PDA

View Full Version : 96 teams by 2011



titopoet
02-02-2010, 11:00 AM
Looks like March Madness is moving to 96 teams (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Report-NCAA-tournament-expansion-is-a-done-dea?urn=ncaab,216950), maybe as early as next year. What does this mean for the Zags?

zagfan07
02-02-2010, 11:10 AM
I think you'd see less cinderellas. They're not going to increase the number of automatic bids because there aren't any conferences to add. What you'll see is more of the .500 power conference teams in the tourney.

23dpg
02-02-2010, 11:14 AM
Looks like March Madness is moving to 96 teams (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Report-NCAA-tournament-expansion-is-a-done-dea?urn=ncaab,216950), maybe as early as next year. What does this mean for the Zags?


Boo.

BobZag
02-02-2010, 11:20 AM
:vomit-smiley-007:

IODubyaA
02-02-2010, 11:22 AM
This is getting to be like the 500 bowl games there are at the end of the season. I thought college bball had a great system and now they are changing it ... lets hope this doesn't happen. It won't mean the same thing to make the tourney with that many teams.

thickman1
02-02-2010, 11:22 AM
Horrible. Simply horrible. I think for the Zags it means you don't need to go out and schedule an obscene OOC slate because you could make the argument that there is no way they wouldn't be one of the top 96 teams in the land.

I think mid-majors get hosed in this proposal as you'll see the bulk of the additional 32 teams coming from power conferences. Teams will load up on cupcakes to get to 20+ wins and then coast into the tournament knowing that anything can happen for a couple of games.

Terrible.

TacomaZAG
02-02-2010, 11:34 AM
It would make the regular season virtually irrelevant (think NBA & NHL) except for the really bad teams, and wouldn't add anything to what I think is the best post season arrangement in any sport, college or pro.

It ain't broke, so why are they trying to fix it???????? Oh yeah, it's the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Go ZAGS

wazZag
02-02-2010, 11:37 AM
Horrible idea.

cjm720
02-02-2010, 11:42 AM
Another reason to take long lunches in March. Love it!!!!

ID ZAGFAN
02-02-2010, 11:45 AM
It's hard to take a report like that seriously when they can't get the NCAA logo upright.

IF it comes to be, it would be a sad, sad day for CBB. Diluting the field takes away from the excitement. And all those mid-major programs that are thinking, "Yeah! Finally" need to wake up and realize that all it means is that instead of 7-8 teams per year, the Big East would get 11-12. And more of that for the other "BCS" schools.

Can you imagine if it were 96 teams this year? We'd have 1 decent Pac-10 team and 4-5 miserable ones in the tournament. What's cool about that?

I took it as a not-so-subtle way of saying that the change would turn the NCAA upside down--but maybe I'm giving them too much credit. :D

ID ZAGFAN

sullyzag66
02-02-2010, 11:48 AM
I took it as a not-so-subtle way of saying that the change would turn the NCAA upside down--but maybe I'm giving them too much credit. :D

ID ZAGFAN
Actually, I was thinking it was a play on flying a flag upside down as an international distress signal.

VinnyZag
02-02-2010, 12:04 PM
Basketball Prospectus has a blog post about this issue. It's here: http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=445

That post leans on a Sports Business Journal article that's here: http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/64712

For what it's worth, it's all based on the NCAA backing out of its TV deal with CBS and trying to squeeze more money out of that or another network. The NCAA's request for bids specifies either a 96-team OR a 68-team tournament. So there's some hope that the NCAA wouldn't completely screw things up.

Also, the rumors I've read earlier have said that under the 96-team model, regular-season conference champions that lose in their conference tournament would be guaranteed entry into the field of 96.

My question is, how many casual fans are really going to want to fill out a 96-team bracket?

BobZag
02-02-2010, 12:05 PM
john (cincinnati)

hey andy.have you heard anything recently regarding the ncaa opting out of its contract with cbs, opening the bidding to other networks which might push the tourney to add teams (65+)???


