More March Madness - 128 teams?

[justinevans]

INDIANAPOLIS -- In a perfect world, college basketball coaches would nearly double the size of the 65-team NCAA men's tournament field. Realistically, they'd accept a smaller victory. Motivated in part by George Mason's remarkable Final Four run last season, coaches will urge the NCAA to expand its most lucrative championship event during the men's and women's basketball committee meetings in Orlando, Fla., this week.

"They'd love to see the tournament double to 128," said Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches. "It's based on several things. First, there are a lot of good teams worthy of making the NCAA field, and second, the size of 64 or 65 has been in place for a number of years."

Potential models range from minor adjustments to major changes.

When Haney met with NCAA officials last month, he proposed the 128-team field in part because postseason bids may help coaches keep their jobs.

At this year's Final Four, though, Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim said he supported expansion on a smaller scale. Boeheim and others suggested adding three to seven teams, a move they claimed would allow as many as four opening-round games to be played in Dayton, Ohio, instead of the one now played between the two lowest-seeded teams in the field.

Some believe such a schedule would create a more realistic tournament environment since first-round sites also play four games on the first day.

But changes don't appear imminent.

In March, NCAA president Myles Brand said he didn't see much support to expand the field and vice president for men's basketball Greg Shaheen reiterated that point Friday.

"Many, many people believe the size of the championship is just right," Shaheen said. "A lot of people think there's enough recognition of teams that did well and there's a logical and timely conclusion to the season."

Shaheen said this week's discussions, which end Thursday, will mark the first time expansion has been on the agenda in several years. The reason?

After a four-year legal battle with the National Invitation Tournament, the NCAA agreed to buy the tournament for $56.5 million last August.

Expansion also faces additional hurdles.

If the NCAA opted for a 128-team field, the number of first-round sites would double and an extra week of play would likely be added. Plus, Shaheen said the NCAA would have to debate how best to provide maximum television coverage.

Shaheen said changes would also have to be made in conjunction with the women's tournament.

"There is no one model that is obvious here, and that's something we need to contemplate," he said. "The other issue is how the women's tournament would be similarly impacted here and they need to coincide."

The coaches, however, contend there are many reasons to expand. Among their arguments:

--The number of Division I teams has increased significantly since the last major expansion more than two decades ago. The field went from 48 to 64 teams in 1985, then added a 65th team to the field in 2001 when the number of automatic bids went from 30 to 31.

--George Mason, which was one of the last at-large teams to make the field this year, proved parity in college basketball is real. The combination of prominent programs losing underclassmen at faster rates and scholarship reductions have helped mid-major schools become more competitive. The coaches believe they deserved to be rewarded accordingly.

--Now that the NCAA controls both postseason tournaments, coaches think it's time to include some of the bubble teams that annually complain when they are left out.

Could it happen?

"I don't think the idea of doubling the field is going to happen right now because there are too many complications to do that," Haney said. "But I think the committee will seriously consider what the number will be. ... I think if it happens, it will have to happen soon because of the logistical issues."

[justinevans]

fuck it, the more the better? just 128 teams won't fit on 1 sheet of paper, fuck beans lol.

[preppyak]

well, a little bigger and every team makes it...then why even bother playing the regular season?

65 is perfect (well, 64, but I can accept the play-in game). If they make it bigger, it will be terrible basketball (has anyone actually watched the NIT, because it's the equivalent of combining their fields).

More importantly, I'll be the first one to start the boycott March Madness if they expand it to something stupid like this...

[justinevans]

well, a little bigger and every team makes it...then why even bother playing the regular season?

65 is perfect (well, 64, but I can accept the play-in game). If they make it bigger, it will be terrible basketball (has anyone actually watched the NIT, because it's the equivalent of combining their fields).

More importantly, I'll be the first one to start the boycott March Madness if they expand it to something stupid like this...

I could handle 70. 4 play-in games.

[xbrokendownx]

presonally, i think this is stupid. what the hell would they do, go to 8 regions? it makes the regular season pretty much meaningless.

[fromwithin]

its not going to happen.

[Broken Parachute]

I like it how it is now.

[Drew Beringer]

It reminds me of the playoff bracket in BASEketball.

[LeftWideOpen]

why not just combine all 3 divisions and get rid of the regular season. you win, you play on ...until theres just one undefeated team at the end of the century.

this is just a dumb fucking idea by coaches who want to protect their ass.

[marrost]

I could handle 70. 4 play-in games.70 almost makes more sense than 65.

Wouldn't it be 71, though?

[preppyak]

It reminds me of the playoff bracket in BASEketball. hahah

70 almost makes more sense than 65.

