Katz blog: thoughts on 96. ...

Donate To GopherHole

I didn't read the article SS but Myron tweeted ..

NCAA considering 65, 68, and 96 team models for NCAA tournament, official says.
Click to expand...

Lol .. and just to make sure I don't think Myron is even in Katz's league as far as being connected with this stuff.

Just sayin'
 

To be perfectly frank, I don't understand the NCAA pushing for this movement towards 96 teams. I understand the NCAA is all about the bottom line dollar, but honestly, that's about the only advantage I see to this proposal. It would basically add a whole bunch more power conference schools regardless of merit and therefore dilute the entire tournament to the point of absurdity. My only position here can be to make the statement that if it's not broken, don't fix it.
 

I can live with 68. Would make some sense having a play-in game for each regional.

Still, even that screws the little guys because that means 8 of 'em (instead of 2) would have to "play their way in" to the Round of 64. People have floated around the idea of having the final at-large teams have to play their way in (for example, into the 5-12 game in each region), but I don't think the big schools will ever let that happen. The big boys don't want the stigma of playing in the "play-in" games any more than the small schools do.
 

It sounds like in 2013 a bunch of TV contracts come up for bidding(MLB, NBA, and NASCAR) and the NCAA would rather opt out now and not have to compete with all of that in 2013. It also sounds like the original contract with CBS was backloaded and there are some concerns about them being able to pay for it. That was from the Summit commish and he really tried to paint expansion in a positive light. I don't think anything is stopping it.
 


When Jim Delany speaks, I listen. The man has serious clout.

His statement more than anyone tells me expansion to 96 is going to happen, and it's going to happen sooner rather than later. My understanding is he's against expansion (at least to 96, anyways), so my thinking is this is his way of making sure there's plenty of political pressure on the NCAA (presumably from fans & media alike) leading up to the expected announcement (late April).
 

SelectionSunday said:
I can live with 68. Would make some sense having a play-in game for each regional.

Still, even that screws the little guys because that means 8 of 'em (instead of 2) would have to "play their way in" to the Round of 64. People have floated around the idea of having the final at-large teams have to play their way in (for example, into the 5-12 game in each region), but I don't think the big schools will ever let that happen.
Click to expand...

I agree regarding the 68 team format. I think that would be alright, although I'm not real pumped about the prospect of screwing the small conference champions out of more face time. I'm whole-heartedly against the 96 team format however.
 

96 is a horrible idea for all the stated reasons. I guess college basketball will be like the NHL and NBA now.

There is one genuine semi-problem: schools who dominate their regular season and then get beat in their rinky-dink conference tournament.
 

I think the 68-team format with four play-in games for the 12-seed would be pretty nice.
 



"There is one genuine semi-problem: schools who dominate their regular season and then get beat in their rinky-dink conference tournament."

It doesn't have to be a problem. That's a decision each conference makes; it's not a NCAA decision. A conference can choose to have its automatic bid go to the regular-season champion like the Ivy League does. The NCAA isn't forcing conferences to hold a tournament or to tab their tournament winner as the auto bid.
 

rcpratt said:
I think the 68-team format with four play-in games for the 12-seed would be pretty nice.
Click to expand...

That would be ideal, it would make for some great play in games. That is probably the only form of expansion that adds something of interest to the tournament. People talk about the bubble teams for months and they would finally have a shot to mach up and play their way in.

That said, I would rather see the tournament go to 96 then have 8 teams that won their conference tournament play-in.
 

AP article....

The NCAA appears to be on the verge of expanding the men’s basketball tournament to 96 teams.

Insisting that nothing has been decided, NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen nonetheless outlined a detailed plan Thursday that included the logistics and timing of a 96-team tournament, how much time off the players would have and even revenue distribution.

Shaheen said the NCAA looked at keeping the current 65-team field and expanding to 68 or 80 teams, but decided the bigger bracket was best fit logistically and financially.

It would be played during the same time frame as the current three-week tournament and include first-round byes for 32 teams.
Click to expand...

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-ncaatournament-expansion
 

As long as they are willing to mess with perfection, why don't they just make the whole fu&%ing thing double-elimination.

Sheesh. Money-grubbing whores.
 



Heck, just cut the regular season to 16 conference games (since it's meaningless anyway) and expand to 256. Then have each round be best of 3. Start the tournament around February 15th. It'll be just like the NBA! A meaningless regular season, followed by an icredibly long play-off that only the die-hards pay attention to.
 