Andy Katz (11:57 AM)

Way too early. There is a process to this that will involve the conference commissioners, the NCAA board of directors and the NCAA hierarchy. Is it true that the NCAA has sent out queries to all interested broadcast partners about bidding for it and what they might want to see in a new tourney? Yes. Is there any decision? Not even close. The conference commissioners would likely take the given money now of the next three years in the final time of the CBS deal then opt out. But there are a number of people who will decide on this before there is any change. The NCAA didn't decide on 68 or 96. The choice was given to the broadcast partners to see what they would do if given the rights. This is a fluid process. And CBS is still the rights holder. Nothing has changed.

NovaZag
02-02-2010, 12:12 PM
very upsetting

GUDan07
02-02-2010, 12:21 PM
Apparently the NCAA wasn't satisfied with making football's post season a joke. Now they have to make a mockery out of basketball as well. Why not just let every team in the country in? At least the WCC won't have to worry about being well represented in the tournament anymore, everyone will be well represented.

zaggernaut
02-02-2010, 12:25 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/Goodman-NCAA-tournament-expansion-020110

Another article on it saying its not a done deal yet.


I find it ironic that the NCAA refuses to change the system that isn't working (BCS/college football) but will probably end up changing the system that is working. Its all about the benjamins...

75Zag
02-02-2010, 12:57 PM
We should know whether this is true by the middle of April as the NCAA basketball tournament ticket sales usually start about that time for the following year and a 96 team format will require a whole new level of games (sub-sub-regionals?). If it happens, we can thank the power conferences and their lackeys on the NCAA board of directors. Lots of stories out there about how much the BCS schools hate sharing money from the NCAA BB tournament with small conferences. I leave the math to you business majors, but adding another 30 BCS schools to the tournament should result in a huge shift of revenue to the big boys even if all the added teams lose on the first weekend.

It will take guts for the NCAA to opt out of the CBS contract in this economy. Hopefully they will chicken out on that basis alone.

Go Bulldogs! Get Bigger!

U Zig, I Zag
02-02-2010, 01:13 PM
Well, St Marys would start getting in...

That's good right?









;)

lothar98zag
02-02-2010, 01:15 PM
...

It will take guts for the NCAA to opt out of the CBS contract in this economy. Hopefully they will chicken out on that basis alone...
I thought the same thing several weeks ago, then I realized that ESPN/ABC/Disney is probably willing to pay whatever it takes to get the rights if they are up for bid. I then thought about how ESPN hypes big events and how they overhype big events that their family of networks have the rights to...

ugh, I hate the idea of more than 64 teams in the big dance.*








*I'll still watch as many games as possible regardless of the size of the tourney...

zag944
02-02-2010, 01:31 PM
The first two days of the tourney are my favorite the way things are now. I would presume this revision would mean 32 teams get a first round bye with 64 teams to play in the first round?

If so that really sucks that the first round is losing all of the best teams....takes away a lot of intrigue when the best teams you see are 9 seeds.

also, think of how freaking small we will have to write on our brackets. :o

UberZagFan
02-02-2010, 01:35 PM
They think it's about the benjamins but it ain't gonna be anymore lucrative under the new system. Initially it might, but not after 2-3 years. And let's just wait and see what the proposals are during these economic times.

First, the college game has consistently been dropping in the ratings for the past 15 years. Maybe not the sweet 16 games and beyond -- but overall from Nov through Apr. The games are always on and already becoming diluted to the average fan -- probably not those reading this though. Right now, the typical CBB fans follow "their" team with an occasional viewing of other games and then sets in for championship week. Some fans don't even watch until March as it is. So more games flooding the airwaves is just more dilution and less value to your product. Their is a reason why the NFL does so good on TV playing once a week (well, ok, 2-3 days a week).

Second, and this Uber thinks is the biggest reason why this idea will fail: is that the additional games will garner absolutely no interest except that local to the teams playing. Right now there is excitement for championship week leading up to selection sunday and just keep track of all those that have "punched their ticket to the big dance". That will still get some play but the bubble will just move down the RPI line of those teams in the Big 6.

