PDA

View Full Version : Yahoo Sports: Few "96 team inevitable"



Ekrub
04-14-2010, 01:27 PM
http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1074194

skan72
04-14-2010, 01:30 PM
You think they'd give byes to the top teams? They'd have to for the 96 format to work right?

Angelo Roncalli
04-14-2010, 01:34 PM
You think they'd give byes to the top teams? They'd have to for the 96 format to work right?

The top 32 teams will get a first round bye.

Angelo Roncalli
04-14-2010, 01:38 PM
If this thing is as inevitable as it appears, then one thing that would make it more palatable would be Coach K's proposal that all teams that win their conferences' regular season championships receive a bid.

hondo
04-14-2010, 01:40 PM
One thing I would bet on is that however it is worked out it will be to the advantage of the big boys, it always works that way.

skan72
04-14-2010, 01:47 PM
One thing I would bet on is that however it is worked out it will be to the advantage of the big boys, it always works that way.

It always works that way because the big boys are the ones who bring in the big money for the NCAA. It's unfortunately a truth that no one has any control over.

They should give the first round byes to all the conference champions...how many conferences are there?

FieldHouseFishHouse
04-14-2010, 01:58 PM
It always works that way because the big boys are the ones who bring in the big money for the NCAA. It's unfortunately a truth that no one has any control over.

They should give the first round byes to all the conference champions...how many conferences are there?

32 conferences starting next year I believe. That works out perfectly.

VinnyZag
04-14-2010, 02:01 PM
You think they'd give byes to the top teams? They'd have to for the 96 format to work right?

Joe Lunardi just posted his projected 96-team field. I assume he's in the know about how it would work: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629

zaggernaut
04-14-2010, 02:10 PM
It always works that way because the big boys are the ones who bring in the big money for the NCAA. It's unfortunately a truth that no one has any control over.

They should give the first round byes to all the conference champions...how many conferences are there?

They definitely won't give first round byes to all conference champions - way too many small conferences out there who's teams aren't good enough for a top 8 seed.

skan72
04-14-2010, 02:30 PM
They definitely won't give first round byes to all conference champions - way too many small conferences out there who's teams aren't good enough for a top 8 seed.

Yeah, it was speculation. I don't care how big or small the conference is that the school is from. They should start rewarding conference champions, because a fair few get buried as 16 seeds every year when the could actually win a game or two if they weren't. The bye for every conference champion is just something I thought of and would like to see happen.

BobZag
04-14-2010, 03:00 PM
The goal with the 96-team format will be to get an 8 seed or better so to avoid the "play-in" game. Whoopee.

What a buzzkiller.

sittingon50
04-14-2010, 03:12 PM
So for the Conferences that usually get only one bid, it's in their best financial interest for their regular season champion to tank it in the Conference Tourney.

CDC84
04-14-2010, 03:13 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/college-basketball/article/2010-04-01/ncaa-ignoring-unpopularity-expansion-plan


The decision-makers in this process seem to understand neither the rhythm of the season that worked to build college basketball to its current position nor the chemistry of the tournament that has made it a billion-dollar enterprise.

"The opportunity for there to be an upset on any given day is part of what makes the tournament great," Shaheen said. "It's part of what's made the tournament great for the last 25 years. It's the opportunity to be able to grow it from there."

The very act of expanding, though, would remove the possibility of the colossal upset from the equation. Because the games that produce those results would not be played.

Consider Robert Morris vs. Villanova from the 2010 tournament. The Colonials were a No. 15 seed; Villanova was a No. 2 seed. If a 96-team field were in place this year, Villanova still would have been a No. 2 seed, but would have received a bye for the opening day. Robert Morris would have been placed at the bottom of the field, seeded 23rd in the regional and opened against someone along the lines of No. 10 seeds Missouri, Georgia Tech or Florida.

The pressure of potential embarrassment that visited Villanova for much of the Robert Morris game never would have become a factor for the Florida Gators—they'd lost enough during the regular season to move beyond the capacity for embarrassment. The thrill of something potentially magical or historic happening, which sent fans scrambling to TVs as Robert Morris tried to finish off Villanova, never would be ignited. The Colonials beating a No. 10 seed? That'd barely raise an eyebrow.

webspinnre
04-14-2010, 03:24 PM
One thing that I wish more people were talking about is the fact that this will kill the NIT tournament. If they spent less time pursuing such clearly undesired (from the fan's perspective) ideas, and more time promoting the NIT, they could have a really excellent product on their hands.

The other thing that I'd like to see if this goes into place is a restriction that no more than half of any single conference can make it into the tourney. If your league has 10 teams, you max out at 5 in the tourney, etc. If you can't finish in the top half of your league, then you haven't earned the right to play in a tournament for the national championship. That would leave a max of 37 teams from the power conferences, opening up plenty of space for teams from other leagues that won their regular season or tournament, or finished up at the top of their leagues.

