96 teams?

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

Take it for what its worth but some no name site is reporting ESPN and NCAA sources have confirmed that the tourney will expand to 96 teams...

I'm not sold on this source at all yet. I guess we'll find out soon enough
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-march-madness-with-96-teams-done-deal-27742

[Xman95]

Yay!! Dayton is now assured of making at least twice every 5-7 years!

By the way, moving this to 96 teams is idiotic from a basketball perspective. As far as making money...well, the NCAA has few equals.

[ServiceUnavailable]

Yay!! Dayton is now assured of making at least twice every 5-7 years!


This would be great news for both Dayton and UC.

[NoDaker84]

This is a terrible move by the NCAA if these reports are true. I am so sick and tired of rewarding mediocrity. 6-6 college football teams receive bowl bids and now it looks like teams in major BSC conferences will be receiving NCAA Tourney bids with .500 and sub .500 conference records.

As it sits right now every team has a chance to make the NCAA by winning their conference tourney (minus the Ivy League and bottom feeders of conferences who really don't deserve the chance anyway) and adding more spots deminishes the importance of conference tournaments, which is the true start to March Madness. It's a special moment for Mid-Majors and even middle of the pack BSC conference teams (Georgia 2008) to win their conference tourneys, and earn the right to play in the NCAA. It also adds to the excitement and the "elite" level required to make it to the dance. I don't like the idea of handing out byes in a national tournament set up either. I dunno, maybe I'm just old school?!

[PattyMac1021]

This source does not seem reliable in the least.

[BiggieXU]

This would be awful

[_LH]

Take it for what its worth but some no name site is reporting ESPN and NCAA sources have confirmed that the tourney will expand to 96 teams...

I'm not sold on this source at all yet. I guess we'll find out soon enough
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-march-madness-with-96-teams-done-deal-27742

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooo!

[PMI]

This would really, really suck.

[coasterville95]

I agree, it would suck big time.

What they need to do is insist Ivy League run a tournament, and then make every conference tournament have to take and seed every team in thhe conference. Then every D1 team that is not independant has a play-in to the big dance, no matter how remote. Remember there are still plenty of at large slots to make up for if some big team gets slighted becuase some bottom feeder decided to play the games of their lives during the conference tournament. For example Fordham coming toegether for one week in March. (I know highly unlikely and unrealistic).

As for those independants , well thats the price for not joining a conference. Either that or we designate one at large for the "Top Independant Team"

Haven't clicked on that link yet, but I seem to recall the way they were going to get 96 is to essentially fold the NIT into the NCAA tournament. So it shouldn't effect how many teams get post season play, its just that some teams will get to hang NCAA banners that have no place hanging said banners.

[PattyMac1021]

I repeat:


This source does not seem reliable in the least.

I would be highly highly highly highly HIGHLY surprised if this report had any merit whatsoever. Who is this clown and what is this website? Have any of you ever heard of this place before? Please take a look at one of the other "top stories" on this website in the past 24 hours.

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/breaking-huge-underboob-saints-fan-has-a-face-27665

Definitely seems like a legitimate source of sporting news to me... Not. You guys are freaking out over nothing.

[Xavierblobforce400]

Dude... Patty is so right on this one. When I clicked the link, the main story was about some saints fans boobs.

[BandAid]

Dude... Patty is so right on this one. When I clicked the link, the main story was about some saints fans boobs.

Seems pretty legit to me...

[PMI]

I repeat:



I would be highly highly highly highly HIGHLY surprised if this report had any merit whatsoever. Who is this clown and what is this website? Have any of you ever heard of this place before? Please take a look at one of the other "top stories" on this website in the past 24 hours.

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/breaking-huge-underboob-saints-fan-has-a-face-27665

Definitely seems like a legitimate source of sporting news to me... Not. You guys are freaking out over nothing.

I agree for the most part but this isn't the first time I've heard these rumors and there have been ESPN guys who have talked about this possibility before, although it was just hypothetical. It's not like this is just coming out of nowhere but hopefully this site is full of shit and none of the talks have turned into such bad decisions in reality.

[BlueX]

Hopefully it is not true. However if it is, you just know ESPN, the destroyer of sports in America was the main player behind it.

[xsteve1]

Hopefully this ends up in the trash the same way the Pitt to the Big ten rumor went. Leave it at 65!!

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

I repeat:



I would be highly highly highly highly HIGHLY surprised if this report had any merit whatsoever. Who is this clown and what is this website? Have any of you ever heard of this place before? Please take a look at one of the other "top stories" on this website in the past 24 hours.

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/breaking-huge-underboob-saints-fan-has-a-face-27665

Definitely seems like a legitimate source of sporting news to me... Not. You guys are freaking out over nothing.

That was my disclaimer from the beginning....

I saw it off of CNati's twitter message. I'm not sold on it either, but when you think about it from a money/business point of view, it makes sense

[xnatic03]

I don't mind an expansion to 68 teams, with play ins for all 16 seeds....That still won't stop the Boeheim-like bitching from teams on the bubble. However, 96 teams is too much. It will turn into the NBA where no one cares about the games until the postseason.

[xubrew]

the ncaa is looking into expanding the field, but i don't think it is a done deal.

the model they will most likely use if they go to 96 teams is what they use for men's soccer, which has 48 teams. not all the teams will be seeded. the only ones who will are those who are receiving byes into the round of 64 (ie teams seeded 1 through 8). all of the unseeded teams would play each other at the campus sites in the round of 96, and none of the teams would get preferential treatment based on how deserving they are. they would all be looked at as equals since they're all unseeded. schools would have to put in a bid before the season ended if they wanted to host first round games, and it would be at the ncaa's descretion to decide who is best able to host the events. also, teams would be matched based on geography and not on seeding.

i think this is a bad idea for several reasons. it dilutes the regular season. it makes it harder for many non-bcs teams to make the round of 64 because it forces them to play an extra game in order to get there. also, for a team like butler they would rarely ever get to host a game because their facilities don't match those that the unseeded bcs teams would have. i'd rather see it go back to 64 than up to 68, but i could live with it at 68. that way only eight teams would be forced to play an extra game in order to make the field of 64. that's better than forcing 64 teams to do it.

[STL_XUfan]

i'd rather see it go back to 64 than up to 68, but i could live with it at 68. that way only eight teams would be forced to play an extra game in order to make the field of 64. that's better than forcing 64 teams to do it.


Make those 8 play-in for a 13 or 14 seed. No team should have to play-in the tournament after winning their conference tournament.

[xubrew]

Make those 8 play-in for a 13 or 14 seed. No team should have to play-in the tournament after winning their conference tournament.

i kind of agree, but the ncaa's response would be that they're not playing their way into the tournament because there is no play-in game. it's an opening round game.

although it's technically an opening round game, it's practically a play-in game. having one of them is bad enough. having four of them is worse, but i guess i can live with that. having 32 of them, imho, would ruin a lot of what i love about college basketball.

[waggy]

My feeling is that IF they were to actually do this, is that the top 8 seeds (32 teams) would get byes on the first weekend. The other 64 teams would play down to 32 the first weekend - 8 games on each thurs, fri, sat & sun. The second weekend would essentially begin the existing format where there is 16 games on both thurs & friday, and down to the S16 on sat & sun.

[SixFig]

Make no mistake, the tourney will expand in coming years. The new Great West conference that formed this year will create the need for one more auto bid. The NCAA will not yield any at-large bids, so say hello to at least 66, probably 68 teams in the tourney starting soon.

[Muskie1000]

i kind of agree, but the ncaa's response would be that they're not playing their way into the tournament because there is no play-in game. it's an opening round game.

although it's technically an opening round game, it's practically a play-in game. having one of them is bad enough. having four of them is worse, but i guess i can live with that. having 32 of them, imho, would ruin a lot of what i love about college basketball.

Well Dayton could really be excited and maybe be a bigger part of the NCAA tournament every year - by hosting these opening round games.

[xubrew]

Well Dayton could really be excited and maybe be a bigger part of the NCAA tournament every year - by hosting these opening round games.

most likely they'll be played on campus sites. even if they just expand to 68 they may begin to play those four games on campus sites rather than in dayton.

keep in mind that the men's basketball tournament is the only ncaa team sport that does not take place on a team's home campus site. in just about everything else the opening rounds are on campus with one of the teams getting a definite home field/court advantage, and in most sports all the events are on campus all the way up until the very end.

[Xman95]

They could easily expand to 68 teams with four play-in games. Play two games Tuesday, two on Wednesday. Tuesday winners get a Thursday match-up, Wed. winners play again Friday. They could play all four at one arena (UD), play at four different locations, or to a 2-and-2.

It's probably easiest and best way to expand the field without making it absolutely ridiculous.

[xubrew]

They could easily expand to 68 teams with four play-in games. Play two games Tuesday, two on Wednesday. Tuesday winners get a Thursday match-up, Wed. winners play again Friday. They could play all four at one arena (UD), play at four different locations, or to a 2-and-2.

It's probably easiest and best way to expand the field without making it absolutely ridiculous.

i'd actually rather see those games on campus sites with the better seeded team hosting. why send eight teams to dayton when four teams can play at home and not travel at all, and the other four can play at what will hopefully be a closer location?? they could also play them all on tuesday and get the winners to their first round sites more quickly.

[Xman95]

i'd actually rather see those games on campus sites with the better seeded team hosting. why send eight teams to dayton when four teams can play at home and not travel at all, and the other four can play at what will hopefully be a closer location?? they could also play them all on tuesday and get the winners to their first round sites more quickly.

First off, why do they send anyone to Dayton? It seems more like a punishment than a reward.


As for the campus site idea, I'm not sure I like it. I understand the idea of trying to keep the top seeds near their schools, but when you're probably talking about #16 vs. #17 trying to advance to the main part of the tourney, I don't think either should automatically be given such a huge advantage. Now, if it happens to play out that a play-in site is home to one of the teams in the game, so be it. I mean, Dayton can use the help!

[SixFig]

If Dayton goes 0-29 in a season but wins the A-10 tourney, they have to play in Dayton, right?

I thought no team can play in a tournament venue in which they play 4 or more games.

Guess the NCAA didn't ever think Dayton would suck so much.

[drudy23]

Absolute travesty if true.

Why tinker with the best thing going in sports...any sport.

[xubrew]

If Dayton goes 0-29 in a season but wins the A-10 tourney, they have to play in Dayton, right?


as it stands now, no. if they're hosting they're exempt from the play-in game so to speak. however, that rule could change for the opening round, especially if the opening round is expanded.


As for the campus site idea, I'm not sure I like it. I understand the idea of trying to keep the top seeds near their schools, but when you're probably talking about #16 vs. #17 trying to advance to the main part of the tourney, I don't think either should automatically be given such a huge advantage. Now, if it happens to play out that a play-in site is home to one of the teams in the game, so be it. I mean, Dayton can use the help!

it's not so much my idea as it is my hypothesis on what will happen. the play-in game probably costs the ncaa money when you consider the fact that both teams in it get a full ncaa tournament share, and they have to travel to dayton, and then the winner has to travel to their first round site while the loser has to travel back home. the ncaa pays for all that. if the games are on campus, half the teams are not traveling, and the other half that are most likely aren't traveling as far. i think playing it on campus is more financially driven than anything else. if you look at all the non-revenue sports and how they work their tournaments, they're all played on campus sites. the ncaa basketball tournament is defintiely a revenue generating event, but this is a non-revenue generating portion of it, and i'm guessing that it will be treated as such. i have no sources for that. it's just my own guess as to how it will work.

...and i have no problem with giving the better teams an advantage. generally the gap between a #15 seed and a #16 seed is larger than say the gap between a #3 and a #4. the #15s are generally better if you look at the entire scope of all 347 teams. i'm fine with giving them an advantage and an opportunity to play at home.

[waggy]

In college basketball, home court advantage is probably the single biggest factor in deciding which team wins and which team loses. I don't really see the need to even play the games if they are going to play them on campus.

[xubrew]

In college basketball, home court advantage is probably the single biggest factor in deciding which team wins and which team loses. I don't really see the need to even play the games if they are going to play them on campus.

well, the ncaa looks at things a little differently. they're not driven solely on what is and isn't considered fair, but what makes financial sense.

and i don't think that it is grossly unfair to give an advantage to a team that had a better season. yes, home court advantage plays a big role, but a team has thirty games to give themselves an opportunity to earn that advantage.

the more the field expands, the more likely i think it is that they'll move the openign round games to campus site. men's basketball is the only team sport that doesn't play any of its tournament games on campus sites. since the ncaa is ultimately in charge here, that's pretty significant in terms of guessing how they'll structure this thing if it is expanded.

[waggy]

This is a debate that's way premature, so I hope it doesn't continue much longer, but the added 32 games could easily be played at four neutral sites over 4 days, and logistically that would be more streamlined and more easily coordinated than games played on 32 campuses. I know which I would prefer if I was running things.

