NCAA Tournament Expansion

Donate To GopherHole

Our non-conference schedule

cream%20puff.JPG
 

That is truly pathetic. 96 teams is way too much, and it would go on forever. Just stick with the top 65 teams who deserve to be in the dance in the first place. The scores would be lopsided, and many of the games would not be that fun to watch.
 

akoch6767 said:
That is truly pathetic. 96 teams is way too much, and it would go on forever. Just stick with the top 65 teams who deserve to be in the dance in the first place. The scores would be lopsided, and many of the games would not be that fun to watch.
Click to expand...

This, but bring it back down to 64.
 

I only hope that Delaney's secret plan is to torpedo this vote by letting the cat out of the bag and letting the back-lash build.
 


I have a proposal if they expand to 96 next season

Let's immediately hold a GopherHole.com party at Sally's or Stub & Herb's. We can celebrate the Gophers' impending NCAA Tournament berth in 2011. Pretty much all they'll have to do to make the tournament every year is breathe.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Let's immediately hold a GopherHole.com party at Sally's or Stub & Herb's. We can celebrate the Gophers' impending NCAA Tournament berth in 2011. Pretty much all they'll have to do to make the tournament every year is breathe.
Click to expand...

I LOVE this idea!!
 

Uh, oh. If Delany's saying that, probably means he knows it's a done deal.

That was a very nice breakdown by Gottlieb. I'll say it ad nauseum. ... expansion to 96 very well may make the Round of 64 (and forward) more competitive, but it will do so with great risk & in my mind 2 great consequences:

(1) It will devalue the regular season even more, which as a season-ticket holder is the biggest gripe I'll have with this. For schools like Minnesota -- who don't make the tournament every single year like the Kansas' and Dukes of the world -- making the tournament no longer will be something to celebrate. If you think schools like Minnesota are going to significantly strengthen their nonconference schedule, think again, at most of the big schools it's likely to have the opposite impact. Schedule even softer opponents in November & December, win 6 or 7 conference games, you're in the tournament. Yipee.

(2) I think over the long haul this is going to screw the smaller conferences even more, hence, there will be many less opportunities for "David vs. Goliath/Cinderella" stories, which in my mind is what makes this tournament so special. The Round of 64 (and forward) is far more likely to have more teams from major conferences, not less. A larger share of the smaller schools will get weeded out in the play-in round (Round of 96).
 

Glass half full here...

A field of 96, depending on how they format the first round and seedings..may make it even critical to obtain a better seed to avoid an upset early. I'm guessing the top teams will want to earn a higher seed (not just make the tourney as before). Same result...need good SOS, record, etc. The previous anxiety of the bubble team may be replaced by a seeding anxiety.

It all depends on the format. That said, I vote no to the whole damn idea.
 



In reading the responses on the ESPN board, nobody is for this. This is a case of greed, pure and simple. We all need to vote against this with our wallets and our remote controls.
 

I hate this idea. The tourney is special and allowing more teams to get in will ruin the excitement of getting in the "dance".

I hope they reconsider.
 

SelectionSunday said:
If you think schools like Minnesota are going to significantly strengthen their nonconference schedule, think again, at most of the big schools it's likely to have the opposite impact.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with you on this specific topic. I think expansion will allow schools like Minnesota to schedule one or two additional tougher games. They will do this for three reasons.

1) In most years (you'd hope) it will not matter, they will make the field of 96, so to schedule a Kansas or UCLA or Texas to get on national TV is a relatively low-risk proposition. National TV exposure is great, and it helps create excitement about your schedule.

2) It will keep fans quiet about weak non conference schedules.

3) If for whatever reason you are on the bubble at 96, more than likely you're on the bubble with a handful of teams from a major conference and a few from mid-major conferences. It could well be that SOS will determine your fate. Even better, if you win a game against a UConn in November and are still on the bubble, then you are certainly in good position (or better position than mid-majors) with a win like that.

I could be wrong, but I think you'll see more good home-and-home series if it gets expanded.

And, in full disclosure, I know I'm in the minority of favoring an expansion to 96.
 

I like it the way it is but I think Money (surprise) may win out.

Also, I think there may some creative ways to expand to 96.

Start with the 96 team tournament as a reality.

Take the 31 conferences ...

Give an AUTO bid to all 31 Conference Regular Season Champs. (This would give a little more meaning to Regular Season - especially for smaller school conferences.)
Give an AUTO Bid to all 31 Conference tournament Champs.