But what will follow will garner no interest. The first weekend -- what is being proposed now, will be the bottom 64 playing one game to get to play the top 32 the following weekend. It's basically like creating 32 play in games. Hey ESPN, how have those ratings on the play-in game been treating ya lately? There will be some viewing and some interest but nothing like the first two days of the tourney now. OH and be sure that all auto-bids that do not play in big conferences (aside from the Memphis, GUs, Xavier types), will be playing that first weekend. There's always about 20 or so of those auto-bid teams from small conferences that don't have dance "worthy resumes" if not for the auto-bid. Guess who they get to play in their "play-in" game? Middlin big 6 teams--each one of them.

And after the first weekend, there will still be 64 teams left. So when will people start to get excited? When do you think brackets will be filled out? A 64 team bracket will be posted all over the internet after the first weekend. The second weekend will be just like what the first weekend is now except for all those annoying small conference auto-bid teams in there. Boeheim will love it--he'll get a warm up game after the Big East tourney and then will move onto the real tourney to play another Big 6 team.

Eventually, if not immediately, the first weekend will have less TV interest nationally than the conference tourneys do and certainly less the first weekend of the current NCAA structure gets now.

If the network execs could just ignore the current dollars of more games, they would be smart to bid the 64 game tourney higher than the 96 game tourney.


Excuse Uber while he goes hurls.

zagfan24
02-02-2010, 01:54 PM
IMHO...it will only mean:

That the 97th and 98th best teams will be complaining instead.

The first round, as Uber pointed out, will actually just begin after a week long charade of play-in games.

The little guys will no longer have their shot at a top team.

Ask the producers of "Who wants to be a millionaire" what happens when a popular product is expanded and stuffed down America's throat. People get satiated and quit watching.

This would be a really, really bad idea.

titopoet
02-02-2010, 01:57 PM
It's hard to take a report like that seriously when they can't get the NCAA logo upright.



As other have said, it is a funny way of saying it is bad decision. But it is also a symbol for how the NCAA does business, upside down. Greed makes people stupid.

Once and Future Zag
02-02-2010, 02:01 PM
This is actually something I'm in notionally in favor of, but with the following elaborations. So, were I NCAA commish for a day...

I'd like to see two teams from each conference as auto bids - the regular season winner and the tournament winner - and if the same team is both, then the second place regular season winner would get the second auto-bid.

So you have 3 groups = 32 tourney winners (auto) / 32 regular season winners (auto) / 32 at-large

I'd also like to see the top independent team get a (courtesy) bid - even though they generally aren't very good - call it the "play-in" game factor. But that's unlikely to happen.

Since there are now 32 conferences, the league tourney champs get a bye, and the remaining teams are seeded 1-32 regular season champs vs 32-1 at-large and play the opening round. Pretty easy seeding for the first group, and probably pretty easy for the second as well. They would play these at 4 neutral (NBA?) sites, 8 games each site = 2 awesome days of high-stakes basketball - including some very, very good teams - and some pretty poor ones, in all honesty.

After the opening round of the non-bye teams, the remaining 64 teams are re-seeded along the S-Curve and play resumes as normal.

This both rewards a team still putting out the effort into winning their tourney, even if they've locked in a berth by being regular season champs - but doesn't penalize the overall best team in 24-or-so of the 32 conferences by simply losing one game in their tourney and not getting a bid because of a perceived weak conference.

It's somewhat convoluted, but I think it does the best of balancing the auto-bids vs the at-larges. I do suspect that the at-larges will mostly be the power conference teams with this plan, but they'll then be matched up against teams that did very well against their own "lesser" leagues to make it past the first round - so it sort of evens out. It will also reduce the perception of mid-major's getting snubbed overall, as very few leagues support more than 2 tourney-ready-ish teams any given year.

I'd also posit that teams that can't conclude their tourney at least 8 hours prior to the selection committee meeting lose their league's bye berth, and the top seeded team in the group of the regular season winners gets a bye as well in their place.

End my day as commissioner.

Once and Future Zag
02-02-2010, 02:20 PM
This isn't the first time this has come up - so all my "work" was done a while back.

lothar98zag
02-02-2010, 02:21 PM
you've sure spent a lot of time on this.....
which is why the powers that be would never go for it.

btw, if it HAD TO BE more than 64, this sounds like a plan I could live with. nice work O&FZ

CDC84
02-02-2010, 02:21 PM
A disaster. The NCAA tournament is the greatest event in American sports, and it looks like the product will be cheapened.

Ekrub
02-02-2010, 02:22 PM
I liked the idea that the first 32 teams out of the NCAA would join in with the NIT. I think it would definetly make the NIT more relevant and you would still increase the number of games. (I'd be more inclined to watch the NIT then)

UberZagFan
02-02-2010, 02:30 PM
There are some ideas in that post but some problems that make it very unlikely. There are only 31 auto bids and only 30 tourneys so either the top 2 would have to come from the Ivy League or they would have to play a tourney.

And by giving 2 bids to every conference that would in effect give the smaller conferences a higher percentage of representation in the tourney. If we stick with the theory that 20 conferences essentially don't deserve bids (as many in the Big 6 believe), then currently they get 20 bids out of 65 or 31% but if you give them 40 out of 96 they would have 42% of the slots. No way is the big 6 going for that....the whole point of this expansion is so that the Big 6 get more teams in as a percentage of teams in. No way will the NCAA expand the tourney so that the SWAC or the Patriot league can send two teams to the dance. The whole point is the opposite: so they can send those teams to the first weekend only and have the "real" tourney start the next weekend.

As you can see, Uber is not too happy about this idea.

Once and Future Zag
02-02-2010, 02:43 PM
There are some ideas in that post but some problems that make it very unlikely. There are only 31 auto bids and only 30 tourneys so either the top 2 would have to come from the Ivy League or they would have to play a tourney.

There's a 32'nd conference (Great West) that I would also add to the auto-bid group, and yeah, the Ivy league would have the top 2 regular season teams with the top one getting the auto bid (as an exception made for their tradition).

I would never expect to see something like my plan put into place, but if all the smaller schools and conferences banded together, they could well "outvote" the big 6 every time.

That being said, I could see the bigger leagues going for it if the numbers worked out, as they would get a larger net number of teams in - and probably a higher percentage of the gross dollars paid out due to them generally going deeper in the tourney - and I suspect that the "Big-6" at-large teams would generally dominate the "first round" matchups against the regular season auto-bids so they would have more teams in the round of 64.

If I had the resources it would be interesting to see what would happen based off of last year's results. Maybe in my copious spare time.

Anyone know of any good game-simulator sites out there?

krozman
02-02-2010, 03:16 PM
I bet more people would be on board if a rule required at least 20 different conferences to make up the final 32 teams added each year. That way being in the BCS conferences doesn't grant you an auto bid.

VinnyZag
02-02-2010, 03:27 PM
If anybody's curious, the No. 96 team in Jerry Palm's rankings (www.collegerpi.com) is Weber State (12-7 overall record). Portland would also make the 96-team tourney, along with Indiana St. (12-9), Georgia (9-10) and Boston College (12-10).

Point being, there aren't 96 teams deserving of a tourney bid this year.

mgadfly
02-02-2010, 03:30 PM
I think the NCAA could have its cake and eat it too. Creating the Play-In Round hasn't cheapened the NCAA tournament at all and as long as they preserved the 64 team bracket by reseeding after the new Expanded Play-In game, I think it'd be fine.

But if I was NCAA King and was to make this decision, and knowing that a lot of coaches are in favor of expansion, and a lot of schools/conferences are in favor of expansion, and recognizing that we continue to add schools to Division I without adding teams to the tournament (thus a smaller % of teams make the tournament now than last year, and the year before, etc... back to when we originally expanded it to 64 and then 65 teams), I'd do it this way.

1. Conference Champions (automatic bids + top at large team(s), we will say 32) get automatic birth into the field of 64.

2. The next 64 at-large teams play a Bracket-Buster weekend for a spot in the field of 64.

3. The games would be at the higher seeded school's gym unless that school did not play a single game on the "home" floor of a mid-major or low-major/non-BCS conference school, in which case the lower ranked school would get to host the game (if they had played at least one game on the "home" floor of a non-bcs conference school).