[Masterofreality]

96 Teams?

I thought that was a song by Question Mark and the Mysterians



Oh, never mind.

[The_Mack_Pack]

There would be 16 play-in games, who even watches the one play-in game now? If this happens the A-10 will have no excuse not to get at least 5 teams in every year.

[xubrew]

This is a debate that's way premature, so I hope it doesn't continue much longer, but the added 32 games could easily be played at four neutral sites over 4 days, and logistically that would be more streamlined and more easily coordinated than games played on 32 campuses. I know which I would prefer if I was running things.

if the field expands that much, i SERIOUSLY doubt they're going to play those games at neutral sites, nor do i think they'll play it over the span of four days. the 7th or 8th place team from the big ten playing the 2nd or 3rd place team from the mac on a thursday afternoon isn't going to generate a lot of interest at a neutral site. it would sell very few tickets and score very low ratings.

i think i've said this before, but chances are they'll use the model they use for men's soccer. only the top 32 teams (seeds 1-8) will receive seeds. everyone else will have to play their way into the round of 64 as an unseeded team, and those games would take place on campus sites. since none of the teams are seeded, it won't really matter who the most deserving team is. they'll just be matched up based on geography. this creates regional games of interest on campus sites. it also cuts down on travel. it also enables all the games to be played on saturday and sunday on network television, which will generate higher ratings than any opening round game at a neutral site being played on a thursday afternoon ever could.

i'm not in favor of this. i don't want it to expand at all. if anything i would prefer it go back to 64 teams. however, i know how the ncaa thinks, and this is most likely what they'll do if it expands to 96. it maximizes the profits, maximizes the interest, and minizes the expenses. the fact that it isn't entirely fair may be brought up, but it won't be the deciding factor.

[xubrew]

There would be 16 play-in games, who even watches the one play-in game now? If this happens the A-10 will have no excuse not to get at least 5 teams in every year.

96 teams means 32 teams get byes and 64 will have to play their way in. that's 32 play-in games.

[XUOHTX]

Horrible Idea. The tourney is perfect as is.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

I don't agree with expanding, but apparently a lot of coaches are now coming out in favor of it. Mike Krzydlkjhtgouiehgioashdigfohdsk;lgjhaoihgioshgiosd fhgiosdhgojkerohgoiasdnhgiohski, Billy Donovan, Leonard Hamilton of FSU, Dino Gaudio, Bruce Weber, Gary Williams, Pat Knight - just to name a few - have all stated they want the tourney expanded to 96 teams.



From a revenue/business/marketing perspective, it makes sense. From a fan perspective, it doesn't.

[Masterofreality]

But what becomes of the NIT?

Oh, the horror!!!!

[xubrew]

you mean the coaches who have ncaa tournament insentives written into their contract and never like to play on the road are in favor of expanding the tournament?? shocking!!

it may total more revenue, but it will have to be shared among more teams. the pieces of the pie will be smaller for many of the non-major conferences. it hurts far more teams than it will help.

[waggy]

if the field expands that much, i SERIOUSLY doubt they're going to play those games at neutral sites, nor do i think they'll play it over the span of four days. the 7th or 8th place team from the big ten playing the 2nd or 3rd place team from the mac on a thursday afternoon isn't going to generate a lot of interest at a neutral site. it would sell very few tickets and score very low ratings.

Four sites... East, Midwest, Southeast & West. Two games in the early session - two games in the evening session.


But what becomes of the NIT?

MSG could become the permanent home of the final, but more likely it permanently becomes only a preseason tourney.


...it hurts far more teams than it will help.

Yeah, 64 vs. 32

[Masterofreality]

MSG could become the permanent home of the final, but more likely it permanently becomes only a preseason tourney.


But then, what becomes of the CBI?

Oh, the horrible horror!!!!!!!

[joebba]

In college basketball, home court advantage is probably the single biggest factor in deciding which team wins and which team loses. I don't really see the need to even play the games if they are going to play them on campus.

Someone had a post recently about home court advantage and that the median hoecourt advantage was at about 60% (if i remember correctly). It is a big advantage.

I am not too keen on expanding beyond 64 teams. If we went to 96 team there would be many marginal teams getting into the tournament (meaning not really very good teams) and you would have the bottom teams of the big conferences crying they deserve to get in over so and so. if we went to 128 teams the 129th team would bitch about why they should have been chosen. Sixty-four has worked very well thus far. If you look at most bracket games they do not even use the play in game as one you can earn points on. What does that tell you?

[waggy]

I also don't think it should be expanded, but it's not that big a deal. Essentially it's incorporating the NIT teams into the real tourney. This would make these games much more valuable to networks than the NIT currently is. It also allows for the creation of basically two "first weekends", and we all know how the first weekend is one of best things in all of sports. In that respect I think it would be great, though I don't know if I could afford two weekends in Nevada.

[xubrew]

Four sites... East, Midwest, Southeast & West. Two games in the early session - two games in the evening session.


i understand what you're saying and why you want it that way. i'm not saying that it doesn't make sense to do it that way. i'm just saying that if the field does expand i don't think it will be done that way.

32campus sites will sell more tickets and generate more interest than four neutral sites ever could. the first/second rounds and what not can draw enough interest to fill a large arena or a dome that is typically bigger than where most teams play. the opening round would not generate that kind of interest. not even close. playing it on campus sites also cuts down on travel since half the teams don't have to travel anywhere, and with 32 locations instead of four, there is a good chance most teams that do have to travel won't have to travel as far. the ncaa pays for all that. they make their money back with a 64 team field, but that wouldn't in the case of the opening round. they probably lose money traveling just two teams to the play in game. they're not going to want to travel 64.

if the tournament expands to 96, it won't be the same. the opening round games won't generate nearly the interest as the round of 64 does. they would sell fewer tickets and draw weaker ratings, especially if they go to a format where games are being played in the afternoon during the work week. no network that is sane is going to shell out millions of dollars for the exlcusive rights to broadcast minnesota against wright state in the city of cleveland on thursday at noon. no one will buy tickets to that either. that is the kind of match-ups you'd see in the opening round if it goes to 96 and i seriously doubt they'd want to put a game like that at a neutral site. wright state @ dayton, or wisconsin milwaukee @ minnesota (or games similiar to that) would do much better.

[waggy]

This wouldn't even be a discussion if some network isn't willing to shell out many many millions. And when you look at it from a media broadcasting perspective, it would seem to me that consolidated neutral sites would be the easier production than 32 different ones. I don't know. But one thing I do know is that there very little viewership comparison for college soccer and mens college basketball.

[xubrew]

espn, who will most likely make a serious run at this, would not have any issues getting to 32 different sites over the course of two or three days. just look at how many games they have on their plethora of networks in a typical weekend. it wouldn't make a difference at all as far as having easier production.


But one thing I do know is that there very little viewership comparison for college soccer and mens college basketball.

and that has absolutely nothing to do with how the tournament is set up. it has to do with the fact that ncaa soccer just isn't popular. that's one of the models they're looking at though and it appears to be the best in terms of selling the most tickets, generating the most interest, and keeping travel time and expenses the lowest.

honestly, i think this is kind of a bluff. i do expect the tournament to expand, but not to 96. i still think it is only going to go to 68. the ncaa can opt out of their contract with cbs at the end of this year, and likely will. the reason they'll do this is because they know that if cbs doesn't resign them to a bigger contract, someone else will. saying that they're looking into expanding the field and changing the format is more or less their way of saying "well, we may leave cbs and change this around." they've looked at expanding the field several times before and haven't done it. i don't think they'll do it this time either when it's all said and done, at least not that drastically.....but i guess it's not impossible.

if cbs is smart, they may want to look into offering to purchase the rights to the preseason nit at a higher price than what espn pays for it in addition to upping the anti to keep the ncaa tournament. since the ncaa now owns both of them, they could really use it to market the beginning of the season, which could definitely use some more marketing. i guess that is a whole other discussion, though.

[xu05usmc]

I sort read through these a few thoughts:

1. The Ivy league shouldn't add a conference tournament, they are the only conference where the regular season means much, and more conferences should do away with the conference tourney. Besides if you look at a team that makes it the final four they've essentially missed 4 weeks of class. Are student-athletes or just money makers for the NCAA?

2. 64 teams is enough. The play-in game is the real travesty of the tournament. To be honest I wouldn't mind cutting the field to only include 31 teams (all the conference champs) for the aforementioned reason of how much class is missed by those kids during the tournament.

[BandAid]

I sort read through these a few thoughts:

1. The Ivy league shouldn't add a conference tournament, they are the only conference where the regular season means much, and more conferences should do away with the conference tourney. Besides if you look at a team that makes it the final four they've essentially missed 4 weeks of class. Are student-athletes or just money makers for the NCAA?
2. 64 teams is enough. The play-in game is the real travesty of the tournament. To be honest I wouldn't mind cutting the field to only include 31 teams (all the conference champs) for the aforementioned reason of how much class is missed by those kids during the tournament.

Is this a trick question?

[pizza delivery]

if the field expands that much, i SERIOUSLY doubt they're going to play those games at neutral sites, nor do i think they'll play it over the span of four days. the 7th or 8th place team from the big ten playing the 2nd or 3rd place team from the mac on a thursday afternoon isn't going to generate a lot of interest at a neutral site. it would sell very few tickets and score very low ratings.

i think i've said this before, but chances are they'll use the model they use for men's soccer. only the top 32 teams (seeds 1-8) will receive seeds. everyone else will have to play their way into the round of 64 as an unseeded team, and those games would take place on campus sites. since none of the teams are seeded, it won't really matter who the most deserving team is. they'll just be matched up based on geography. this creates regional games of interest on campus sites. it also cuts down on travel. it also enables all the games to be played on saturday and sunday on network television, which will generate higher ratings than any opening round game at a neutral site being played on a thursday afternoon ever could.

i'm not in favor of this. i don't want it to expand at all. if anything i would prefer it go back to 64 teams. however, i know how the ncaa thinks, and this is most likely what they'll do if it expands to 96. it maximizes the profits, maximizes the interest, and minizes the expenses. the fact that it isn't entirely fair may be brought up, but it won't be the deciding factor.


This idea is worse than the BCS and will create a shitstorm! I pray it never happens!

[X-band '01]

The PAC 10 should go back to no tournament. They have a perfect round robin. But I understand why they have it $$$$$.


The ACC used to have a 16-game round robin schedule, but their conference tournament was THE event for several fans. The funny thing about UNC fans was that many of them got ACC Tournament tickets back in the day by becoming boosters of bottom feeders like Clemson and other schools that had a so-so following back then.

[waggy]

Increasing the size of the field is supposed to be a topic on ESPN gameday saturday, with thoughts from various coaches. I'm starting to get the impression this is going to happen no matter how the fans feel about it. It's about dollars. And if does happen, you can bet your sweet ass that people have crunched the numbers, and the expansion favors the BCS conferences. The bullshit is about to get so deep you might want pass on the waders and go with full haz-mat.

[BlueX]

CBS will likely pair up with TNT if this garbage happens to compete with ESPN's bid. It's amazing how much money ESPN brings in.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/02/03/will-espn-outbid-cbs-others-for-rights-to-ncaa-basketball-tournament/40972

Here's a look at what the bubble would be.
http://rushthecourt.net/2010/02/03/96-team-ncaa-tournament-capsule/#more-17061

[rhyno2110]

I'm not sure who else is watching college gameday on espn, but if you are, you know what i'm about to say.

Jay Bilas made a great point that if the ncaa expands the tourny, it won't add championship caliber teams. It will only add teams that might make it past the first round and then get knocked out in the second round.

I think the tournament is good enough as it is. I wouldn't mind adding 3 more bids so that there will be 4 play-in games but 96 teams is over the board.

It's all about the money for the ncaa.

[Titanxman04]

I'm not sure who else is watching college gameday on espn, but if you are, you know what i'm about to say.

Jay Bilas made a great point that if the ncaa expands the tourny, it won't add championship caliber teams. It will only add teams that might make it past the first round and then get knocked out in the second round.

I think the tournament is good enough as it is. I wouldn't mind adding 3 more bids so that there will be 4 play-in games but 96 teams is over the board.

It's all about the money for the ncaa.

It's absolutely about money. I doubt athletic departments would be against it though. We learned in Sport Finance at X that the first two round NCAA games are worth about $800k for the winning school and their conference. Throw in another round, and you bet that schools would love that.

However, the meaning of the tournament would be a joke. For schools like Central Conn. State, and smaller schools, it'd mean more pride. But for A-10 schools and similar conferences that aren't considered small... It'd be awful.

Extra play in games would be great. But the reason this tournament is meaningful is because I feel 64 is just the right amount of teams. Anything more is too drawn out.