What a 96 team dance would have looked like this year

[DC Muskie]

7 A-10 teams and Arizona.

Catch the excitement!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the65/2010/03/what_could_have_been_a_96-team.html

[Ledgewood]

ugh. why even have a regular season then?

[Statman]

I'm giddy thinking about a Dayton/Sam Houston State match-up. Then, Sam Houston State can claim to own Dayton as well.

[Masterofreality]

I'm giddy thinking about a Dayton/Sam Houston State match-up. Then, Sam Houston State can claim to own Dayton as well.

That would have been the play-in game for number 96.

[pizza delivery]

They'd have to re arrange that scenario so the #1 seeds would be playing easier 2nd round games. If these games were played at home sites, it wouldn't be so bad, just tedious.

[DC Muskie]

If they want to expand, just get rid of conference tournaments.

I don't care where you play these games, that tournament is crap. As Ledgewood said, why play a regular season?

My only hope is that greed of money won't kill this beautiful thing.

[wkrq59]

And still there are last four in and first four out!!! Thus, bitching will continue. And the conferences will never permit elimination of conference tournment. Makes too much money for schools.:D

[xubrew]

one of the models they're looking at is to offer two automatic bids to each conference. one would be to teh first place finisher, and the other would be to the tournament champion. in addition, the conferences would have the option of excluding the first place team from the tournaments. in other words, lehigh would have won the automatic bid out of the patriot league for finishing first, and then sat out the patriot league tournament to avoid eliminating the second bid for the conference. in essence, the patriot league would end up with two #24 seeds instead of one #16 seed.

i've been against expansion in the biggest way, but this is a model that i can actually live with. most of what i thought would be watered down would be preserved.

-there would still be just 34 at-large bids, so all the teams that are currently on the bubble would still be on it. a few extra bids would still be open because teams like utep and utah state would not have needed at-large bids, but for the most part teams would have to perform at the same level during the regular season in order to be in a position to get one.
-the importance and excitement of the regular season is preserved. for some of the traditional one bid leagues it may actually gain importance.
-the excitement of the conference tournaments are preserved.
-the revenue sharing is in tact. one-bid conferences may get a smaller piece of the pie because they won't have a team left once the field is cut to 64, but this is offset by the fact that they get at least two teams into the openign round instead of one. that may actually add up to more money.
-most importantly, it preserves the nit, which the ncaa now owns, btw. they may not be too anxious to see it go away. of all the teams seeded 6th or better in this year's nit, only one or two would have made the dance with this particular 96 team model.

personally, i still like it the way that it is, and i don't think it will change, but if it does i wouldn't mind this model. however, 65 at-large bids is completely ridiculous. why even play a season if you're going to take 65 teams that fail to win some sort of conference championship?? think of the high stakes regular season games that would suddenly lose their meaning. the great thing about college basketball is that it gives you four months of intensity. having 65 at-larges may add one week of intensity on to the end of the season, but it would reduce the intensity during november, december, january, february and early march.

[dc_x]

The interesting thing in that bracket is that the 1-4 seeds get screwed as compared to the current format.

As a 1-seed, Syracuse would get the winner of North Carolina/South Carolina (instead of Vermont). Duke would get the winner of Seton Hall/Willam & Mary (instead of the play-in winner).

Those aren't overly difficult opening games for the #1 seeds, but opening with North Carolina or Seton Hall is certainly tougher than Vermont or Arkansas Pine-Bluff.

So you are rewarding the mediocre BCS teams at the expense of the elite teams.

[xubrew]

http://thebrushback.com/superbowl64.htm

[Denver Muskie]

The interesting thing in that bracket is that the 1-4 seeds get screwed as compared to the current format.

As a 1-seed, Syracuse would get the winner of North Carolina/South Carolina (instead of Vermont). Duke would get the winner of Seton Hall/Willam & Mary (instead of the play-in winner).

Those aren't overly difficult opening games for the #1 seeds, but opening with North Carolina or Seton Hall is certainly tougher than Vermont or Arkansas Pine-Bluff.

So you are rewarding the mediocre BCS teams at the expense of the elite teams.

I haven't made up my mind on expansion yet, but I have tried to come up with positives as a result of expansion.

I guess you're saying that North Carolina and South Carolina are better than Vermont and that Seton Hall and William & Mary are better than the play-in winner (which I agree with as of the date of the article). Doesn't this make it a better field and more challenging tournament if there's tougher games for the # 1 seeds right off the bat? I think Mississippi State, Virginia Tech, and Rhode Island are clearly better teams than the 15 and 16 seeds.

[muskienick]

For those proposing giving two auto bids to each Conference, where does one draw the line? Do leagues like the Northeastern, Ivy, Southland and the MEAC get two autos? If so, there will be a definite watering down of the NCAA Tourney by that type of expansion to 96. Would it not make more sense to assure that only the top 10 or 12 RPI Conferences be assured of 2 autos? Or what?

And what do you do in a situation where there is a 2- or 3-team tie for the regular season Championship (like Temple and XU this year)? Is head-to-head really fair when you consider that Xavier beat both teams that defeated Temple but Temple beat Xavier? I'd almost prefer a coin flip for that situation (unless one of the 2 tied teams won both games played against the other during the Conference schedule) with the loser of the flip being given the #1 seed in the Tourney and a double-bye into the semifinals (with all remaining 12 teams playing first round games). There would be six on-campus games in the first round, 3 games at the Tourney site in Round 2, 2 games in the semis, and the Championship.

With the regular-season champ sitting out the Conference Tourney, I'd also like to see each Conference be allowed (but not mandated) to arrange with another Conference to have their regular season Champions play a single game against one another in a deal that would have them play at the one league Champ's home arena one year and the other league Champ's home arena the next. (Obviously, such an arrangement must be for a minimum of two years.) If we continue to play the A-10 Tourney as we do now (with the first round played on Tuesday with the last three rounds on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday), the "Champions Game" could be played on Wednesday or Thursday. There are at least 3 relatively nearby Conferences (CAA, MVC, and CUSA) that are somewhat competitive with the A-10 and which might be interested in such an arrangement. After expenses, 25% of the profits (including TV) from such a game could go to each of the schools and each of the Conferences.

Hey, if Conference Tourneys are all about the $'s, why not create the opportunity for more bucks while giving the regular season Champ the opportunity to keep sharp in what otherwise would be at least a 10-day layoff?

[SixFig]

If there is expansion there must be two (2) hard and fast rules to maintain some semblance of parity.

1) The regular season and conference champions of EVERY league get in.

2) No team with a losing conference record (including conference tournament) can get in unless you win the conference tourney.

This ensures that Jackson State...at 17-1 in their conference...doesn't get shafted for one bad conference tournament. It also means that the Big East, for instance, can't get 12-13 teams in. These two rules would keep top conference teams motivated at the end of the year and make middle of the pack teams from the Big East fight for their lives to ensure that 10-8 regular season, thus clinching a winning conference record regardless of conference tourney result.

[XUglow]

I am solidly against expanding. No one from 65 to 96 will be in any danger of actually winning the tournament, so it is much ado about nothing.

The NIT isn't where people want to be (Oh.... forgot about AZ), but it is certainly OK as a second stage for teams that miss the dance. Just speaking locally, Jackson State got to play at Mississippi State last night, and that was a HUGE game for JSU. North Carolina is coming to MSU for the first time ever, and that is going to be a big event in Starkville on Saturday. Ole Miss and Memphis have a long history in basketball that John Calipari ruined, and now it looks as if they might get to play each other again. The NIT seems to do a good job of creating intriguing match-ups, and they are a lot of fun. I only wish UNC had gone to W&M rather than the other way around. Things would have been really rocking in Williamsburg last night.

[Cheesehead]

Gee, I thought the MVC (the media darling just 2 years ago) was so much better than the A-10? Yet, they get 3 teams in compared to 7 for the A-10.