4. Re-seed on Sunday Selection Show

5. Play 64 Team Standard Tournament.


I think this would keep keep the tournament pretty much untouched while giving the major schools a reason to visit a smaller conference team's gym at least once per year. Those games would be huge for those fans and would help raise interest during the regular season.

kclubfounder
02-02-2010, 03:31 PM
It would dramatically hurt office pools, which would significantly hurt TV ratings. Susie the filing clerk in Podunk, Idaho watches the Big Dance because she has $5 riding on it. If they make this move, Susie won't watch. It won't be discussed as widely around office coolers.

A huge number of people watch the tournament who don't have a direct allegiance to any of the teams. Take away their motivation to watch (office pools) and it will no longer be the best sporting event of the year.

64 teams (I know - 65) = 100 on the ratings scale
96 = 50
128 = 80

128 teams would suck because of what it would mean to the regular season. Us purists would probably puke. But it is preferable to 96 because Susie would still watch.

mgadfly
02-02-2010, 03:31 PM
If anybody's curious, the No. 96 team in Jerry Palm's rankings (www.collegerpi.com) is Weber State (12-7 overall record). Portland would also make the 96-team tourney, along with Indiana St. (12-9), Georgia (9-10) and Boston College (12-10).

Point being, there aren't 96 teams deserving of a tourney bid this year.

There will be some teams that aren't in the top 96 in the tournament this year (as automatic bids). Do they deserve in?

kclubfounder
02-02-2010, 03:40 PM
Automatic bids deserve in. Yes. Absolutely. But if you are the odd team out of an at-large selection then you have about the 50th best resume in the country - and you don't have anyone to blame but yourself. Good luck in the NIT.

mgadfly
02-02-2010, 03:44 PM
Which is fine. But saying the 50th deserves out is an arbitrary cut-off. A cut-off has to be set somewhere, so arguing over whether arbitrary line "A" is better than arbitrary line "B" doesn't get us any closer to basing a decision on logic/reason/economics/interests of student athletes/fans interests/coaches interests/purist fan's interests/or what have you.

The only team's that deserve in are the #1 and #2 team in the nation as determined by a poll of sports writers. If you aren't #1 or #2 you don't deserve in and have no one but yourself to blame. That's no less arbitrary than saying St. Mary's with the 50th best resume in the country last year didn't deserve to play a game in the NCAA's.

zagfan24
02-02-2010, 03:48 PM
Which is fine. But saying the 50th deserves out is an arbitrary cut-off. A cut-off has to be set somewhere, so arguing over whether arbitrary line "A" is better than arbitrary line "B" doesn't get us any closer to basing a decision on logic/reason/economics/interests of student athletes/fans interests/coaches interests/purist fan's interests/or what have you.

Exactly...you could probably keep all but 2 teams out and in the end you'd still have Savannah State and the Huskies complaining. ;)

kclubfounder
02-02-2010, 05:03 PM
Vinny pointed out that 96 teams aren't worthy. I think that is a fair statement

Mgadfly then makes the non-sequitur that there will be some teams in the current field that aren't in the top 96. It is a non-sequitur because the automatic bids will get in whatever the formula, so pointing out that some of them aren't worthy is not relevant. I figured he was making his point to try and defend adding more teams since there are teams with poor resumes that get in already. If so, it is a lousy argument.

What is relevant is how many at-large teams should get in. Plenty get in now. It gets us to about the team with the 50th best resume.

VinnyZag
02-02-2010, 05:07 PM
Yes, I suppose 64 teams is arbitrary. But the point I'm making is this: Since we must have an arbitrary cut-off, let's not make it the ridiculously high number of 96. That's nearly one-third of the teams in D-1.

Bogozags
02-02-2010, 05:15 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/Goodman-NCAA-tournament-expansion-020110

Another article on it saying its not a done deal yet.


I find it ironic that the NCAA refuses to change the system that isn't working (BCS/college football) but will probably end up changing the system that is working. Its all about the benjamins...

