NCAA expands to 96 teams?

[lance99]

Good? Bad?http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/bl...rn=ncaab,216950

[ZachTheZip]

It means that every single BCS team with a winning record will get into the tournament, which gives those conferences more money. This can only hurt mid-majors.

[lance99]

It means that every single BCS team with a winning record will get into the tournament, which gives those conferences more money. This can only hurt mid-majors.

I think it can go both ways. It will mean that the NIT means nothing, however it could also mean that teams on the bubble could get in. Hower, this is a really bad idea.

[ZachTheZip]

I think the NIT goes away with this expansion. There's no need for it anymore. I thought the whole point of the NCAA taking over the NIT was to eventually merge it with the NCAA tournament.

[skip-zip]

I think it could possibly cheapen the first round games a little bit.But...Any system that gives Akron a better chance to get in, and an opportunity to knock off a big team, is good news to me.

[Zip Watcher]

My first reaction is that I don't like this. I think there's something good about having those secondary tournaments .. young teams can continue to play .. and fans get to see some home games, even if it's not the Big Dance.The only way I like the 96 teams is if the NCAA has the balls to SEED the automatic qualifiers up in the 64. The additional 32 teams should all be AT-LARGE teams. A MEAC or OVC champ shouldn't be forced to win 8 games just because they're in a small conference. It's unlikely they win 1 or 2 anyways.I think those extra 32 should all be at-large. Make these extra schools that didn't win their conference tournaments win 2 games to earn their way into the 64. Give the automatic qualifiers a reward for getting in that way. B) B) Go Zips!

[skip-zip]

My first reaction is that I don't like this. I think there's something good about having those secondary tournaments .. young teams can continue to play .. and fans get to see some home games, even if it's not the Big Dance.The only way I like the 96 teams is if the NCAA has the balls to SEED the automatic qualifiers up in the 64. The additional 32 teams should all be AT-LARGE teams. A MEAC or OVC champ shouldn't be forced to win 8 games just because they're in a small conference. It's unlikely they win 1 or 2 anyways.I think those extra 32 should all be at-large. Make these extra schools that didn't win their conference tournaments win 2 games to earn their way into the 64. Give the automatic qualifiers a reward for getting in that way. B) B) Go Zips!

I love that idea, and I think that would be a great (and appropriate) benefit to the lower-conference champs....who actually WON something.But, I'm trying to ponder the possibility of them looking at the total field of teams any differently than they do now. If that were proposed, you know that when some "known" program, such as the 8th place team in some BCS conference with a 17-15 record, discovers that Southwest (enter state) Riverfront State University will be seeded higher than they are, they'll still complain and probably get it changed.

[xu9697]

Forget the ridiculousness of college football for a moment (where 1.6% of the teams can make the "playoffs")NBA= 16 of 32 make playoffs= 50%NFL= 12 of 32= 38%NHL= 16 of 30=53%MLB= 8 of 32=25%NCAA Division 1 b-ballCurrently 64 of 347=18%Future 96 of 347= 28%So, college basketball adding 32 teams still leaves it similar to baseball, less than the other major sports.Hopefully they do it "the right way"...we will have to see.

[Z.I.P.]

My first reaction is that I don't like this. I think there's something good about having those secondary tournaments .. young teams can continue to play .. and fans get to see some home games, even if it's not the Big Dance.The only way I like the 96 teams is if the NCAA has the balls to SEED the automatic qualifiers up in the 64. The additional 32 teams should all be AT-LARGE teams. A MEAC or OVC champ shouldn't be forced to win 8 games just because they're in a small conference. It's unlikely they win 1 or 2 anyways.I think those extra 32 should all be at-large. Make these extra schools that didn't win their conference tournaments win 2 games to earn their way into the 64. Give the automatic qualifiers a reward for getting in that way. B) B) Go Zips!

That seems to defeat the purpose of enlarging the field. Why have more teams if they don't have a real chance to play the top contenders. That "play-in" week (or whatever) would just be a "NIT" within the NCAA. That said, I love what is being talked about -- and it would re-ignite my interest in the NCAA BB tournament, which has waned in recent years -- simply because of the added TV exposure which is supposed to be part of the plan. The single reason I have lost interest is because of the poor broadcast capability of CBS. With just one network it is impossible to broadcast -- or more literally, it is impossible for viewers to see an entire game in the first 2-3 rounds of the event. And frankly, by the end of that the NCAA loses even more interest with just the "usual suspects" remaining to play one another. With ESPN involved, with their four networks, it should be possible to broadcast every first-round game in its entirety. And THAT would make a world of difference.

[xu9697]

My first reaction is that I don't like this. I think there's something good about having those secondary tournaments .. young teams can continue to play .. and fans get to see some home games, even if it's not the Big Dance.The only way I like the 96 teams is if the NCAA has the balls to SEED the automatic qualifiers up in the 64. The additional 32 teams should all be AT-LARGE teams. A MEAC or OVC champ shouldn't be forced to win 8 games just because they're in a small conference. It's unlikely they win 1 or 2 anyways.I think those extra 32 should all be at-large. Make these extra schools that didn't win their conference tournaments win 2 games to earn their way into the 64. Give the automatic qualifiers a reward for getting in that way. B) B) Go Zips!

That seems to defeat the purpose of enlarging the field. Why have more teams if they don't have a real chance to play the top contenders. That "play-in" week (or whatever) would just be a "NIT" within the NCAA. That said, I love what is being talked about -- and it would re-ignite my interest in the NCAA BB tournament, which has waned in recent years -- simply because of the added TV exposure which is supposed to be part of the plan. The single reason I have lost interest is because of the poor broadcast capability of CBS. With just one network it is impossible to broadcast -- or more literally, it is impossible for viewers to see an entire game in the first 2-3 rounds of the event. And frankly, by the end of that the NCAA loses even more interest with just the "usual suspects" remaining to play one another. With ESPN involved, with their four networks, it should be possible to broadcast every first-round game in its entirety. And THAT would make a world of difference.

MAYBE we will get that lucky. My bet is we will get one game, and have to pay for a special package to get the remaining games.

[jhbengals07]

Forget the ridiculousness of college football for a moment (where 1.6% of the teams can make the "playoffs")NBA= 16 of 32 make playoffs= 50%NFL= 12 of 32= 38%NHL= 16 of 30=53%MLB= 8 of 32=25%NCAA Division 1 b-ballCurrently 64 of 347=18%Future 96 of 347= 28%So, college basketball adding 32 teams still leaves it similar to baseball, less than the other major sports.Hopefully they do it "the right way"...we will have to see.

This is a good point, however unlike all the rest, every team has a chance to get in. If you when your conference tournament you are in! So technically every team makes the tournament. Just because they're not in the "64" or "65" in the bracket doesn't mean they didn't have a chance to be. No matter how bad you are, if you win your conference tournament you have a chance to win it all. No other sport can say that.Other comments: I think the NCAA should make a football playoff before it messes with the greatest tournament in all of sports that is March Madness. However, I'm all for more teams, cause it gives Akron a better chance to make the tourney and get recognition.

[GP1]

There was a really good segment on this today on Game Day. Everyone was against expanding the tournament to 96. Some said everyone should play the same number of games so 128 would be reasonable.I like it the way it is. It's a national championship tournament, not a let's make everyone feel good tournament. Want to create more energy in college basketball? Go back to every team has to win their league tournament to get into the Big Dance. Make the conference tournaments mean something again for the bigger conferences. I'm not sure why the constant growing of everything is always the answer to a perceived problem.

[Valpo Zip]

There was a really good segment on this today on Game Day. Everyone was against expanding the tournament to 96. Some said everyone should play the same number of games so 128 would be reasonable.I like it the way it is. It's a national championship tournament, not a let's make everyone feel good tournament. Want to create more energy in college basketball? Go back to every team has to win their league tournament to get into the Big Dance. Make the conference tournaments mean something again for the bigger conferences. I'm not sure why the constant growing of everything is always the answer to a perceived problem.

This will totally kill the regular season and shrink the basketball season to one month (the month of march).If you have the opportunity to play more games that are selling out with great fan interest, why not?

[RootforRoo44]

I'm all for making it 96 teams...it means the Zips dont have to roll the dice every march to get in. Winning the MAC tournament should not be the only way to get in. BTW, the regular season will still matter as much as anything. Now we fight for seeding all year.

[Class of 82]

Expansion would ruin one of the best events going in college sports.And forget about this being good for mid-majors, who would almost certainly be guaranteed relegation to the bottom 32 unless they've had an OOC season for the ages. When the big conferences start offering you something with one hand, you can bet that their other hand is holding the shank that's gonna disembowel you. That's just how those guys roll. They are not our friends. Nor will they ever be.