Wouldn't it be 71, though?

Actually, with 4 regions, if their was a play-in game for each of them, it would be 68 (4 regions, 17 teams).

I could handle that, but it's 3 more games that aren't going to be high quality that just showcase teams that are going to get thrashed by a #1 seed.

I mean, if they want to make it that many teams, why not just do it NBA Lottery style, and the #1 seeded team gets like 250 chances, #2 like 240, etc, and pick from a giant tumbler to get your brackets...you might end up with the #1 and 2 in the first round, etc. It'd be just as entertaining and it would still render the regular season pointless, which is what they seem to be trying to do

Edit: Better yet, why not just have the NIT winner play the NCAA tourney winner, and the teams get to pick which tourney they enter for their chance to make it to that game.

My point is, there are a million ways it could be done, but when it's single handedly the most compelling multi-week tournament in sports in the US, why the hell would you change it to somethign that will likely fail?

[hockey0001]

128 teams would be way too many. As has been pointed out the regular season would be pointless, 68 teams would be fine, but thats as high as it should go

[LeftWideOpen]

My point is, there are a million ways it could be done, but when it's single handedly the most compelling multi-week tournament in sports in the US, why the hell would you change it to somethign that will likely fail?

i don't think the NCAA is seriously considering this ...it's just the coaches, who improve job standing by being able to include another NCAA berth in their resume.

[itsjdiggity]

It reminds me of the playoff bracket in BASEketball.

haha

[Broken Parachute]

haha
hahaha who's that in your sig? Is that Collison?

[LeftWideOpen]

128 teams would be way too many. As has been pointed out the regular season would be pointless, 68 teams would be fine, but thats as high as it should go

i'd actually support a reduction to about 48 teams, with the winners of mid majors having to win a "play-in" game of sorts against one another. The mid major teams would be cut in half and all the NCAA games would become more meaningful.

Plus it also rewards the top 4 seeds in each region by giving them a 1st round bye. The regular season would become even more important ...which I support.

I'm completely content with the way the tournament is now though ..this is just my personal belief of what the best system would be.

[ActorInThisPlay]

128 is completely ridiculous. It wouldn't be March Madness anymore, it would be more like March/April Madness.

[hockey0001]

i'd actually support a reduction to about 48 teams, with the winners of mid majors having to win a "play-in" game of sorts against one another. The mid major teams would be cut in half and all the NCAA games would become more meaningful.

Plus it also rewards the top 4 seeds in each region by giving them a 1st round bye. The regular season would become even more important ...which I support.

I'm completely content with the way the tournament is now though ..this is just my personal belief of what the best system would be.

id support that, but it will never happen. Theres no way that coaches and conferences would agree to a reduction of teams.

[preppyak]

i'd actually support a reduction to about 48 teams, with the winners of mid majors having to win a "play-in" game of sorts against one another. The mid major teams would be cut in half and all the NCAA games would become more meaningful.

Plus it also rewards the top 4 seeds in each region by giving them a 1st round bye. The regular season would become even more important ...which I support.

I'm completely content with the way the tournament is now though ..this is just my personal belief of what the best system would be.
I do like that...how many of the automatic bids are from small/mid-major conferences...because that actually sounds logical
id support that, but it will never happen. Theres no way that coaches and conferences would agree to a reduction of teams.
Then again...this is true.

[LeftWideOpen]

I do like that...how many of the automatic bids are from small/mid-major conferences...because that actually sounds logical

Then again...this is true.

There are 31 automatic bids from conferences. What I would do (and this might remind some of the BCS) is have 7 conference winners be safe from a "play-in game of sorts" (top 7 leagues in RPI) and the other 24 would play for 12 guaranteed spots.

That would make 19 automatic bids and 29 at large spots, which could go to any team. Losing a play-in game for instance, doesnt eliminate you. It just gives you a guaranteed spot. If a team from the MVC wins 28 games but loses it's play-in game to the Mountain West champ would still make it because the 29 at large spots would go to, arguably of course, the best 29 at large teams. Seeding would remain the same as it does now, with the top 4 teams in each region getting a bye while 5 plays 12, 6 plays 11, 7 plays 10 and 8 plays 9, just like it is now.

I know it's an off-the-wall idea, but I think it would make the best event in sports even more entertaining.

[justinevans]

70 almost makes more sense than 65.

Wouldn't it be 71, though?

well actually it'd be 68...60 teams plus 4 play in games, correct?

[NetNerdsRevenge]

dont the conference playoffs already kinda serve as an expansion of "march madness"?

dumb idea.

