T1B

It was announced today.

Thoughts?

Apparently they will play an extra round of "play-ins" on the Tuesday before, so that they can fit this into one month before the final four and final in April. Another scenario has some teams getting byes into the round of 32.

Not sure when it will actually take place...

Lots of jockeying from ESPN/ABC, CBS, FOX for the rights as well.

I'd rather see four play-in games, but not .500 teams vying for the #16 seed. Maybe to drop in a 9 seed spot....have the play-ins be those "on the bubble" teams.

Fucking awful.

Terrible. Tourney is already polluted with too many mediocre teams...especially when you have the major conferences getting 6 and 7 bids with near .500 teams.

DamnTheCowboys wrote:It was announced today.

Link?

I've seen talk of this but nothing official yet.

DamnTheCowboys wrote:Thoughts?

yeah.

You're full of shit, at least for now. It might happen at some point but it hasn't happened yet or it would be banner headlines on every sports website and the lead story on Sportscenter.

Not a damn thing like this was announced today... someone lock this shit thread. TIA.

They talked about it on ESPN radio all afternoon. Insiders say it's not a question of if but when. The big issue is that many of the games could go to ESPN. If ESPN gets the whole thing, ABC would get the Final Four. Next year is probably when it would start.

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-ma ... deal-27742

Sources at ESPN and inside the administration at a powerhouse NCAA basketball school told me today that the NCAA basketball tournament going to 96 teams is a “done deal.

In other words, there wasn't any announcement, just a rumor.

Hey, I read on some blog that CFB is going to an 8 team playoff next year. Yeah, it was just like an announcement.

They can't go to 96 teams. It would ruin the NIT.

SunCoastSooner wrote:someone lock this shit thread.

3st

Screw_Michigan wrote:What makes you think the NCAA gives two shits about the NIT, numbnuts?

Great sense of humor you got there, corky.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:What makes you think the NCAA gives two shits about the NIT, numbnuts?

Great sense of humor you got there, corky.

You wouldn't know humor if it dropped its balls in your mouth.

Not sure about 96, but fwiw, there is a new conference in college basketball this year. If/when that conference gets an automatic bid, there probably will be some revision to the NCAA tournament, either adding a new play-in game (two instead of one), dropping the field to 64 teams (that would mean 32 automatic bids and 32 at-large bids), or some type of expansion, whether it's to 96 or some other number.

Btw, if the tourney ever goes to 96, the only logical way to do it would be to give first-round byes to the top 32 teams.

Expanding the tourney would be, and I say this with no hyperbole at all, the worst idea ever for college basketball. At the current time the "last in/last out" teams are vying for seeds in the 11-12 range. No team seeded that low has ever won the title and I'm willing to wager never will. Expansion would simply add more NIT caliber teams to the mix which does nothing for quality competition and further diminishes the regular season. Of course the NCAA wants it because all they see are dollar signs and coaches want it because it helps with job security. The thing nobody seems to want to talk about though is that in effect the tournament already includes every team in D1.

If you are an elite level team what you're playing for in the regular season is postseason advantages. Get seeded well enough to stick closer to home early and play weaker competition early. When conference tournaments start you're in effect playing a double elimination event as a loss here doesn't affect your shot at a title. If you are in the middle of the pack you're playing to secure a spot so that without winning the auto bid you've done enough to hear your name called on Selection Sunday and have a shot to win 6 in a row for the title. If you've done enough in the regular season you too are in a double elimination event. If you are at the bottom all hope isn't lost as you can still win your conference tourney and earn your shot at a title. But by not faring well in the regular season you've entered into a single elimination event and have to win 10 in a row as opposed to 6 in a row. The chance still technically exists though for you to lay claim to the title.

Going to 96 teams simply adds more teams into the middle category and I don't see how anyone can spin it that adding more mediocrity to an event enhances the quality of the event. Plus let's be honest, a big appeal of the tourney is the March Madness bracket pools which brings in the casual and non-fan alike. Expansion would make that aspect harder since the turn time for filling out a bracket would drop substantially. I could go on and on about all that's wrong with this idea but here's the sad reality. The NCAA has become the organization that Myles Brand envisioned and this is a very bad thing. Expansion to 96 teams isn't an if proposition but a when proposition. Whenever that day comes it'll be a sad day for college hoops fans and a sad day for the greatest sporting event our country has.

Shine wrote:Plus let's be honest, a big appeal of the tourney is the March Madness bracket pools which brings in the casual and non-fan alike. Expansion would make that aspect harder since the turn time for filling out a bracket would drop substantially.

Not necessarily, I suppose it depends on how they space the tourney. They could add time at the back end, which may result in the same amount of turnaround time for the brackets that exists now.

That being said, that's probably not likely to happen. As it is, the finals are already impinging on two sacred rites of spring sports -- the Masters and opening day of the MLB season -- not to mention that the NCAA likes to pretend that the tournament pools don't exist. More likely, in a 96-team field you see first-round games on Tuesday/Wednesday, then into the next round on Thursday/Friday.

One positive aspect to a 96-team field: if done properly, it gives the top seeds a chance at losing in their very first game in the tourney. For example, if the field were 96 this year, Kansas might draw, say, the winner of a ND-Mississippi State first-round game, rather than the winner of a play-in game between, say, Lehigh and Jackson State.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: One positive aspect to a 96-team field: if done properly, it gives the top seeds a chance at losing in their very first game in the tourney. For example, if the field were 96 this year, Kansas might draw, say, the winner of a ND-Mississippi State first-round game, rather than the winner of a play-in game between, say, Lehigh and Jackson State.

I certainly haven't thought through what a bracket might look like......but I don't think increasing the difficulty of the top teams is a positive thing in any year. That would make the regular season completely and utterly meaningless.

The format I've seen would be that the "top 32" teams get a bye and the other 64 teams would play on a Tues/Wed slate of games. The 32 winners advance to get to a 64 team bracket that follows the traditional Thurs/Sat-Fri/Sun schedule. So from a purely "casual fan playing a bracket" standpoint you'd only have from Selection Sunday until Tuesday to get your stuff filled out. But assuming this were the way it unfolded it would cause more issues from a logistical standpoint.

Today only two teams have to make rapid arrangements for a Sun/Tues turnaround. The proposed format would make 64 teams, and that many fanbases, have to make lightning fast travel plans. I can't imagine the attendance would be that great to watch mediocre teams battle it out. There were already tons of fans dressed up as empty seats in the most recent tournaments, I can only imagine how much worse it would be with a watered down field.

Again, I could go on and on about what a horrid idea a 96 team field is but it doesn't matter. The NCAA has never been known as an organization that makes intelligent decisions so I shouldn't be surprised that they're seriously considering this move. I'll just hold onto the slim hopes that eventually reason wins out but I'm resigned to the very real possibility that an event I love so much is going to get buttfucked in the mouth in the very near future.

of course, if the half-empty arenas become acceptable again to the networks....then, the whole speciously stated and then justified reason for the "pod system" is once again revealed as bogus...

Shine wrote:The format I've seen would be that the "top 32" teams get a bye and the other 64 teams would play on a Tues/Wed slate of games. The 32 winners advance to get to a 64 team bracket that follows the traditional Thurs/Sat-Fri/Sun schedule. So from a purely "casual fan playing a bracket" standpoint you'd only have from Selection Sunday until Tuesday to get your stuff filled out. But assuming this were the way it unfolded it would cause more issues from a logistical standpoint.

Today only two teams have to make rapid arrangements for a Sun/Tues turnaround. The proposed format would make 64 teams, and that many fanbases, have to make lightning fast travel plans. I can't imagine the attendance would be that great to watch mediocre teams battle it out. There were already tons of fans dressed up as empty seats in the most recent tournaments, I can only imagine how much worse it would be with a watered down field.

Again, I could go on and on about what a horrid idea a 96 team field is but it doesn't matter. The NCAA has never been known as an organization that makes intelligent decisions so I shouldn't be surprised that they're seriously considering this move. I'll just hold onto the slim hopes that eventually reason wins out but I'm resigned to the very real possibility that an event I love so much is going to get buttfucked in the mouth in the very near future.

To the extent that the top 8 seeds in each regional would get a first-round bye in a 96-team format, that's the format that makes most sense.

I agree with you that 2 days is not an adequate turnaround time for travel arrangements for fans of most of these teams. There are a few possible solutions that would alleviate that. You could make the Thursday/Friday games the new first round, then the second round (first games for teams seeded 1-8) on Saturday/Sunday. After that, either: (1) expand the regionals to three rounds, either Thursday/Saturday/Monday or Friday/Sunday/Tuesday; or (2) expand the Final Four to the Elite 8, with Elite 8 round games played on Thursday. Of the two solutions, I prefer the former, since playing Elite 8 games on Thursday means that you have two of those games played in weekday afternoon time slots, although even the former solution dictates afternoon games on a weekday (in the Round of 32, which is possibly a little more acceptable). But either of those solutions would give every team at least four days between having to move to a different site, so it would be somewhat helpful to the fan bases. And of course, building on King Crimson's point, this format would weaken the rationale for the pod seeding, since the highest-seeded teams would play only one game at the pod sites.

From a purely subjective standpoint, another argument against a 96-team field is that it would guarantee the program I root for would maintain status quo only for the foreseeable future. The current state of ND basketball is that it finds itself on the wrong side of the bubble more often than not under the current format, but it would have no problem qualifying for the tournament in most years if the field was 96 teams. So, if Mike Brey can hold out long enough for the NCAA to expand the tourney to 96 teams, he'll essentially wind up with a de facto lifetime contract at ND.

If attendance is the issue, I'm not sure exactly how a 96-team field will affect attendance, but I could respectfully make a suggestion to improve attendance under the status quo: cut ticket prices. I looked at tickets for the pod site at Buffalo this year, since I figured that when an event I enjoy so much comes so close to my home, I should make an effort to go. What scared me off was the ticket prices: $350 for the full slate of first- and second-round games. The tourney came to ND my junior year there for first- and second-round games and I went, I seem to recall the ticket prices being $65 for the full slate of games. Granted, that was a long time ago (1985, to be exact) and I don't expect ticket prices to have held steady over that time. But a jump from $65 to $350 over that period of time significantly exceeds the rate of inflation.

Primesport.com says $400 for your tickets Terry and those are for the worst seats in the arena.

Terry,

http://purchase.tickets.com/buy/TicketP ... id=6451970

$219

Screw_Michigan wrote:Terry,

http://purchase.tickets.com/buy/TicketP ... id=6451970

$219

I looked at that, but I couldn't figure out whether that's for all first- and second-round games or not. I do know that they sell two first-round packages as well as a second-round package separately. Perhaps the $219 is for one package.

Edit: My bad. After reviewing it does look like it's for both first- and second-round games.

I may go after all.

The $36/game is a little steep, especially for the shittiest seats in the house, but at least it's the first weekend and you're not in a fucking football stadium.