In a perfect world, none of this would happen and they'd leave a good thing alone, but that appears unlikely.

CDC84
04-14-2010, 03:40 PM
It is interesting how non-BCS coaches like Few and McKillop have been the strongest voices against expansion. Somehow I get the feeling that guys like Brad Stevens and Xavier's Chris Mack are probably against the idea as well. That is, coaches who run top flight non-BCS programs that make regular appearances in the NCAA tournament.

zaggernaut
04-14-2010, 03:57 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/college-basketball/article/2010-04-01/ncaa-ignoring-unpopularity-expansion-plan

Its hard for me to see how this will really play out until it actually happens but I still see 2 or 3 seeds losing their first game at close to the same rate as they have in the past which would still have the embarrassment factor. Their first opponent will theoretically be tougher and will have just come off winning their first round game. Plus everyone getting a first round bye will have had to shake off rust from not having played a game for a week or longer.

I think the worst things about the expansion is:

1) It ruins many of the office pools or at the very least makes it way too complicated for the casual fan.

2) Many sports fans feel like the first day of the tournament is the best sports day of the year and it no longer will have that feeling.

3) People are now going to be forced to take 2 days off in consecutive weeks if they want to watch all the games. The way it was currently set up the games during the second week of the tournament were always in the evening (starting 4pm pst) which allowed people to still go to work on those days.

CDC84
04-14-2010, 05:54 PM
It ruins many of the office pools or at the very least makes it way too complicated for the casual fan.

This is perhaps the single biggest reason to avoid expansion, but the NCAA has to be politically correct and avoid any discussion of gambling despite the fact that they know it drives the tournament and its popularity.

I have heard it estimated that 25-35% of U.S. office workers participate in pools. The majority of those workers rarely watch college basketball in the regular season. The NCAA has to bring in those fans to make CBS or some other station want to fork over 3 billion bucks for the rights to televise the dance. I still fail to understand how a 3 or 4 sheet bracket is going to bring those casual fans in. There's a good chance it will alienate them.

Combine those office workers with all the action that takes place in Vegas, Atlantic City, underground nightclubs and the internet...gambling is what fuels the thing.

I think the next network that picks up the tab would be foolish to pay the kind of money that CBS paid several years ago. It's too risky. The tournament was perfect as it was, which made it a wise investment for CBS at the time.

GUDan07
04-14-2010, 06:13 PM
One thing that I wish more people were talking about is the fact that this will kill the NIT tournament.

They still play that thing? Outside of hardcore fans, no one can name the last 3 NIT champs. NIT was dead long before this.

LongIslandZagFan
04-14-2010, 06:31 PM
Coach Cal... not my favorite person... but nails this right on the head:


Kentucky (http://kentucky.rivals.com/) coach John Calipari (http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/viewcoach.asp?Coach=1224) said he would favor a 96-team format only if college basketball officials did away with conference tournaments and vowed to hand at least 16 of those 31 extra bids to teams from outside the six major conferences.
"If they do that, I'd say 'yes,' " Calipari said. "If not, it's all based on money and there's no need to do it."


I think his point is that it IS all about money as he knows that there is no way that a) the conference tourneys would go away and b) there is no way they'd guarantee that.

webspinnre
04-15-2010, 05:15 AM
They still play that thing? Outside of hardcore fans, no one can name the last 3 NIT champs. NIT was dead long before this.

After years of mismanagement. Its got tons of potential if it was properly handled.

bullzag23
04-15-2010, 10:35 AM
Its hard for me to see how this will really play out until it actually happens but I still see 2 or 3 seeds losing their first game at close to the same rate as they have in the past which would still have the embarrassment factor. Their first opponent will theoretically be tougher and will have just come off winning their first round game. Plus everyone getting a first round bye will have had to shake off rust from not having played a game for a week or longer.

I think the worst things about the expansion is:

1) It ruins many of the office pools or at the very least makes it way too complicated for the casual fan.

2) Many sports fans feel like the first day of the tournament is the best sports day of the year and it no longer will have that feeling.

3) People are now going to be forced to take 2 days off in consecutive weeks if they want to watch all the games. The way it was currently set up the games during the second week of the tournament were always in the evening (starting 4pm pst) which allowed people to still go to work on those days.


Not to mention the casual fans that enjoy watching the regular season. If 96 teams get into the tournament, how important is the regular season anymore? Also I feel like this change will also reduce a team's motivation to consistently play hard every night. What's the motivation to win your conference tournament (assuming they still exist) if you win your conference regular season? Is there any other than seeding potential? It seems to me there are far too many questions the NCAA hasn't been asking because they have the $$$$ blinders on.