What are your thoughts on the NCAA expanding the BB tournament to 96 teams?

[Poiuyt]

I heard it's a "when," not an "if."

[joeybee12]

1. NOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO

64 is just fine...some teams might get left out from time to time, mistakes made, but honestly was there ever a REAL contender who was left out one year?

[jakefrep]

2. Dumbest idea ever!

I think it would make not only the regular season irrelevant, but the conference tournaments as well. If I were a conference commissioner, I would be fighting this tooth-and-nail.

[JonLP24]

5. I think one of the reasons I recall hearing

was that many teams that win the conference in the regular season in a mid-major conference but lose the title game or something and they get shut out. I think what the idea there is to fix that and include them as well as more mid-major teams so maybe they might not be so rejecting? With that said I think things are fine with the way they are and disagree with the proposal.

[JonLP24]

3. I think it's fine with the way things are

but I can sort of understand a move like that. There are around 350 teams so it's pretty much slightly less than 1/3 of all teams with the best of the best with 96 teams and you would get the "on the bubble" teams in there. However I'm perfectly fine with the way things are.

[PRETZEL]

4. No way,

That would mean some teams get byes in the first round,

I don't even like the play in game.

Pick 64.

It's bad enough the NIT has become meaningless. Expanding the NCAA, the NIT should just disband.

[Redbear]

6. It may work out well. You are basically just changng from one "play-in" game to 16 of them.

The top 32 teams (Seeds 1-8 in each region) won't play any extra games.

It will be much more likely to start Thursday with the 64 best teams instead of about the 45 best and a dozen or more with RPIS between 70 and 180.

So, you will get much more exciting early matchups:

Current first game for no. 1s:

Kansas v. Lehigh
Kentucky v. E. Tenn. St.
Syracuse v. Vermont
Duke v. Ark -Pine Bluff

Possible first games under a 96 team tourney:

Kansas v. UNC
Kentucky v. UConn
Syracuse v. Memphis
Duke v. Seton Hall

[TZ]

14. More exciting first round matchups?

Uh I don't think so. ALL of those games would be blowouts. Just because two schools have "big names" doesn't mean its going to be a good game! Geezue when you have UNC losing to Marland by 15 and UConn lost by what 25 to St. Johns, thats indicators that neither belong anywhere NEAR the tournament.
They SHOULD NOT expand!

[JonLP24]

15. Personally I would rather see Duke vs Seton Hall

than vs Arkansas-Pine Bluff in terms of excitement level. If you want to drag out selected regular season results my ASU Devils who didn't make the tournament beat Pine Bluff by 30 points.

Same with the other match-ups.

Otherwise I agree they should not expand.

[Redbear]

18. Yeah, I would much rather see UNC get pounded by Kansas

than watch the Jayhawks have to play a team with a 152 RPI who played two games this year against teams with an RPI above 139.

[Renew Deal]

7. Why not just expand it to 192?

Or even High School?

[Shapton]

8. I think NCAA basketball is jealous that the football championships are more screwed up

Just like in football, the fans don't matter, what's best for the game doesn't matter, only the almighty dollar matters. March Madness is the best three weeks in sports. Expanding to 96 teams will mess with that mojo.

[Awsi Dooger]

9. Same thing would happen in football

It's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to a playoff in that sport. Start at 8, there would be a short sample outcry of a team left out, then suddenly we're at 12 or 16. The regular season would be increasingly blase, fighting over which 3 loss team is on the bubble. I remember when college basketball was 32 teams, then 48 when I was in college. The NFL had 8 playoff teams in the early '70s, and only a handful prior to the merger. I'm not a baseball fan but that sport comes closest to getting it right, very little margin for error if you don't win the division.

[JonLP24]

11. The reasons you describe is why I oppose this expansion

I think Jay Bilas said it best, "If you can't make the tournament, you're not championship caliber. This is a championship event."

However I do support a playoff with similar ranking system with first 4 or 8 teams. I would oppose expansion from that like I do now.

[MadBadger]

10. Regular Season would be just about pointless

Teams like UConn and UNC would be in the tournament. They surely didnt dont deserve to be in it. Not to mention, its not like these schools dont get to participate in the "playoffs" the GMAC bowl in Football is like the NIT, or CBI in Basketball.

[Redbear]

13. The regular season already is "pointless." It only exists to determine

NCAA seeding. That won't change.

I don't see how we can say UConn or Cincinnati don't belong in the tourney, but Wofford, Arkansas Pine Bluff and Lehigh do.

[MadBadger]

17. Of course I can. Those teams won their conference tournies

They wouldnt be in the tournament unless they did.

[Redbear]

20. Winning a conference tournament in a conference where the best team

has an RPI of 140 does not make you an NCAA championship caliber team.

[Liberal_Dog]

12. If It Ain't Broke, Then Don't Fix It

I don't see any reason to change the Tournament.

[El Supremo]

16. Toon >>

[LisaM]

19. I like it how it is. But the conference tourneys seem to be screwing things up.

They do negate the regualar season in some cases.

[madinmaryland]

21. Bud Selig is the commissioner for the NCAA, also?

Dumb idea.

[bluedigger]

22. Who do they think they are?

The NHL?

[Iggo]

23. They should contract it to 4.

[KamaAina]

24. Never mind mine. What are the NIT's thoughts?

Doubtless they revolve around Slippery Rock State and its 115 RPI cutting down the nets at the Garden. :scared:

[Redbear]

25. The NIT is now owned by the NCAA.

Under the expansion to 96 idea, the NIT would cease to exist.