FargoBison said:
It sounds like in 2013 a bunch of TV contracts come up for bidding(MLB, NBA, and NASCAR) and the NCAA would rather opt out now and not have to compete with all of that in 2013. It also sounds like the original contract with CBS was backloaded and there are some concerns about them being able to pay for it. That was from the Summit commish and he really tried to paint expansion in a positive light. I don't think anything is stopping it.
Click to expand...

WHO?!?! :confused:
 

96 team tourney.......please

this is the lamest idea ever. just what we need.......more oakland's, winthrop's, arkansas-pine bluffs, ndsu's, robert morris' in a tournament where they don't really belong in the first place.

count me as one of several million people who will absolutely not be tuning into the NCAA tournament until the round of 32 or even more likely the sweet 16 because this tourney is going to turn into a watered down piece of crap. 96 teams?! these small school conferences can put all the perfume they want on the supposed merits of a 96 team tourney, but it is still going to stink like a piece of dog sh!t if the NCAA moves forwarded with this ill-conceived cockamamy plan.

stupid, stupid, stupid. way to break something that wasn't broken NCAA fools. :mad:
 


I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't see much wrong with the 96 team idea. I don't like the top 8 seeds all getting byes the first round, but that's about the only problem I see with it. The way it is, there practically is a bye for the #1 seeds because they never lose against the #16s. The #1 seeds and #2 seeds will play a much tougher foe in their opening games, so there's 8 more interesting games right there & the #3 seeds also will be by and large facing a lot stiffer competition. A lot of the teams that are in the 65 team field aren't one of the best 65 teams because they're in on an auto bid from the SWAC or MEAC or America East. If they just add the 31 next best teams without trying to reward regular season champs from weak leagues, then I think it will be a better tournament. The regular season wouldn't be meaningless, because teams that go under .500 like UM this year still aren't going to make it with an at-large bid. There are 347 teams in major college basketball - letting 96 into the tourney instead of 65 doesn't change the facts that the vast majority of teams still won't make it and that it is special for the smaller schools to make it.
 

The Ghost of Bierman said:
this is the lamest idea ever. just what we need.......more oakland's, winthrop's, arkansas-pine bluffs, ndsu's, robert morris' in a tournament where they don't really belong in the first place.

count me as one of several million people who will absolutely not be tuning into the NCAA tournament until the round of 32 or even more likely the sweet 16 because this tourney is going to turn into a watered down piece of crap. 96 teams?! these small school conferences can put all the perfume they want on the supposed merits of a 96 team tourney, but it is still going to stink like a piece of dog sh!t if the NCAA moves forwarded with this ill-conceived cockamamy plan.

stupid, stupid, stupid. way to break something that wasn't broken NCAA fools. :mad:
Click to expand...

although you always rip me and we dont agree on much, I agree with you 100% on this. I wont watch either (unless the gophs or whisky is playing)

This idea is worse than the decision to extend Monson's contract.
 

gopherbadgerman said:
although you always rip me and we dont agree on much, I agree with you 100% on this. I wont watch either (unless the gophs or whisky is playing)
Click to expand...

As much as I hate the move to 96, I will definitely watch the whole thing just as I currently do.

If and when expansion happens, I am going to try to find the positives in it. March madness will still be march madness. Will it water down the field? Yes. Will it make the regular season and conference tournaments less meaningful? Yes.

However, think about it this way: The round of 64 will still have the same appeal as it does now. The only difference will be a few more lesser quality teams that EARNED their way into that round by pulling a first round upset.

Buzzer beaters will still be there, and huge upsets will still be there. Unlikely Cinderella runs will remain a huge part of the tournament.

In my opinion, the move to 96 most hinders the regular season. Trust me, I hope they keep it at or close to 65. However, I do not think the move to 96 will hinder the big dance itself. I actually think the tournament itself will be equal to or better than it is now.
 

A #16 seed has never beaten a #1 seed. I think that's enough of a reason to not add more teams.
 

station19 said:
A #16 seed has never beaten a #1 seed. I think that's enough of a reason to not add more teams.
Click to expand...

In a 96 team tournament, what is more likely, a 32 beating a 9, or a 16-17 winner beating a 1?

I say the latter. Why? It is more likely that the 16-17 winner will be a decent team, while the 32 will be one of those low major teams who upset their way into the field.
 



Thank you Dana

A great piece of literature by Ms. O'Neil. It's a money grab & nothing more. The NCAA would be a lot better off if it just admitted to that fact.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom