Comments on: 96-Team NCAA Tournament Capsule

By: MUST WAIT on Michigan Hoops | Detroit 4 Lyfe

MUST WAIT on Michigan Hoops | Detroit 4 Lyfe — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:22:45 +0000

[…] way Michigan is going right now a NIT berth ain’t even looking too good. As of February 3rd Rush the Court did not have Michigan in its hypothetical 96 team field, basically meaning that Michigan isn’t even in line for a […]

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:40:18 +0000

I hate hate hate this idea. it would make the ncaa tournament—-which is probably 20 teams too big as it is—–completely ridiculous and worthless.

it’s all about money and markets. god damn i hate corporations and how they ruin everything.

By: Troy

Troy — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:16:55 +0000

Seems that there are two issues at play. One is looking to reward regular season conference champions, the other is to expand the field. Seems like the ability to reward the regular season conference champion would only necessitate 10-12 additional spots each year, not 32. If you expand the field, it is as you point out, an advantage for the larger conferences, not just because of the number of teams that get in, but also their seeds. It means that the 32 teams with byes would largely be from the big conferences, with small schools left to pick each other off in the first round.

Best suggestion I’ve heard is add play-in games for 16 more bubble teams, who play-in and get seeded 10-13 in the tournament. Seeds 1-9 are the best teams from around the country, and seeds 14-16 are regular season and conference champs from the smaller conferences. I don’t think the NIT or CBI would be happy, but it is better than the full 96.

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:55:30 +0000

In reply to Jim.

Jim, if you really believe that tourney expansion is intended to help the mid-majors, then I’ve got some warm beachfront property in Montana I’d like to show ya. Our analysis was merely an extension of how the NCAA is currently configured for 65 teams. The next best 31 teams would be taken. The Committee has been quite clear about his over the years. Why would they change this now?

As for ticket sales, that’s a drop in the bucket. What moves this needle is tv ratings, and teams like NC State have far bigger fan followings than teams like St. Mary’s. The issue is television revenue, not ticket sales.

And we accounted for the NIT rule if they say that regular season champs must be included as well. You’d still end up with teams in the 80s that are pretty weak overall.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:48:55 +0000

Nonsense. The NIT, which is basically the next 32 teams, took more non BCS than BCS teams. If the tournament expanded, the majority of additional teams would NOT be from the BCS conferences. No way would they do this.

This isn’t like football bowl games where they take crap teams because they travel well. The tournament is already sold out so that isn’t needed to boost ticket sales. The expansion gives mid major teams a chance to get involved. If you look at the RPI right past the teams projected to go, the next 32 teams have about 19 non BCS teams and 13 BCS teams.

The idea, like that above, that NC State would go, is absurd. They might take a few teams that are barely below .500 in their league, but they aren’t going to take teams that have a .400 winning percentage in league. Just absurd analysis.

Jim

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:12:56 +0000

In reply to Adam. Adam, you might be mistaking conference-wide mediocrity for strength. There are no truly awful teams in the ACC this year, but there are no elite teams either. Duke is borderline, and after that, there's nobody else that can reasonably argue for even a protected seed.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:04:54 +0000

Dave — really? The ACC is awful this year, and yet have the best conference top to bottom in the NCAA? There’s a reason why 7 will get into the real tournament and all 12 would get into this 96 team debacle — it’s a great conference.

By: Dave Fortay

Dave Fortay — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:52:58 +0000

If they go to 96 teams they should have a rule against any team with a sub .500 conference record from getting in. Because I agree 100%, no way the ACC which is awful this year deserves all 12 teams to get in. They barely deserve 6 in the current field. Adding more mid majors wouldn’t be the worst thing, but 96 is too many.,

By: Howard

Howard — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:32:23 +0000

If they are going to do that–eliminate all conference tournaments(I know a pipe dream given the money generated) and allow all 360 some odd teams in the tourney. If done properly would only add another weekend. Ah-but then who would complain and how could college ADs and Pres. justify firing coahces. “Yes we were 2-24 but we made the tournament!”

By: G. Floyd

G. Floyd — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:42:21 +0000

Completely agree. As a NCSU fan there is no reason why NC State, Boston College, or Miami should have a shot at the NCAA Tournament this year. How does this make the NCAA Tournament an accomplishment?

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:41:04 +0000

I think it’s worth adding that even if the NCAA uses the regular season champion rule that the NIT now has in place, you might add another 6-12 teams to replace the bottom of this list. That would still mean that teams like Notre Dame, Washington and Arizona State would be at-large teams. Which is ridiculous given their resumes.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:01:30 +0000

I echo what JR said. What a joke this would be, all it does is reward mediocrity in the “everyone gets a trophy” age we live in. Sad.

By: The Hemogoblin

The Hemogoblin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:49:20 +0000

OH MY GOD.

This would absolutely ruin everything about the tournament for me. Like, to the point I wouldn’t watch college basketball ever again. I only have a limited amount of time to watch sports, and I would rather watch the NBA than watch a watered-down, neutered NCAA.

By: JR

JR — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:15:22 +0000

Excellent post. I appreciate the effort to show the absurdity of this. I think the other crucial point is that nearly every conference has a play in to the tournament already set up in the conference tournament (get your weight up, Ivy). So you could lose all your games, win 4-5 at the right time and get into the tournament.

The conference tournaments is effectively an extension of the tournament already. No need to mess with what it is now.

(Although I am sure this is what they said when they expanded from 32-64)

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:44:09 +0000

I hate the NCAA. This is unbelievable.