[preppyak]

There are 31 automatic bids from conferences. What I would do (and this might remind some of the BCS) is have 7 conference winners be safe from a "play-in game of sorts" (top 7 leagues in RPI) and the other 24 would play for 12 guaranteed spots.

That would make 19 automatic bids and 29 at large spots, which could go to any team. Losing a play-in game for instance, doesnt eliminate you. It just gives you a guaranteed spot. If a team from the MVC wins 28 games but loses it's play-in game to the Mountain West champ would still make it because the 29 at large spots would go to, arguably of course, the best 29 at large teams. Seeding would remain the same as it does now, with the top 4 teams in each region getting a bye while 5 plays 12, 6 plays 11, 7 plays 10 and 8 plays 9, just like it is now.

I know it's an off-the-wall idea, but I think it would make the best event in sports even more entertaining.
Haha, sounds a bit complicated, and but I kind of like the quirkiness of it. If you ranked conferences by RPI, it would work probably.

Basically, ESPN would love the idea because Bracketology would get twice as complex, thus giving them even more stuff to talk about.

dont the conference playoffs already kinda serve as an expansion of "march madness"?

dumb idea. Well, ESPN's main concern's for making money by sports, after football, is college basketball. Once January ends...that's all they really press until it ends. So, the conference tourney's, multiple games each night, etc are all a result of them not covering the NHL anymore, and not really caring about the NBA until Playoff time.

I'd support more teams if it comes in the wake of Dick Vitale retiring from announcing...that would be the only way

well actually it'd be 68...60 teams plus 4 play in games, correct? yep...that is the absolute furthest I would support it being extended...it's boycott time when the 69th team shows up

[LeftWideOpen]

dont the conference playoffs already kinda serve as an expansion of "march madness"?

dumb idea.

yeah, thats how i feel about the conference tournaments. march madness really starts in the 1st week of the month ...not the middle of the month when the NCAA's start up.

[sweethypocrisy]

Haha, sounds a bit complicated, and but I kind of like the quirkiness of it. If you ranked conferences by RPI, it would work probably.

Basically, ESPN would love the idea because Bracketology would get twice as complex, thus giving them even more stuff to talk about.

Well, ESPN's main concern's for making money by sports, after football, is college basketball. Once January ends...that's all they really press until it ends. So, the conference tourney's, multiple games each night, etc are all a result of them not covering the NHL anymore, and not really caring about the NBA until Playoff time.

I'd support more teams if it comes in the wake of Dick Vitale retiring from announcing...that would be the only way

yep...that is the absolute furthest I would support it being extended...it's boycott time when the 69th team shows up
hahahahahah, i love you.

[bigmike]

well, a little bigger and every team makes it...then why even bother playing the regular season?

65 is perfect (well, 64, but I can accept the play-in game). If they make it bigger, it will be terrible basketball (has anyone actually watched the NIT, because it's the equivalent of combining their fields).

More importantly, I'll be the first one to start the boycott March Madness if they expand it to something stupid like this...
I agree with this.

except it should be 64; no play in games.

[justinevans]

I agree with this.

except it should be 64; no play in games.

yeah that could work too. There are always going to be people bitching.

They should try to develop some form of tiebreaker system

[bigmike]

yeah that could work too. There are always going to be people bitching.

They should try to develop some form of tiebreaker system
I hate the play in games because it's two mid-major schools that are both like 18-12 or something ridiculous. No mid-major teams that have that bad of record should be rewarded with a tournament birth.

and if there are play in games, they should not count as "ncaa tournament wins" because, well, they're not.

[Goodbye Forever]

Anyone read DJ Gallo's column today?

The idea to expand the NCAA Tournament from 64 to 128 teams is terrible, but I'm not at all surprised it is receiving heavy support from a lot of coaches. I know if I were a mediocre college coach and couldn't get my team into the NCAA Tournament, I'd vote to have the field expanded, too. But if this does happen, I know I'm really going to be looking forward to the NIT Tournament, which will feature the 129th through 168th greatest teams in the land. It will be ratings gold. Players dribbling off their feet. People tripping and falling over each other. Airball after airball after airball. Basically, the WNBA but with some dunking.

Good times.

[bigmike]

Anyone read DJ Gallo's column today?



Good times.
haha, that is excellent. and just the way I see it as well.

[justinevans]

I hate the play in games because it's two mid-major schools that are both like 18-12 or something ridiculous. No mid-major teams that have that bad of record should be rewarded with a tournament birth.

and if there are play in games, they should not count as "ncaa tournament wins" because, well, they're not.

well they are only rewarded because they won their crappy conferences.