Some of those (0-31) conferences would have Dual Winners (Regular Season and Tournament Champs). Those teams that win both Reg Season and Tournament Conference Championship would be given not only an AUTO Bid but also a AUTOMATIC 1st Round Bye (one of 32 1st Round Byes in the 96 team Tournament).

Lots of creative possibilities with expansion to 96.
 



The "tell" will be who the #1s play in Round of 64

If they expand to 96, the thing I'll be most curious about is who the #1 seeds will get in their first game (Round of 64). Will it be the winner of a #16 vs. #17 game (as it should be), or will they simply lump together the bottom 8 teams in the field (#23 & #24s) and have them play for the right to play the #1s in each region? So each region would have a #1 vs. #23-24 winner, #2 vs. #21-22 winner, #3 vs. #19-20 winner, and so on, all the way down to #8 vs. #9-10 winner.

If they do that, instead of feeding into the Round of 64 the way they should (#9 vs. #24, #10 vs. #23, #11 vs. #22, etc.), then we'll know the expansion was all about the big boys in every single way, shape & form. The big boys (top seeds) will want their "gimme'" in their first game. They certainly won't want to play a #16 or #17 in their first game (Round of 64). Odds are a #16 or #17 would be a reasonably decent opponent, someone the likes of a UConn, Dayton, Illinois or North Carolina from this season. ... underachievers, but a lot more talented and dangerous than the Arkansas-Pine Bluffs, Winthrops and Lehighs of the world.
 

"I think expansion will allow schools like Minnesota to schedule one or two additional tougher games."

I'm skeptical TJ, but I sincerely hope you're right about this. If tournament expansion leads to Minnesota playing more quality opponents AT HOME every year (and that's not asking much considering the home schedules Tubby/Joe E has put in front of us), then I'll be much more on board with a bigger field. Would love to get more bang for my buck prior to the start of the Big Ten season.

I will be the very first person on this board to trumpet a dramatically improved nonconference home schedule if it comes to fruition late this summer, tourney expansion or no tourney expansion
 

Geez, I just DESPISE the whole idea

Just leave it alone for gosh sakes! It's the best thing hte NCAA has going......

Yeah, like they asked my opinion!
 

Could this be more of a clandestine way to eliminate the post-season NIT than to expand the big dance? The NCAA could laugh all the way to the bank.
 

CollegeBBallFan said:
Could this be more of a clandestine way to eliminate the post-season NIT than to expand the big dance? The NCAA could laugh all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...

The NCAA has owned the NIT since 2005 and began running the tournament in 2006. If the NCAA expansion is to get rid of the NIT, they must think they'll make more money with one tourney instead of two.

I watched a couple NIT games this year and found them competitive and enjoyable to watch. While the talent level is less than most teams in the NCAA, they are still skilled enough to put on a good show.
 

This is not the first expansion of the NCAA tournament...let us not forget that the NCAA used to the the second tier tourny and the NIT used to rule the world...the NCAA used to be a 16 team tournament, then 32, then 64 and now 65...how is 96 going to ruin it...we certainly have more quality BB teams in the NCAA than we did 40 years ago, so expansion makes sense.

Plus, I think with an expanded format, the MN level teams will take on more out of conference quality teams because a couple of losses wont kill your tournament chances....better games, more TV chances and sold out home non-conf games are all available with the expanded tournament. Plus more money for the NCAA and the teams and conferences...

Lastly, as a percentage of qualifying teams...BB is one of the lowest. Compare to footballs top division, over 30% of those teams play in a bowl game....BB is less than 25% and I think BB is more competitive for potential upsets than FB...so increase the NCAA to 96 and give roughly 30% of all D1 teams a chance at the brass ring...and then get a playoff in FB!
 

What's in it for the smaller conferences? The extra bids aren't likely to go their way. On the other hand, it would give them a greater chance of winning a game. The current #16 seeds now have to play a #1 seed. In this 96 team tournament, the same teams that are 16 seeds would likely be #24 seed, and would play a #9 seed in the opening round.

Unless either the CBI or CIT take over, I don't think the NIT is going anywhere. If you combine the NCAA, NIT, CBI and CIT tournaments, there are about 129 teams that play post season now, so there is room for more than 96 teams in post-season. If the NCAA expands, fold the CBI and CIT, and leave the NIT in place. Maybe spin it off. The NIT is not much of a prize for teams from major conferences, but for minor conferences, it is.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom