Pros and Cons of 96

[SelectionSunday]

In response to yesterday's announcement that it's bascially a done deal (like we didn't know that already).

Though against expansion to 96, I'm trying to be open-minded. It's like Doug Gottlieb said last night: "I'm against expansion to 96 teams because it devalues the regular season, but it's going to happen so we might as well accept it and move on."

Assuming the NCAA brackets the tournament exactly as it should be bracketed for each region:

#1 vs. #16-17 winner
#8 vs. #9-24 winner
#4 vs. #13-20 winner
#5 vs. #12-21 winner
#2 vs. #15-18 winner
#7 vs. #10-23 winner
#3 vs. #14-19 winner
#6 vs. #11-22 winner

Potential Pros
1. The Round of 64 and forward in all likelihood will mean a more competitive tournament. The 1s, 2s and 3s, etc., are going to have much more difficult first games. That's a good thing. A #16 will beat a #1, and it will happen sooner rather than never. It won't carry the same cache as it would in the current format, but it would still be a #16 over a #1.

2. (this all depends on how you look at it) The Gophers will be in the tournament about every year.

3. More games. For the diehards (I count myself in this group), I'm sure once next March rolls around my curiosity with the new format will increase. Like anything else, we need to give it a chance. Maybe these extra teams/games in the tourney won't be as detrimental as some of us think.

4. I do like Coach K's idea of giving automatic bids to every conference's regular season and tournament champion because it would assure the regular season and conference tournaments remain meaningful. That would mean a maximum of 62 automatics with a minimum of 34 at-larges. However, I don't think the NCAA will go for this idea. They'll want the tournament to have a "set number" of at-larges every year, not a "floating" number.

Potential Cons
1. The regular season for programs like Minnesota has basically been rendered meaningless. Unless we really, really suck, the Gophers are going to be in the NCAA Tournament every season. To put it in perspective, I'll put it to ya' this way. ... under the new format Dan Monson's Gopher teams likely would have made the tournament 5 out of his 8 years, every season except for 1999-2000, 2003-04 and 2006-07. Is that what we really want, medicore and/or under-achieving seasons rewarded with a NCAA bid?

2. I think tournament attendance will be negatively impacted big-time, especially for the Rounds of 96, 64 and (especially) Round of 32 games. Gotta' believe there's not too many people who'll be willing to travel to neutral sites to watch teams 33 to 96 square off. And how many neutral fans will be willing to commit to those mid-week games (Tuesday & Wednesday) of the 2nd week? I'll predict half empty arenas for those games. Even fans of the participating schools might "wait" to see if their team makes it to the Sweet 16 later in the week.

3. There will be less Cinderella opportunities, not more. Why, you ask? Because now once we hit the Round 64, it's more likely there will be less smaller-conference schools still around. The Cinderella stories are what make this tournament so special. I'm not convinced more teams means more Cinderella stories.

4. Bad news for Gopher season-ticket holders. My money says the Gophers' nonconference home schedules will at best remain the same and more likely get even softer. With expansion to 96, there's no incentive for a big school like Minnesota to test itself in November and December more than they already do. Play in an exempt tournament where you'll face 2-3 quality foes, maybe play one other quality game (re: ACC Challenge), schedule nothing but cupcakes at home. Go 10-2 in nonconference games, 6-12 in the Big Ten and presto you're 16-14 overall and probably safely in the tournament. Yeeeehawww!

5. The Big Ten Tournament will be worthless. Fans will be asked to fork out big bucks basically to watch most of the teams play for NCAA seeding purposes only.

6. The problem with Coach K's idea? I know for the most part all of us believe in the integrity of the game, but do you really think there would be much incentive for a regular-season champion from a traditional 1-bid league (i.e. America East, Big South, Patriot) to win its conference tournament? Those conferences will want multiple bids (and a bigger piece of the pie), so perhaps the regular-season champion decides to significantly "rest its players" during the conference tournament, opening up a greater possibility that its conference will receive a second bid?

Fire away. I know I haven't touched on everything, but these are some of my preliminary thoughts on 96. I'm warming to the idea a little bit, but I just can't get past the damage that will be done to the regular season.