[preppyak]

I hate the play in games because it's two mid-major schools that are both like 18-12 or something ridiculous. No mid-major teams that have that bad of record should be rewarded with a tournament birth.

and if there are play in games, they should not count as "ncaa tournament wins" because, well, they're not.
There should be a rule like college football, where a team has to be over .500 to make the tourney.

[justinevans]

There should be a rule like college football, where a team has to be over .500 to make the tourney.

true, but that also takes away from the beauty of march madness with conference tournaments.

[preppyak]

true, but that also takes away from the beauty of march madness with conference tournaments.
true...it does make it more fun

But I just hate knowing that a team sucked from Novemeber til February, but all of the sudden gets hot, gets 4 of their 6 total wins in the conference tourney, and makes the NCAA's, only to get thrashed by a mediocre mid-major in a play in game, while a team like Hofstra, etc is left out of the tourney

[bigmike]

true, but that also takes away from the beauty of march madness with conference tournaments.
no. it's a disgrace. not beauty.
I was in no way loving the "cinderella" story of Oakland University here in Michigan winning the Horizon League Tourney to get into the NCAA Tournament Play-in game where I believe they got destroyed. It's disgusting. I don't care how "unfair" it is or not, a team like them that was like 12-18 should NOT get a chance to participate in a tournament featuring the best 64 teams in the country.

[preppyak]

no. it's a disgrace. not beauty.
I was in no way loving the "cinderella" story of Oakland University here in Michigan winning the Horizon League Tourney to get into the NCAA Tournament Play-in game where I believe they got destroyed. It's disgusting. I don't care how "unfair" it is or not, a team like them that was like 12-18 should NOT get a chance to participate in a tournament featuring the best 64 teams in the country.
I've always wondered what they would do if they just dismissed the winners of conference tourney's as automatic bids and took the legitmate top 64 teams...

It would never happen, but it'd be better games I do believe

[bigmike]

I've always wondered what they would do if they just dismissed the winners of conference tourney's as automatic bids and took the legitmate top 64 teams...

It would never happen, but it'd be better games I do believe
there would be few mid-major teams, i think. like, fewer than there are now.
also, i believe that they should give automatic bids to teams that win their regular season titles, not conference tourney titles.

[xbrokendownx]

also, i believe that they should give automatic bids to teams that win their regular season titles, not conference tourney titles.




bingo. thats what i was thinking too

[LeftWideOpen]

bingo. thats what i was thinking too

yep ...conference tournaments should only be used as a showcase for teams on the bubble. If you haven't hacked it for 30 or so games, you shouldn't be in the tournament because of the last 5.

[preppyak]

bingo. thats what i was thinking too
I'd take that idea too

[Chriz2z]

no. it's a disgrace. not beauty.
I was in no way loving the "cinderella" story of Oakland University here in Michigan winning the Horizon League Tourney to get into the NCAA Tournament Play-in game where I believe they got destroyed. It's disgusting. I don't care how "unfair" it is or not, a team like them that was like 12-18 should NOT get a chance to participate in a tournament featuring the best 64 teams in the country. Haha. I pretty much live on the campus of OU. I could literally walk there. They shouldn't have been in the tourney in the first place. No one around here really supports them at all. The tourney should not expand at all. At first I thought it would be a neat idea. But as I think about it more, it is already way to watered down. And George Mason was a once a decade "fluke". Oh and I think Oakland plays in the MidCon not Horizon (that is where Detroit-Mercy plays).

[bigmike]

Haha. I pretty much live on the campus of OU. I could literally walk there. They shouldn't have been in the tourney in the first place. No one around here really supports them at all. The tourney should not expand at all. At first I thought it would be a neat idea. But as I think about it more, it is already way to watered down. And George Mason was a once a decade "fluke". Oh and I think Oakland plays in the MidCon not Horizon (that is where Detroit-Mercy plays).
oh shit, i should have known that. I love getting the occasional UDM games on FSN every so often. the UDM coach has been there like 20 years or something and has been pretty successful, it's surprising he never jumped to a bigger program.

[livethesounds]

it would take half the day to fill out your bracket....and it would take up my entire work space just to look at the whole thing....
worst idea ever

[preppyak]

it would take half the day to fill out your bracket....and it would take up my entire work space just to look at the whole thing....
worst idea ever
yeah...it's bad enough I get picks terribly wrong for 64 teams, I can't comprehend how much worse I would be with 128

[bigmike]

yeah...it's bad enough I get picks terribly wrong for 64 teams, I can't comprehend how much worse I would be with 128
that would be insane.

[h0merg0mez]

I say maybe 4 play-in games at most. 128 is way too many; almost all power conference schools would make it every year.