Expansion

[BUfan14]

Well with all talk of it today, it needs a thread here.

Here is an article about what we already know it is all about. NCAA won't listen to it's fans though, it will listen to money. I am completely against anything more than 68 teams.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5048513

[Bravesfan]

Yeah well, not much more that can be said than was already said in this article. Talk about messing up a good thing!

I keep saying a 68 team tournament would be the perfect solution to the bubble team debate. 96 teams, while allowing 3 or 4 out of the Valley, still would be a disaster.

[BUfan14]

The byes scares me. It is hugely important being 3 games in a short period, and who do you think will be chosen for an 8 seed if it between a team like UNC and Bradley....it is too big a decision for problems like this to arise and there isn't that much difference between and 8 and 9 seed. Yet it will effect so much, and it is all in the hands of a committee we have seen fail in seeding many times with mid majors.

I am not an expert, but in the long run with decreased attendance, decreased viewership, and a decrease in exposure including people filling out brackets, wouldn't that hurt a little financially? I mean if you think about it this not only makes the new first round more boring, but the new second round less fair and interesting as well. Who wants to watch a possible 1/24 matchup or a 2/23 matchup?

It just lessons the chances for mid-majors because they have to win 3 games in a short time. It also waters down the tourny and makes it less interesting. a 64 team bracket with 1-4 play in games is a perfect number in so many ways, don't fix what isn't broken!!

[AE Braves Fan]

There should be 64 teams. It should mean something to make the tourney. I HATE this.

[Bravesfan]

The byes scares me. It is hugely important being 3 games in a short period, and who do you think will be chosen for an 8 seed if it between a team like UNC and Bradley....it is too big a decision for problems like this to arise and there isn't that much difference between and 8 and 9 seed. Yet it will effect so much, and it is all in the hands of a committee we have seen fail in seeding many times with mid majors.

I am not an expert, but in the long run with decreased attendance, decreased viewership, and a decrease in exposure including people filling out brackets, wouldn't that hurt a little financially? I mean if you think about it this not only makes the new first round more boring, but the new second round less fair and interesting as well. Who wants to watch a possible 1/24 matchup or a 2/23 matchup?

It just lessons the chances for mid-majors because they have to win 3 games in a short time. It also waters down the tourny and makes it less interesting. a 64 team bracket with 1-4 play in games is a perfect number in so many ways, don't fix what isn't broken!!

Let me address each of your points. First regarding seeding, I don't think it will be the 8 or 9 seeds affected as much as say the 12 and 13 seeds and below. Using Northern Iowa as an example, there's no way that UNI would be displaced by North Carolina even under an expanded field. Even the most fair weather college basketball fans would know that a 16-16 North Carolina would not get seeded ahead of top 25 UNI. However, I could see a setup where a 16-16 UNC and 17-15 UConn would routinely get seeded higher than a 24-8 UTEP or a 28-4 Utah St. So I don't believe the highest ranked mid-majors would be affected by the new format as much as the mid-major bubble teams under the old format. You would still see Butler as a 5 seed (still underseeded IMO) and New Mexico seeded 3rd. Also teams like UNI and Richmond would still be seeded in the 8 to 10 range. But bubble teams like UTEP and Utah St. probably would be seeded 15 or 16 if the selection committee acts the way I think they will!

Regarding attendance, the national powers and smaller conference schools won't be affected. The national powers always sell out, and the smaller schools usually draw flies unless a particular team is battling for their regular season conference championship. And even the conferences in between will probably continue to draw well as all teams will compete for an average of 2 or 3 spots. The teams that might get hit hard attendance wise will probably be the middle tiered BCS teams who only need to finish at or just slightly above .500 to make the tournament. Who wants to pay to see a team that will ultimately make the Big Dance while not playing all that well to begin with?

Finally, I couldn't agree more about the 3 games in 6 nights situation. The expanded field will allow more mid-majors and subpar BCS teams in, but you will see fewer mids make the Sweet 16 and beyond. Well maybe the higher seeded teams like Butler and Gonzaga won't have problems, but 9 seeded teams and below will really have to work so much harder just to make it into the round of the final 32 teams! Not good when this is why most people watch the tournament the first week!

[BUfan14]

Let me address each of your points. First regarding seeding, I don't think it will be the 8 or 9 seeds affected as much as say the 12 and 13 seeds and below. Using Northern Iowa as an example, there's no way that UNI would be displaced by North Carolina even under an expanded field. Even the most fair weather college basketball fans would know that a 16-16 North Carolina would not get seeded ahead of top 25 UNI. However, I could see a setup where a 16-16 UNC and 17-15 UConn would routinely get seeded higher than a 24-8 UTEP or a 28-4 Utah St. So I don't believe the highest ranked mid-majors would be affected by the new format as much as the mid-major bubble teams under the old format. You would still see Butler as a 5 seed (still underseeded IMO) and New Mexico seeded 3rd. Also teams like UNI and Richmond would still be seeded in the 8 to 10 range. But bubble teams like UTEP and Utah St. probably would be seeded 15 or 16 if the selection committee acts the way I think they will!

Regarding attendance, the national powers and smaller conference schools won't be affected. The national powers always sell out, and the smaller schools usually draw flies unless a particular team is battling for their regular season conference championship. And even the conferences in between will probably continue to draw well as all teams will compete for an average of 2 or 3 spots. The teams that might get hit hard attendance wise will probably be the middle tiered BCS teams who only need to finish at or just slightly above .500 to make the tournament. Who wants to pay to see a team that will ultimately make the Big Dance while not playing all that well to begin with?

Finally, I couldn't agree more about the 3 games in 6 nights situation. The expanded field will allow more mid-majors and subpar BCS teams in, but you will see fewer mids make the Sweet 16 and beyond. Well maybe the higher seeded teams like Butler and Gonzaga won't have problems, but 9 seeded teams and below will really have to work so much harder just to make it into the round of the final 32 teams! Not good when this is why most people watch the tournament the first week!

As far as attendance major teams will always sell out, but many casual fans who fill out brackets and watch just because it is a huge event like the super bowl, won't follow as much. They won't watch as much, so viewership and interest will still decline.

Also I don't mean UNC this year, but on a particular year. It is a huge decision between an 8 and 9 seed, and who with a similar resume do you think would get it, a power school or a mid major? Like you said UNI would still be seeded 8-10, but the difference between 8 and then 9-10 is huge. That is the problem, 8 and 9 seeds aren't that much different, yet the path to advance is way different and the majors will be given byes with similar resumes over mid majors.

UNI would have had to play in the first round this year, is that fair?? There chances of defeating Kansas would have went way down. Mid-majors still lose out here, because maybe they get a few more in (although I doubt it is much, probably just more lower power conference teams) it will take a lot more to advance. A team like Butler can still do it every once in a while, but George Mason nor Bradley nor UNI probably would have happened in this system. That is what makes the tourny great is the under dog, why take that away?

[TheAsianSensation]

Keeping in mind all the office pools and gambling-related activities that go with the current 65-team setup, I don't think the NCAA minds if gambling-related activities are reduced by going to 96.

This all basically falls to ESPN. Will they spend enough to get the tournament rights? If not, the NCAA is trapped with CBS and 64.

[Bravesfan]

As far as attendance major teams will always sell out, but many casual fans who fill out brackets and watch just because it is a huge event like the super bowl, won't follow as much. They won't watch as much, so viewership and interest will still decline.

Also I don't mean UNC this year, but on a particular year. It is a huge decision between an 8 and 9 seed, and who with a similar resume do you think would get it, a power school or a mid major? Like you said UNI would still be seeded 8-10, but the difference between 8 and then 9-10 is huge. That is the problem, 8 and 9 seeds aren't that much different, yet the path to advance is way different and the majors will be given byes with similar resumes over mid majors.

UNI would have had to play in the first round this year, is that fair?? There chances of defeating Kansas would have went way down. Mid-majors still lose out here, because maybe they get a few more in (although I doubt it is much, probably just more lower power conference teams) it will take a lot more to advance. A team like Butler can still do it every once in a while, but George Mason nor Bradley nor UNI probably would have happened in this system. That is what makes the tourny great is the under dog, why take that away?

Hey, I agree. Fewer Cinderellas will take away much of the charm that makes the tournament great. I hope ESPN bids low, which in turn would probably allow CBS to keep the tournament and the current format.

[BUfan14]

Hey, I agree. Fewer Cinderellas will take away much of the charm that makes the tournament great. I hope ESPN bids low, which in turn would probably allow CBS to keep the tournament and the current format.

Sorry if I sounded argumentative, didn't mean to.

I'm hoping the same thing!

[SaintLouBrave22]

I would only increase it as far as 76, giving extra play-ins for who faces the 1, 2, and 3's in each region...


Also, something needs to be done about the sub-regions...this was by far the worst year for where they placed teams...

That being said, these are things that need to be done as far as at-large consideration:

1) Teams need to be considered based on W-L out of conference

2) Teams out of conference RPI should be weighted and considered MUCH higher than in conference RPI....this prevents those like UConn from playing 12 home games against MD-ES and Quinnipiac

3) Teams considered should have above a .500 in conference record...that means no 7-9 or 8-8 Big East teams get in

4) Feb/Mar (last X games) should be considered once again

5) Get rid of stupid eye test as it never works and just sounds ignorant to bring up

6) Take team names off the top line when going through resumes as some teams get in based on name alone

7) For the love of all that is good in the name of basketball, GET BASKETBALL PEOPLE FOR THE COMMITTEE!




Thoughts?

[MDCowboy]

What do you mean about Subregions and where teams were sent STLBrave?

[SaintLouBrave22]

What do you mean about Subregions and where teams were sent STLBrave?

Lets see...

Sending Michigan St and Maryland to Spokane while sending Gonzaga to Buffalo...


Tennessee to Rhode Island...


Xavier and Pitt to Milwaukee...


Temple and Wisconsin to Jacksonville...


Marquette to San Jose


West Virginia a 2 seed to Buffalo


TX A&M and Purdue to Spokane...


Thats what I meant...

[TheAsianSensation]

1) Teams need to be considered based on W-L out of conference

They theoretically already do.

2) Teams out of conference RPI should be weighted and considered MUCH higher than in conference RPI....this prevents those like UConn from playing 12 home games against MD-ES and Quinnipiac

I don't know about much higher, but yes. Then again, they did keep out Virginia Tech this year, so this isn't as bad a problem.

3) Teams considered should have above a .500 in conference record...that means no 7-9 or 8-8 Big East teams get in

No, no, no, and I'll continue to fight this idea forever.

4) Feb/Mar (last X games) should be considered once again

Absolutely

5) Get rid of stupid eye test as it never works and just sounds ignorant to bring up

I actually like the eye test. Not how the TV talking heads use it, though. They don't use it right. But the selection committee should be allowed to. They attend games. They are assigned conferences and teams to keep tabs on. They can and should be able to use the eye test.

6) Take team names off the top line when going through resumes as some teams get in based on name alone

Sounds good in theory, but as a bracketeer, I can pretty much pinpoint the identity of every blind resume, so it wouldn't work.

7) For the love of all that is good in the name of basketball, GET BASKETBALL PEOPLE FOR THE COMMITTEE!

yep

[TheAsianSensation]

Also, something needs to be done about the sub-regions...this was by far the worst year for where they placed teams...

And to be honest, there's not much you can do about this. Once you get to bracketing rules, avoiding rematches, avoiding conference conflicts, and trying to stay true to the seeding line you spent 3 days voting on, there's about half the field whose destination is fixed without even having a choice to move them around for location purposes.

[LittleBrave]

Doesn't seem to mean much to make it into a field of almost 100!
You can't really be too proud of that unless you haven't made it to the Big Dance in 10+ years. (I think all MVC schools have made it in that time)
Seems like a bad deal for normal seeds of 9-12, but maybe it will give teams that haven't played in a week or more to get the rust off before playing in the next round.
The seeding will be much more difficult and more teams will be shafted in seeding than before even though more will make it.
I still don't like to see conference tournament champs get automatic bids - especially for the worst 15 conferences.
I think we'll finally get to see a #1 team get knocked off in their 1st game under this new plan. The #16 teams will be a little stronger and may come from a power conference.