March Madness Expansion

[Shea Zellweger]

The NCAA is expanding the men's basketball tournament... to 68 teams.. I know I've railed against the 96 team option because I feel it would just water down the tournament, but I have an entirely different problem with this option- namely, that it's pointless. this will add three games to the tournament, all on the Tuesday prior, and all to see who will be the sacrificial lamb offered up to the number 1 seed. In exchange for making the #1's first round that much easier, three more at-large teams will be added as 12, 13, or 14 seeds with very little hope of making it to the Sweet 16, let alone the Final 4. Who does this move benefit? Was it really that much of a travesty to see UConn and UNC out of the tournament in the same year?

[Ryan Plott]

I have an entirely different problem with this option- namely, that it's pointless. this will add three games to the tournament, all on the Tuesday prior, and all to see who will be the sacrificial lamb offered up to the number 1 seed.

I think that if this past tournament can show us anything it is that the idea of a sacrificial lamb will soon become invalid. It's really getting difficult to draw the lines between mid-major and major teams nowadays. In my opinion, it'll only be a matter of time before a 1 seed loses.

Who does this move benefit? Was it really that much of a travesty to see UConn and UNC out of the tournament in the same year?

I think this move benefits the schools that will get into the tourney. Did you follow all of the firings that took place this year in NCAA basketball? It was ridiculous! There's so much pressure on coaches and teams to get in and the NCAA is responding to that pressure by increasing bids. Due to the revenue increase a school will get by making it in there will be immense pressure to get a piece of the NCAA cake and this change allows more teams the opportunity. It's not merely meant for big name schools that have a bad season but the fans still want to see. So in answer to your question it benefits players, coaches, the NCAA, fans, and schools.

Overall, I think this whole ordeal functions more like a bait-and-switch than anything else. We were told over and over again that it would be 96 expansion and now that it's 68 we're more willing to accept the change and cooperate without to much of a fuss. We're sighing in relief because our tourney wasn't changed that radically but I think overall this will function as the next step to a larger expansion to 96 teams. It's worth keeping an eye on at least anyway. As D-1 ball grows bigger in popularity and population the fans want to see their teams play more and the expansion will occur. As I see it, it's only a matter of time.

[Shea Zellweger]

I think that if this past tournament can show us anything it is that the idea of a sacrificial lamb will soon become invalid. It's really getting difficult to draw the lines between mid-major and major teams nowadays. In my opinion, it'll only be a matter of time before a 1 seed loses.

I disagree. The #1 seeds all dominated the #16s, so the sacrificial lamb is still very much there in the 1-16 matchup.

I think this move benefits the schools that will get into the tourney. Did you follow all of the firings that took place this year in NCAA basketball? It was ridiculous! There's so much pressure on coaches and teams to get in and the NCAA is responding to that pressure by increasing bids. Due to the revenue increase a school will get by making it in there will be immense pressure to get a piece of the NCAA cake and this change allows more teams the opportunity. It's not merely meant for big name schools that have a bad season but the fans still want to see. So in answer to your question it benefits players, coaches, the NCAA, fans, and schools.

Those firings happen every year. This just moves the bubble three teams over, and changes which coaches will get fired. This change allows three- only three!- more teams to get a "piece of the NCAA cake," and history suggests that it will be more likely to go to three underachieving big name schools than three undervalued mid-majors.

Overall, I think this whole ordeal functions more like a bait-and-switch than anything else. We were told over and over again that it would be 96 expansion and now that it's 68 we're more willing to accept the change and cooperate without to much of a fuss. We're sighing in relief because our tourney wasn't changed that radically but I think overall this will function as the next step to a larger expansion to 96 teams. It's worth keeping an eye on at least anyway. As D-1 ball grows bigger in popularity and population the fans want to see their teams play more and the expansion will occur. As I see it, it's only a matter of time.

I really don't see the point. None of the teams that are added have a realistic shot at going the distance in the tournament. To put this in perspective, if Syracuse is the last at large to make the cut next year (doesn't seem likely, we've got a pretty good team lined up), they will probably draw a 13 or 14 seed. I will watch them, and I will support them, but at no point will I believe that they can actually win the tournament, and that takes away from my excitement and interest. I prefer to watch competitive basketball, and although some of these lower seeds show flashes of brilliance from time to time, no team that was the "away" team in the first round has ever made it to the final four, and I don't see how adding three (or 31) more teams to the bottom end of the spectrum really improves the overall quality of play. All you need to do is look at the teams that were in the NIT this year to realize that the addition of those teams to the tournament really would not improve anything.

[Ryan Plott]

You can disagree with the 1 seed thing, that's fair. I disagree with you also.

As far as the only three joining, the tourney is going to keep growing. I think history has shown us that. I think my point stays with the bait-and-switch.

As I pointed out, the point is not to have them go the distance, but to get them in, function as the next step toward more expansion, and spread some wealth. A business decision is the motivation. The point isn't really improvement in skill or play but in getting more teams in to keep up with the growing expansion of D-1 ball. Right now is 96 the right number? No. Is 68? No. I'd still say 65 is good. of the 347 teams in D-1 about 19% of them make it to the NCAA tourney. But as D-1 ball gets bigger the tournament will too.

[Shea Zellweger]

You can disagree with the 1 seed thing, that's fair. I disagree with you also.

As far as the only three joining, the tourney is going to keep growing. I think history has shown us that. I think my point stays with the bait-and-switch.

As I pointed out, the point is not to have them go the distance, but to get them in, function as the next step toward more expansion, and spread some wealth. A business decision is the motivation. The point isn't really improvement in skill or play but in getting more teams in to keep up with the growing expansion of D-1 ball. Right now is 96 the right number? No. Is 68? No. I'd still say 65 is good. of the 347 teams in D-1 about 19% of them make it to the NCAA tourney. But as D-1 ball gets bigger the tournament will too.

I couldn't care much less about the business decision side of this tournament. I'm looking at it as a fan, not someone who intends to invest $$ in the NCAA (can one even do that?). I'm also a fan of a team that seems to be on the losing end of the current system a little more often than other teams, albeit not as often as some deserving midmajors that probably won't get a shot until they hit the 128 mark. When it comes to pure quality of play, I think the first thing that could be done to make the tournament better is to stop handing out automatic bids. I thought it was great to see Binghamton in the tournament a couple of years ago because of friends in the area. Same goes for UAPB this year, and some other small schools that I have obscure connections with. But does that team really deserve a bid for being the best of a mediocre bunch? I don't think so. Those bottom 16 or so conferences that tend to take up the 13-16 block of seeding and are lucky to win one game could easily be replaced by 16 better teams who, although they probably won't win it, will at least have a fighting chance. Better yet, let's nix the automatic bids entirely and revert back to 32 . The bigger problem I see is not that we don't have enough teams in the tournament, but there is far too much favoritism in the selection process. The Big 6 conferences (Big East especially) constantly send 3 or 4 teams each that should not be in the tournament, and as long as the selection committee is prone to choosing the teams that get the most national exposure durin the course of the season, deserving teams will miss the cut, and calls for expansion will continue.

[Ryan Scott]

The point was that the NCAA got a bunch of extra money out of CBS and was able to keep what will be press hype about "expansion" without truly watering down the tournament.

[Ryan Plott]

Well I don't know what to tell you Shea. You're looking at it from a different perspective than those who run it. That's where the disconnect is happening. If you don't care about the business part of it then it would make sense that a business decision like this would be frustrating to you.

[Shea Zellweger]

Well I don't know what to tell you Shea. You're looking at it from a different perspective than those who run it. That's where the disconnect is happening. If you don't care about the business part of it then it would make sense that a business decision like this would be frustrating to you.

Well Duh

[Ryan Plott]

Thanks I guess.

[Jim Poteet]

You can disagree with the 1 seed thing, that's fair. I disagree with you also.

As far as the only three joining, the tourney is going to keep growing. I think history has shown us that. I think my point stays with the bait-and-switch.

As I pointed out, the point is not to have them go the distance, but to get them in, function as the next step toward more expansion, and spread some wealth. A business decision is the motivation. The point isn't really improvement in skill or play but in getting more teams in to keep up with the growing expansion of D-1 ball. Right now is 96 the right number? No. Is 68? No. I'd still say 65 is good. of the 347 teams in D-1 about 19% of them make it to the NCAA tourney. But as D-1 ball gets bigger the tournament will too.

How is Division I going to get bigger. There will be very little movement to Division I in the future as the application fee for Division I has been raised to one million.

[Ryan Scott]

How is Division I going to get bigger. There will be very little movement to Division I in the future as the application fee for Division I has been raised to one million.

And they lost two teams to division III this past year.