+1

mgadfly
02-02-2010, 05:44 PM
Vinny pointed out that 96 teams aren't worthy. I think that is a fair statement

Mgadfly then makes the non-sequitur that there will be some teams in the current field that aren't in the top 96. It is a non-sequitur because the automatic bids will get in whatever the formula, so pointing out that some of them aren't worthy is not relevant. I figured he was making his point to try and defend adding more teams since there are teams with poor resumes that get in already. If so, it is a lousy argument.

What is relevant is how many at-large teams should get in. Plenty get in now. It gets us to about the team with the 50th best resume.

My main point was that Weber State still wouldn't make the cut because several spots would be used by other teams. Then we got a little off topic and ...

That wasn't my point. I'm not arguing for or against adding teams. I'm only pointing out that the "not worthy" argument is lousy. What determines if a team is worthy or not? If they are in the top 64? Top 50? Top 2? It is all arbitrary. If your argument is, fans have a lot of fun with the 64 team bracket (that isn't arbitrary). If your argument is "coaches are a big part of college basketball and they want expansion." That isn't arbitrary. If your argument is that the regular season may be less interesting or less important if more teams are added to the tournament (that isn't arbitrary). But saying the 50th team doesn't deserve it because they are the 50th team, when the current rules allow the 200th team to go (if they happen to get hot at the end of the season and win their conference tournament) is arbitrary and, lousy in my opinion.

I like it the way it is. If they change it, I hope they do it the best way possible.

And I'd disagree with this:


It is a non-sequitur because the automatic bids will get in whatever the formula, so pointing out that some of them aren't worthy is not relevant.

There is nothing that says all conferences will get an automatic bid forever and ever into perpetuity. It doesn't happen in all NCAA sports.

CDC84
02-02-2010, 06:32 PM
I have been told that this is by no means set in stone. There are still some important people who are opposed to the idea. It still may not happen.

willandi
02-02-2010, 07:04 PM
I wonder if, using the network of baketball forums, a grass roots class action suit against the idea could be developed? That being said, the 2 plans put forth here, for 96 teams, both have merit, and that means they won't get used. I wonder if flooding our congress persons with protests would have any effect? Probably not, the east coast bias would win out in the end.

Oh, well

stevet75
02-02-2010, 08:29 PM
It just seem logical. Start by dividing up everyone into pods, based on geography and/or university similarities. If they win there pod, advance them to a playoff of pod winners. You could add some good teams to the pod playoffs, from strong conferences, just to try to get a good cross section of talented teams. After all, the pod winner of the East Missouri River Delta Jesuit Pod may not be as strong a team as the second place team from the New Jersey/New York Pod. I think 64 teams would be a good round number, that would get most of the teams with a reasonable chance of winning into the playoffs.
Or, lets not involve the Pods, at all, and just have a 330+ team playoff, starting in November. NJIT, would get to play their first game against Duke or NC or Louisville, and they would be done for the year. That way their student athletes can return to being students, in November.
The more I think about a 96 team playoff, the more p!ssed off I get. I know it is all about money, but I believe expanding the tournament will dilute the interest and eventually end up reducing revenues.

Once and Future Zag
02-02-2010, 08:29 PM
Since its now nagging me - I'm going to run the numbers for my hypothetical 96 team tourney for last year - doing my best to try and replicate the at-larges and seedings that actually happened.

Let's see how good of a tournament it would have made (and if any teams were left out that would have won a game)

Should take a day or two. I'll get the results up on Google Spreadsheets when done.

zag67
02-02-2010, 08:34 PM
I will agree mostly with Mgadfly. I think that you do the playoff game in and then seed the teams for the 64. That makes all of the existing work and at the same time any team below 96, should not have very much of a chance to win a game. You will still have some of the major leagues whine when their last place team did not get in the tournament.

Zagdawg
02-02-2010, 10:30 PM
I like the idea of the state of Washington have 3 schools going to the dance... (The Zags, Wash State and the our little sis out west).

This would give the little sister in the westside of the state a chance to make the dance (no more of the CBI for them).

Then CBBfanatic might get a better understanding of the Zag experience.