A few columns

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...ith-expansion?tag=headlines;collegebasketball

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5048513

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...ney-expansion?tag=headlines;collegebasketball

 

[howeda7]

To me the 3 huge negatives completely drub any positives.

1. Destroying the regular season

2. Destroying interest of the casual fan in the tournament. It's simply too big now. The average office-worker who doesn't pay attention won't participate in brackets, etc. anymore. These fans will now follow thier schools games only, and when they're eliminated, they'll stop watching, at least until the Final Four.

3. Destroying actual fan attendence at the tourament. Fans, especially students, aren't going to be willing/able to basically take two entire weeks off to follow this through the extra rounds. Teams without byes would now be looking at playing Thursday/Saturday/Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday? Good lord. No ones going in for that treck.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

The idea of a UNC team losing 16 games and also finished 5-11 in the ACC making the NCAA tournament as an at-large makes me want to vomit. In a field of 96, they probably make it in with that resume.

No team ever in the history of the world should be an at-large with 16 losses while being 6 games below .500 in the conference.

I HATE expanding to 96 teams.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

One other point...

The NCAA is a bunch of hypocrites. The #1 argument I've heard about maintaining the BCS system is it puts so much value on the regular season in college football and that an 8 team playoff would make it irrelevant.

A 96 team field will destroy the regular season and conference tournaments in college basketball. How is it compelling knowing the Gophers would make the tourney if they finished with a 7-11 record in the BT?

I can honestly say that I would watch much less regular season college basketball knowing that the outcome of any particular game is pointless in the long run. Seeding of the tournament becomes less important as it'll be much more of crapshoot. If there are flaws in the seeding of 65 teams, imagine what will happen when they have to seed 96?

 

[tjgopher]

I'll put it to ya' this way. ... under the new format Dan Monson's Gopher teams likely would have made the tournament 5 out of his 8 years, every season except for 1999-2000, 2003-04 and 2006-07.

I don't think we'd have made it in 2000-01 and we'd have been a big time bubbler in 2005-06. One of the last four in/first four out type of deals both years probably.

Go 10-2 in nonconference games, 6-12 in the Big Ten and presto you're 16-14 overall and probably safely in the tournament.

That might get a team in in some years, but in no way would they ever be safely into a Field of 96.

This year, for example, Northwestern went 12-1 in the non-conference, 7-11 in the Big Ten, 1-1 in BTT and 20-13 overall. Yet, they would have been a big time bubble team in a Field of 96, sweating it out. RPI was 116. They made the NIT, but were one of the last two at-large teams into the NIT field this year. Depending on the how they determine automatic berths in an expanded NCAA field, etc., they may not have made it this year and in some other years almost certainly would not have made it with that resume.

There will be less Cinderella opportunities, not more. Why, you ask? Because now once we hit the Round 64, it's more likely there will be less smaller-conference schools still around. The Cinderella stories are what make this tournament so special. I'm not convinced more teams means more Cinderella stories.

It is incumbent upon the selection committee to properly reward and properly seed the mid-major schools. A Field of 96 allows them a little more flexibility in doing just that. For example, this year, these additional schools would almost assuredly been in the Field of 96:

William & Mary
Quinnipiac
Northeastern
Rhode Island
Dayton
Stony Brook
Kent State
Tulsa
Illinois State
Weber State
Jacksonville
Troy
Coastal Carolina
UAB
Jackson State
Nevada

You're telling me there isn't a chance to get more upsets with those schools in a field?? Not to mention, many would be matched up against "name" schools when the namebrand schools are having a down year. North Carolina, UConn, and others have a chance to lose to a "no-name" in the first round now. That would be great. You thought it was fun having Murray State, St. Mary's, Butler, Old Dominion, UNI, Xavier, etc., this year? A Field of 96 creates that even more. Let the bullets fly! Jacksonville beat Arizona State in the NIT. That would now rightfully be part of "March Madness" lore had it happened in the NCAA tourney, which it would have had it been a Field of 96.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Do you really think the regular season isn't greatly devalued by the NCAA's cash grab? That bugs the heck out of me much moreso than what they're actually doing to the NCAA Tournament. I think you're aptly proving exactly why the tournament shouldnt' expand to 96 (with your Northwestern example).

But to answer your question, yes, I would be willing to wager in a 96-team field that any Big Ten team that finishes with 12 nonconference wins, a 7-11 conference record + a win in the BTT will make the NCAA Tournament 100% of the time, provided there are 64 at-larges every season under the new format & not a floating number of at-larges, per Coach K's idea.

 

[howeda7]

Do you really think the regular season isn't greatly devalued by the NCAA's cash grab? That bugs the heck out of me much moreso than what they're actually doing to the NCAA Tournament. I think you're aptly proving exactly why the tournament shouldnt' expand to 96.

But to answer your question, yes, I would be willing to wager in a 96-team field that any Big Ten team that finishes with 12 nonconference wins, a 7-11 conference record + a win in the BTT will make the NCAA Tournament 100% of the time, provided there are 64 at-larges every season under the new format & not a floating number of at-larges, per Coach K's idea.

Even if this is all about the money, can't they see the forest for the trees? If this fiasco causes attendence to go down 10% and regular season TV ratings to go down 20%, both of which are conservative, IMO, do they really think they will make enough additional money per school from this new bloated tournament to offset the losses at the gate and in the conference TV deals? They'll only make more money in the first few years before they fully feel the brunt of the amounts they are losing in the regular season.

 

[SelectionSunday]

With all due respect, do you really think people (outside of Jacksonville and Tempe) are going to get all worked up over a Jacksonville win over Arizona State in the Round of 96? Not buyin' it.

If that happens in the Round of 64 or beyond, yes, I'll buy it as a "Cinderella" story.

 

[tjgopher]

Even if this is all about the money, can't they see the forest for the trees? If this fiasco causes attendence to go down 10% and regular season TV ratings to go down 20%, both of which are conservative, IMO, do they really think they will make enough additional money per school from this new bloated tournament to offset the losses at the gate and in the conference TV deals? They'll only make more money in the first few years before they fully feel the brunt of the amounts they are losing in the regular season.

Lots of hand-wringing, that's for sure.

I know the number 96 seems like a huge number, but this isn't that big of a deal. It is 16 additional games. That's it. Eight games on Tuesday, eight games on Wednesday. Then a very attractive field of 64 remains.

I'd be willing to bet that TV ratings don't drop. I bet attendance doesn't drop much, either. There will be more attractive matchups once the field hits the Round of 64. People will watch. People will attend.

And, yes, this stands to make mucho, mucho dinero. An additional two nights of primetime basketball will bring in some significant cash.

Why do you think regular season ratings will drop? Will you stop watching? Regular season ratings are about the die-hards anyway. I doubt a significant number of the die-hards quit watching now because the field has been expanded.

My prediction is by 2013 people will have forgotten all about how this is such a travesty.

Look, its college basketball. Its a national championship tournament. People are intrigued by it. They'll watch whether the field is 48, 64, 80 or 96.

 

[tjgopher]

With all due respect, do you really think people (outside of Jacksonville and Tempe) are going to get all worked up over a Jacksonville win over Arizona State in the Round of 96? Not buyin' it.

If that happens in the Round of 64 or beyond, yes, I'll buy it as a "Cinderella" story.

It will be an "NCAA Tournament" game. That's what counts. The general public doesn't know enough to care if its the Round of 96 or 64.

Why was Valpo over Ole Miss so big? How about Bucknell over Kansas?? Or, Vermont over Syracuse? Was it because it was Round of 64? Really?? Because, prior to 1985 there was no such round. Does that devalue the Bryce Drew shot?? Does it mean Tom Brennan would have missed out on his chance for an ESPN career? Of course not.

The Field of 96 will become generally accepted within a year or two. It is just how the world works.

 

[skoalvikings]

Pros:

1. More competitive tournament once the opening round is over.
2. Because MN will make it every year no matter what, and because it is obvious Minnesota isn't going to win a NCAA title with Tubby, Gopher fans don't have to fret about coaching rumors. Tubby, Majerus, Flip, some assistant from Creighton. . it doesn't matter who the coach is.
3. The regular season will become completely meaningless, therefore allowing many of us to drop our season tickets which will save hundreds of dollars. We can then dump this money into retirement accounts which will provide for a much more enjoyable retirement.
4. I can consider dropping cable during once baseball season ends because having BTN will be unnecessary. More family time, more money, less TV, everyone wins!

Cons:

1. The best two sports days of the year (Thurs. and Fri. of the opening tourney weekend) won't be nearly as fun.
2. There will be fewer and fewer good memories of big wins at the Barn because the regular season won't matter anymore.

 

[rrjackIII]

Potential Cons

2. I think tournament attendance will be negatively impacted big-time, especially for the Rounds of 96, 64 and (especially) Round of 32 games. Gotta' believe there's not too many people who'll be willing to travel to neutral sites to watch teams 33 to 96 square off. And how many neutral fans will be willing to commit to those mid-week games (Tuesday & Wednesday) of the 2nd week? I'll predict half empty arenas for those games. Even fans of the participating schools might "wait" to see if their team makes it to the Sweet 16 later in the week.

Wouldn't the Tuesday Wednesday games most likely be in week one 2 and 3 days after Selection Sunday - then followed by the current schedule round of 64. Thus no additional weeks to the Tournament if they did it this way. Other options are possible but I could easily see no additional weeks added to the 96 team tournament.

 

[SelectionSunday]

I can't argue with much of what you say here TJ. The one thing I would differ on is tournament attendance.

As someone one who attends NCAA Tournaments every year, I'd say this is where the tournament will suffer the most. I think first- (96), second- (64) and third-round (32) will be impacted greatly. IMO, we're going to see a lot more empty seats, at least until the tournament hits the Sweet 16. This early-week Tuesday-Wednesday thing is going be very problematic for attendance. I would bet the NCAA isn't going to offer single-game/session ticket packages for those games. You either buy tickets for all the games at the regional sites, or none at all.

The NCAA will have their multi gazillion dollar TV contract so they won't be all that concerned if the arenas are half empty or more for the first few rounds. Some of the sites even moreso are going to have the feel of a regular-season netural-site game, not a NCAA Tournament game.

 

[tjgopher]

I can't argue with much of what you say here TJ. The one thing I would differ on is tournament attendance.

As someone one who attends NCAA Tournaments every year, I'd say this is where the tournament will suffer the most. I think first- (96), second- (64) and third-round (32) will be impacted greatly. IMO, we're going to see a lot more empty seats, at least until the tournament hits the Sweet 16. This early-week Tuesday-Wednesday thing is going be very problematic for attendance. I would bet the NCAA isn't going to offer single-game/session ticket packages for those games. You either buy tickets for all the games at the regional sites, or none at all.

The NCAA will have their multi gazillion dollar TV contract so they won't be all that concerned if the arenas are half empty or more for the first few rounds. Some of the sites even moreso are going to have the feel of a regular-season netural-site game, not a NCAA Tournament game.

That is probably true, but attendance was already twindling some. I heard the Milwaukee attendance wasn't great. Gopher fans didn't travel that well even though it was driving distance, so that could well be.

The one thing I am puzzled by and you hit on it - was the idea of a 2nd week Tue/Wed schedule. I don't know why they wouldn't play the 16 "play-in" games on Tue/Wed of opening week and then move on as they've always done with a Field of 64 starting on Thursday. If I were a No. 1 seed in the tourney, I'm not sure I'd want a week or more off between my conference tourney and my first NCAA game. I bet they do a Tue/Wed first week setup. It would be Tue/Thu/Sat for half the field and Wed/Fri/Sun for the other half. Makes more sense to me.

Also, Jay Bilas was on ESPN this morning saying that he is hearing they will indeed do the Coach K idea of automatic berths for both reg and tourney champs.

 

[SelectionSunday]

"Wouldn't the Tuesday-Wednesday games most likely be in week one 2 and 3 days after Selection Sunday, then followed by the current schedule round of 64?"

Not according to what was mapped out yesterday. They indicated yesterday the "extra games" would be played Tuesday and Wednesday of the second week. It would look like this:

Week 1, Thursday: Round of 96 (16 games)
Week 1, Friday: Round of 96 (16 games)
Week 1, Saturday: Round of 64 (16 games)
Week 1, Sunday: Round of 64, (16 games)

Week 2, Tuesday: Round of 32 (8 games)
Week 2, Wednesday: Round of 32 (8 games)
Week 2, Thursday: Sweet 16 (4 games)
Week 2, Friday: Sweet 16 (4 games)
Week 2, Saturday: Elite 8 (2 games)
Week 2, Sunday: Elite 8 (2 games)

Week 3, Saturday & Monday: Final 4 & title game

I'm sure what the NCAA is working on now is how to handle the pre-determined sites. Where are they going to play the additional Tuesday-Wednesday games? Gotta' believe it will most likely be the regional sites like San Antonio? I would think they won't add any new hosts for those Tuesday-Wednesday games

 

[SelectionSunday]

I would be in favor of adopting Coach K's idea. Overall, I trust the integrity of the game and the people in it, so I don't think we'd see much (if any) tanking of games for the benefit of your conference. Plus, I think it would be kind of cool to have a "floating" number of at-larges every year. If adopted, there would be -- theoretically -- anywhere between 34 and 65 at-larges every year.

 

[tjgopher]

Week 1, Thursday: Round of 96 (32 games)
Week 1, Friday: Round of 96 (32 games)
Week 1, Saturday: Round of 64 (16 games)
Week 1, Sunday: Round of 64, (16 games)

I think those opening round nights would only be 16 games, not 32. The top 8 seeds in each region will get byes. So, I'm guessing it would look like this, right??:

Week 1 - Thursday: Round of 96 (16 games)
Week 1 - Friday: Round of 96 (16 games)
Week 1 - Saturday: Round of 64 (16 games)
Week 1 - Sunday: Round of 64 (16 games)

All the more reason I think it makes more sense to play those 8 games on Tuesday and 8 more on Wednesday on Week One so you get the Round of 64 on Thursday as you always have. It also loses the impact of "The Sweet 16." If you clinch a "Sweet 16" berth on Tuesday and play right way again on Thursday that is stupid. Let teams that get out of the first weekend relish in the "Sweet 16." Plus, a top seed would then play one game in what could be as many as 10-14 days (Syracuse for example which lost early in the Big East Tourney would play once in 13 days). I just don't see how it makes sense to lump a full week into Week Two at a regional site instead of Week One on opening round sites. Not to mention, if you do it that way, then the "podding" system is gone. If you keep the first three games together, then they can continue to put a team in the West Region, but play the pod at a venue anywhere. Does it make sense to have the two teams that would play in the round of 32 on site at the same venue for first round games, only to fly them back to campus for 1-2 days, fly them to a new venue, and play a game?? I think the guy talking yesterday was messed up. He had to mean Tue/Wed of Week One.

 

[howeda7]

Lots of hand-wringing, that's for sure.

I know the number 96 seems like a huge number, but this isn't that big of a deal. It is 16 additional games. That's it. Eight games on Tuesday, eight games on Wednesday. Then a very attractive field of 64 remains.

I'd be willing to bet that TV ratings don't drop. I bet attendance doesn't drop much, either. There will be more attractive matchups once the field hits the Round of 64. People will watch. People will attend.

And, yes, this stands to make mucho, mucho dinero. An additional two nights of primetime basketball will bring in some significant cash.

Why do you think regular season ratings will drop? Will you stop watching? Regular season ratings are about the die-hards anyway. I doubt a significant number of the die-hards quit watching now because the field has been expanded.

My prediction is by 2013 people will have forgotten all about how this is such a travesty.

Look, its college basketball. Its a national championship tournament. People are intrigued by it. They'll watch whether the field is 48, 64, 80 or 96.

I do think you're right on the tournament itself, in that most people will get used to it and still watch. I do think a signficant # of people on the fringe who currently fill out brackets and watch a few hours of games in the 1st/2nd round will drop off though. This doesn't matter as much if it moves to ESPN who will simply pass the bill to the cable/satellite providers.

