserve to make the NCAA tourney this year. However, they did have tons of injuries throughout the regular season and never had any chemistry because of that. Once the NIT started, they started playing a lot better ball and were actually playing like a real team.

If the tourney was expanded, they would have been in it and given most of the other average/slightly above average teams a run for their money in the first 2-3 rounds. I don't see a problem with letting average/good teams in. You can't tell me that UNC was worse or couldn't beat any of the 16 seeds currently in the tourney.

I think 96 is way too many teams though. I heard last night that seeds 1-8 would get first round byes and the NIT would be done. So, that's not as bad as it seems. Let the average/below average teams beat up on each other round 1, then the real action starts in round 2.

I wish they would keep it the same, but there is nothing we can say or do about it anyhow. UNC not making the tourney isn't something that happens often, so I don't want the expansion simply because my team got bounced after one fluke season.

[kuraitengai]

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.

thats exactly how i described it to my gf yesterday when i saw the ticker on espn.

[MattFancy]

As Wilbon said, they expand the hoops tourney, which is the closest thing to perfection in sports (though personally, I'd either make it 64 or 68 with bubble teams in play-in games), yet those idiots WON'T have a tourney in football, but use the B©S.

Yeah that makes absolutley not sense. They have always argued that having a football playoff would be bad for the students because they would miss too much class. So adding another weekend to the NCAA tournament is ok?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Here's the thing about UNC, they sucked all year long (yes I'm a Tarheel fan) and didn't deserve to make the NCAA tourney this year. However, they did have tons of injuries throughout the regular season and never had any chemistry because of that. Once the NIT started, they started playing a lot better ball and were actually playing like a real team.

If the tourney was expanded, they would have been in it and given most of the other average/slightly above average teams a run for their money in the first 2-3 rounds. I don't see a problem with letting average/good teams in. You can't tell me that UNC was worse or couldn't beat any of the 16 seeds currently in the tourney.

I think 96 is way too many teams though. I heard last night that seeds 1-8 would get first round byes and the NIT would be done. So, that's not as bad as it seems. Let the average/below average teams beat up on each other round 1, then the real action starts in round 2.

I wish they would keep it the same, but there is nothing we can say or do about it anyhow. UNC not making the tourney isn't something that happens often, so I don't want the expansion simply because my team got bounced after one fluke season.

IMO, UNC didn't ever deserve to be in the NCAAs. Even in the NIT, they were still not a good team. They shoot Freethrows poorly, they had real issues rebounding and they just are not a good ball handling team. They fumble way too many passes and just generally turn the ball over too much. They should have lost in the Semis to Rhode Island but they got lucky. They simply got beaten yesterday by Dayton. I am a huge Tar Heel fan but I can not say that they were deserving of being in the NCAAs at any point in time this year. Expanding the NCAAs is just watering down the quality of basketball IMO. I don't like the play in game and IMHO, this latest move only kills the NIT which is unfortunate IMO.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Well, looking at the silver lining...maybe if the NCAA is willing to expand this tournament they'd be more open to establishing a football tournament??