U Zig, I Zag
02-02-2010, 10:36 PM
which is why the powers that be would never go for it.

btw, if it HAD TO BE more than 64, this sounds like a plan I could live with. nice work O&FZ

+1 thought out as to bring the level up and not penalize larger programs and not dilute the lower programs to the point of not mattering. You can still get a shot at the big guys - and frankly, that's what it is about for most people.

LongIslandZagFan
02-03-2010, 07:11 AM
This should be seen for what it is... power conferences looking to get more money. Plain and simple. Bigger field, means more games televised, means bigger TV contract, means more money to dole out to teams that appear. Looking at a couple of years ago, the Big East wasn't happy when Syracuse got left at the alter as it means they lost around a million right off the bat for the game 1 appearance and any potential games after that should they have won in the first round. With 96 teams in, it means that the amount of $ to be doled out will be smaller, but the power conferences will get a majority, if not all, of the "new" bids.

It is about money for the power conferences... period.

IMHO going to 96 makes as much sense as if you would pare down to 32 teams, kill the conference tourneys and take only the regular season champ from each conference. Both are dumb ideas.

Once and Future Zag
02-03-2010, 09:23 AM
So... since it's a slow day at work, I was able to do a little work on a theoretical tournament based on my criteria and I've set the field of 96 for 2009. I've also come up with a "seeding guide" based on a combination of SOS (both Overall and OOC accounted for separately)and KenPom's efficiency numbers. The latter accounts for the "eye test" of how well the teams look in playing in terms of offense and defense, and the former for whom they did it against.

NB: I'll also be working out the money (once I can find the data for that) - with the assumption that the opening round games and the round of 64 games are about 2/3 of last year's pricing - due to every conf getting 2 games, but increased gate and TV revenue to offset that.

Das Zagger
02-03-2010, 12:29 PM
NCAA sees a money-grab opportunity, NCAA takes money-grab opportunity.

Once and Future Zag
02-03-2010, 02:32 PM
Here's what I got, based on my seeding rules and math (each game was best of 5 through a game simulator) and despite the results there was no "working" of the data. Nor did I futz with it trying not match up teams from the same conference.

First Round (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t_mz6-q8mDIFbyFiGezGICg&output=html) auto-bid (regular season) and at-large each seeded 1-32 and then matched up. The sites were then S-curved. Some nice matchups in there.

Round of 64 to the end (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tyel9DRc_pc1WQoValmKRrA&single=true&gid=0&output=html) All remaining teams were seeded 1-64 (auto-bid tournaments and the winners of the first round)and then run along the S-Curve again to get the matchups.

Lower Seeds that win are bolded.

UberZagFan
02-03-2010, 02:38 PM
Once and Future Zag,

Uber's already in a pissy mood, so he'll try to be nice about this: Why exactly are you doing this? Uber thought that the Foosters were pretty bad about wasting time but wow. Just wow.

ID ZAGFAN
02-03-2010, 02:40 PM
Once and Future Zag,

Uber's already in a pissy mood, so he'll try to be nice about this: Why exactly are you doing this? Uber thought that the Foosters were pretty bad about wasting time but wow. Just wow.

Uber, you're just in a pissy mood because you can't get any more neg rep!

Don't worry, be happy! :p

ID ZAGFAN

Once and Future Zag
02-03-2010, 02:57 PM
A) I was curious to see how "diluted" the results would be with one particular variation on a 96 team tournament

B) I like toying around with data

C) Why not?

I think it indicates that a 96 team tournament isn't the end of the world if done right - and I suspect that at least one other person might be interested in a simulation of such. Change ain't bad.

Also, just because it might give a little perspective of the at-large pool.

Last 4 in:
Wake Forest
Virginia Tech
Seton Hall
Northwestern

First 4 out:
UAB
Texas Tech
Kansas St.
Penn St.

NEC26
02-03-2010, 05:27 PM
Is this what selection sunday would like if this happens?

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

MJ777
02-03-2010, 11:27 PM
Is this what selection sunday would like if this happens?

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

Oxnard Advanced Truck Driving School was the 4,097th team or the last team out. Funny stuff.

:lmao: