Tournament expanding to 68

[Bravesfan]

I don't think this could work at all. You would be giving the 1 seed a harder game in the first round than whichever seed plays these bottom conference winners in this scenario? Doesn't make sense.

Well for this to work, if the 4 play-in games involve the last 8 at-large teams, the winners would be seeded 12 or 13, leaving the weaker conference winners seeded 13 to 16 as usual.

Hope that helps explain things.

[thefish7]

I very highly doubt that's how the tourney will be structured. It's far less reasonable than just having the bottom 8 teams play in. Anything's possible though as they haven't worked out or released implementation details.

[TheAsianSensation]

I keep saying this, but if you're for 8 at-large teams playing in those 4 games, you're for power conference greed. Hypocrites

[BU RICK]

I need help on this and I'm not criticizing anyone's thoughts on this, you guys know more than I do. What I would have liked to see is the field go to 128. It would be just one extra game for those who make it through. I watched more tournament games this year than ever before thanks to the NCAA putting them online. A lot of close, fun games to watch. So help on this, what would have been wrong with 128 teams and having just one more game added to the tournament.

[Da Coach]

It's not that simple. If it did go to 128 teams, would you have them seeded 1-32 in each regional? Would every team play 1 extra game? Would the #1 seeds play the #32 seeds, #2 vs. #31, etc?
If so, there would be too many blowout games to count, and nobody would ever want to watch all those blowouts. The 1st round upsets would become a thing of the past, since it's unlikely any team seeded less than #12 would stand a chance of being upset.
If you arranged for higher seeds to get a 1st round bye, and allowed the lower seeded teams to play each other, it would still produce a ton of games nobody would care to see. So networks would not pay much to televise those games.
Plus, adding another 63 teams would almost double the costs to the NCAA of transportation and lodging for all those extra teams that would draw few extra fans, and be blown out immediately. It would be a logistic nightmare. I have heard the idea of having the 1st round games on-campus, but that would detract greatly from the NCAA tournament.

[Air Petey]

Ever since they went from 64 to 65, I have wondered why not go to 68.

A. Why should one #1 seed wait to see who they play while the other three can prepare for that mighty 1 vs. 16 game!.
B. There are always 8 teams that have an RPI over a hundred. Those 8 teams should play-in and it allows the bubble to expand with 3 more teams.
C. This is the best.

Take care and have a great summer everybody!

[MDCowboy]

Did anyone see how TBS and TNT said they will use their own announcers, likely from the NBA ranks? I think this means CBS will only probably have 2 teams of announcers. So likely this means no more Gus Johnson on the NCAA tournament.

[TheAsianSensation]

Did anyone see how TBS and TNT said they will use their own announcers, likely from the NBA ranks? I think this means CBS will only probably have 2 teams of announcers. So likely this means no more Gus Johnson on the NCAA tournament.

Nantz is the #1 guy.
Lundquist is the #2 guy and very very very very old.
Enberg is the #3 guy and retired.
Gus is the #4 guy.

I'm not worried. And besides, you need 8 announcing teams the first weekend, no matter who televises what. CBS is going to loan a few of them over, there's no other way.

What DOES make me worry is the Harlan/Eagle/Brando level of announcer who'll go away.

[BUfan14]

Well for this to work, if the 4 play-in games involve the last 8 at-large teams, the winners would be seeded 12 or 13, leaving the weaker conference winners seeded 13 to 16 as usual.

Hope that helps explain things.

Ya but still even in this scenario the 8 teams fighting to be 13 seeds should have to play an extra game while the 14-16 seed doesn't? I don't know that just doesn't seem fair to me. So while in principle its not a bad idea, I still just don't think it could work.

Plus if you think about it the lower conference teams will rarely ever win against the 1 or 2 seeds. A 16 has never won, and a 15 has won what 2 or 3 times? So it would give them a much better chance to win a tourny game, plus it still wouldn't take away their shot at a big boy if they win the play in game. This scenario is of course where the 8 lower conference teams would play to face a 1 seed, which is the best way to do it IMO.

[amckillip]

Ya but still even in this scenario the 8 teams fighting to be 13 seeds should have to play an extra game while the 14-16 seed doesn't? I don't know that just doesn't seem fair to me. So while in principle its not a bad idea, I still just don't think it could work.

Plus if you think about it the lower conference teams will rarely ever win against the 1 or 2 seeds. A 16 has never won, and a 15 has won what 2 or 3 times? So it would give them a much better chance to win a tourny game, plus it still wouldn't take away their shot at a big boy if they win the play in game. This scenario is of course where the 8 lower conference teams would play to face a 1 seed, which is the best way to do it IMO.

I agree completely, I think this is the best way to do it, and while the actual format hasn't been disclosed, I would be shocked if the NCAA is seriously considering anything other than this.

[Bravesfan]

I keep saying this, but if you're for 8 at-large teams playing in those 4 games, you're for power conference greed. Hypocrites

Actually that would eliminate four power or strong mid-major teams right off the bat. Maybe eliminating four of the weakest teams in four 16/17 matchups would work better for the rest of the mid-majors!

[Bravesfan]

I need help on this and I'm not criticizing anyone's thoughts on this, you guys know more than I do. What I would have liked to see is the field go to 128. It would be just one extra game for those who make it through. I watched more tournament games this year than ever before thanks to the NCAA putting them online. A lot of close, fun games to watch. So help on this, what would have been wrong with 128 teams and having just one more game added to the tournament.

Oh no. Absolutely not! Now you would be inviting .500 teams out of the Horizon or MAAC leagues, let alone 15 teams out of the Big East! This would lead to more blowouts and make the tournament a joke. Even 96 teams would be pushing it.

I think 68 teams is perfect, though 64 teams is even more perfect. The 68 team format allows for those 4 extra teams that always complain about not making the 64 team tournament, which should at least eliminate the complaints from team's 69, 70, 71, etc. I don't think anymore would make sense outside of maybe an 80 team tournament which would only be necessary if there are 400 teams in Division I.

At least for now things look good. When and if the BCS begins the process of splitting from the rest of the NCAA, then all of these tournaments will be thrown out the window anyway.

[Bravesfan]

Ever since they went from 64 to 65, I have wondered why not go to 68.

A. Why should one #1 seed wait to see who they play while the other three can prepare for that mighty 1 vs. 16 game!.
B. There are always 8 teams that have an RPI over a hundred. Those 8 teams should play-in and it allows the bubble to expand with 3 more teams.
C. This is the best.

Take care and have a great summer everybody!

Great post AP!

You have a great summer too. Talk to you in the fall.

[Bravesfan]

Ya but still even in this scenario the 8 teams fighting to be 13 seeds should have to play an extra game while the 14-16 seed doesn't? I don't know that just doesn't seem fair to me. So while in principle its not a bad idea, I still just don't think it could work.

Plus if you think about it the lower conference teams will rarely ever win against the 1 or 2 seeds. A 16 has never won, and a 15 has won what 2 or 3 times? So it would give them a much better chance to win a tourny game, plus it still wouldn't take away their shot at a big boy if they win the play in game. This scenario is of course where the 8 lower conference teams would play to face a 1 seed, which is the best way to do it IMO.

You know, I have thought about this a few days, and the more I think about it, the more your idea makes sense. Why punish the more deserving mid-majors from stronger conferences? I know this sounds like BCS thinking about not wanting to play mid-majors, but you're right that the lower teams don't have much of a shot at winning anyway.

However, I can't help think that four 15 seeds have won, and Robert Morris should have been the fifth one this year. So you can never count any of these teams out. In other words, there are pros and cons either way they go. But you make a good point about the 12/13 teams having to win one more game than the rest, which would not be fair.