I think you're wrong about the impact on the regular season. It will cause the regular season TV ratings to drop. It's not just the die-hards who watch regular season games. That may be who makes up the audience for ESPN's national games, but it's not who makes the the audience at the local level. The local fans follow thier teams. I'm not sure what the ratings are on the BTN, but the Gophers used to get huge ratings for thier week-end games that were over-the-air. Here in ACC country, a large % of games are still televised over-the-air even during the week. The local NBC regularly blows out prime-time even to show games that UVa is not in. I think the interest in those games takes a huge hit when the ACC's getting 9-10 teams in every year. Same in the Big 10.

As for attendence, it's anyone's guess. But I'm guessing there are more people who feel like Skoalvikings then you think. Especially if they continue to schedule garbage in the non-conference. Why pay hundreds for a season-ticket? Now that even the Big 10 games are largely meaningless, just scalp tickets to the Wisconsin, MSU and 1 or 2 other games you really care about. You'll still save in the end. Programs like Kentucky and UNC won't feel an impact in attendence. But schools like Minnesota will.

 

[rrjackIII]

"Wouldn't the Tuesday-Wednesday games most likely be in week one 2 and 3 days after Selection Sunday, then followed by the current schedule round of 64?"

No, they indicated yesterday the "extra games" would be played Tuesday and Wednesday of the second week. It would look like this:

Week 1, Thursday: Round of 96 (32 games)
Week 1, Friday: Round of 96 (32 games)
Week 1, Saturday: Round of 64 (16 games)
Week 1, Sunday: Round of 64, (16 games)

Week 2, Tuesday: Round of 32 (8 games)
Week 2, Wednesday: Round of 32 (8 games)
Week 2, Thursday: Sweet 16 (4 games)
Week 2, Friday: Sweet 16 (4 games)
Week 2, Saturday: Elite 8 (2 games)
Week 2, Sunday: Elite 8 (2 games)

Week 3, Saturday & Monday: Final 4 & title game

I'm sure what the NCAA is working on now is how to handle the pre-determined sites. Where are they going to play the additional Tuesday-Wednesday games? Gotta' believe it will most likely be the regional sites like San Antonio? I would think they won't add any new hosts for those Tuesday-Wednesday games

I don't like the looks of this schedule either - especially for the WEEK 2 games - would they be sold as part of a 3 GAME Package at regional site?

I think they should select 32 Regular Sites for WEEK ONE TUE-WED like the Dayton Play in site
and then have the Field of 64. Wierd JMO.

 

[howeda7]

I think those opening round nights would only be 8 games, not 32. The top 8 seeds in each region will get byes. So, I'm guessing it would look like this, right??:

Week 1 - Thursday: Round of 96 (8 games)
Week 1 - Friday: Round of 96 (8 games)
Week 1 - Saturday: Round of 64 (16 games)
Week 1 - Sunday: Round of 64 (16 games)

.

I don't follow your math or SS's on the opening round. You need to get from 96-64. That's 32 teams eliminated, so you need 32 games. 16 on each day. Not 32 and not 8.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Good catch TJ, I'll correct it.

 

[howeda7]

I don't like the looks of this schedule either - especially for the WEEK 2 games - would they be sold as part of a 3 GAME Package at regional site?

I think they should select 32 Regular Sites for WEEK ONE TUE-WED like the Dayton Play in site
and then have the Field of 64. Wierd JMO.

If they want to prevent ruining the attendence and give some additional meaning to the seeds, they could play the first round games at home sites of the higher seeds. Then you play the 64/32 rounds at predetermined sites just like you do now. I doubt that will happen though, and it doesn't solve the issue of cramming them all into a Saturday/Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday window.

 

[tjgopher]

I don't follow your math or SS's on the opening round. You need to get from 96-64. That's 32 teams eliminated, so you need 32 games. 16 on each day. Not 32 and not 8.

You're right. 32 games total, 16 games each night. Top 8 in each region get byes.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Thanks Howeda, that just hit me as well. Basically it means 16 games each of the first four days of the tourney.

 

[Gopherholefan]

SS and TJ are both half right. SS is playing the whole first round in each day when in fact it will only be 16 games each day. SS is eliminating 96 teams in the first weekend.
DAY 1 - 16 games
DAY 2 - 16 games
SECOND ROUND
DAY 3 - 16 games
DAY 4 - 16 games
There are 8 games in each region both rounds. Since only half the games are on each day, that gives you 16 games each day.

 

[tjgopher]

I think you're wrong about the impact on the regular season. It will cause the regular season TV ratings to drop. It's not just the die-hards who watch regular season games. That may be who makes up the audience for ESPN's national games, but it's not who makes the the audience at the local level. The local fans follow thier teams.

Exactly. And, no one is going to love the Gophers less because of NCAA tourney expansion. That will have zero impact on a local fan's passion for his/her team and it might even increase the passion as you know you've got a shot at an NCAA berth. I don't know about you, but I know personally I've always gotten into my team more when they were in playoff/NCAA contention. Expansion includes MORE fans in that category. They won't ignore it.

And, I don't think anyone is going to cancel their season tickets because the field was expanded to 96. If the Gophers are good, people will come if they expand it to include all 347 DI schools. Most people enjoy the game. They enjoy watching Tubby Smith coach against Tom Izzo. They enjoy anticipating a Rodney Williams dunk or a Blake Hoffarber 3-pt shot. They enjoy the pep band playing the Rouser. They like the Barn. They are Gopher fans. No one is going to say, "well, they've gone to 96, no use going to games." No one. The games are for entertainment. If it was all about cherry-picking games and canceling season tickets, that could have been done with a Field of 64, too. Any fan could do that last year, the year before, the year before. But, in general, they don't. They love the Gophers. They love the idea of having season tickets. They enjoy the games. A Field of 96 won't lessen that.

Way too much hand-wringing. This will be a non-factor in 2-3 years.

 

[SelectionSunday]

I, too, would prefer they play the first games on the Tuesday/Wednesday right after Selection Sunday and definitely would be in favor of having the first round at home sites like the women's tournament does for its first two rounds. Having a host team would in all likelihood take care of any attendance problems.

Theoretically, the #9 through #12 seeds in each region (totaling 16 teams) would get first crack at hosting a doubleheader pending arena availability, with the 32 winners at the 16 sites moving on to the pre-determined sites like Chicago will be next year. Presto, we'd be at the normal Round of 64 starting on Thursday/Friday.

 

[Roland Brooks]

96

There are no pros!

 

[tjgopher]

One more thing to add on this regarding the hand-wringing.

There was similar hand-wringing when MLB announced plans for a Wild Card and reformatting divisions. Many purists said it would ruin the regular season, water down the playoffs, drive down attendance and kill revenue. In fact, just the opposite happened. There were more pennant races. The playoffs added a round and it became more exciting to many. Revenues went up, attendance has never been better. I'm not saying there aren't legit reasons to not like the Wild Card, etc. Not saying it was even great. But, this idea that it was going to ruin the regular season or force people to quit watching, or dampen someone's passion for their local team, etc. is misguided, IMO. The game survived the changes, and you could argue is thriving after the changes.

Same with a lot changes. Designated hitter. Shot clock. Three-point line. College football overtime. NFL division re-alignment. All of these were MAJOR changes and many were against the change. I understand if you don't like some of them. But, you know what? The games survived because at the end of the day, people LOVE the games. Same here. The NCAA Tournament will be as popular as ever. If you like college hoops, you'll watch. It is that simple. Ask yourself this question. Will you quit watching because of an expanded field? Will you cancel season tickets? Will you like the Gophers any less? I would guess no, no, and no.

Embrace it. It is happening. You'll be happier this way In three years you'll ask yourself what was all the fuss about?

 

[Pewterschmidt]

In almost every MLB season, the Wild Card teams have won 90+ games. In baseball, you're a darn good team if you win 90+.

I fail to see how letting in a 16-15 team that won neither their regular season or conf tournament title into the NCAA tournament is a good thing.