64-96 the rumors continue

[akzips10]

I keep hearing many people discussing the move to 96 teams. I was just wondering what everyone had heard. I mean by no means can it hurt the mid majors, but from what Ive been hearing Im not sure if the MAC would benefit

I dont know if the expansion would help the zips us too much more either. Based on what I have seen and read, a lot of the analysts think they would be used to fill in the bubble bcs schools. I mean no invite to the NIT this year, theres 32 teams, and I think we all can agree its the more prestigious of the non-ncaa 64 tourney. If the 32 teams would be used to include mid-majors great, but if they just take 3 or 4 more teams from BCS conferences then whats the point. I mean a lot of what is pointed is rpi and strength of schedule. Its almost impossible to compete in those respects with big conferences because their schedules are fueled by in conference performance. If the field is moved to 96 how much of a joke is the invite to anything else...

[Blue & Gold]

I keep hearing many people discussing the move to 96 teams. I was just wondering what everyone had heard. I mean by no means can it hurt the mid majors, but from what Ive been hearing Im not sure if the MAC would benefit

I dont know if the expansion would help the zips us too much more either. Based on what I have seen and read, a lot of the analysts think they would be used to fill in the bubble bcs schools. I mean no invite to the NIT this year, theres 32 teams, and I think we all can agree its the more prestigious of the non-ncaa 64 tourney. If the 32 teams would be used to include mid-majors great, but if they just take 3 or 4 more teams from BCS conferences then whats the point. I mean a lot of what is pointed is rpi and strength of schedule. Its almost impossible to compete in those respects with big conferences because their schedules are fueled by in conference performance. If the field is moved to 96 how much of a joke is the invite to anything else...

What's up, man. You're new to ZipsNation. Cool to have you.

I'm pretty much dead-set against expanding the NCAA Tourney. It's great as-is. Why mess with perfection? The NIT's a decent tourney as well - they're actually getting quite a few of the games on tv.

IF they would include mid-majors with the expansion, then I'd be all for it. But, if history repeats itself, then it's going to simply be a way to get even more BCS schools in. As has been discussed before, the "analysts" will use any excuse @ their disposal: RPI, SOS, record, quality wins, bad losses, etc., etc.

The other two tourneys are fine too. As we saw last night, probably where we belong right now anyhow.

So, to answer your question, no, I hope they do not expand the Big Dance. It's big enough.

[Captain Kangaroo]

If you are a Zips fan, you are ecstatic if the field is expanded to 96 teams. That's 31 additional opportunities to get a bid.

There is no other argument.

Dambrot probably won't like it, because he'll need to change his line to: "The MAC is only a 2-bid league," but aside from that, nothing bad can become of a 96 team field if you are a Zips fan (they aren't going to take away our existing bid).

There is only something to gain.

[zippy5]

If you are a Zips fan, you are ecstatic if the field is expanded to 96 teams. That's 31 additional opportunities to get a bid.

There is no other argument.

Dambrot probably won't like it, because he'll need to change his line to: "The MAC is only a 2-bid league," but aside from that, nothing bad can become of a 96 team field if you are a Zips fan (they aren't going to take away our existing bid).

There is only something to gain.

True, but I think it's special to get into the top 64. I have a feeling the tourney will get pretty watered down, if you will, and the first round just won't have that exciting "tourney" feel. Just my two cents.

[zip37]

The MAC will still be only a 1 bid conference.

[Captain Kangaroo]

The MAC will still be only a 1 bid conference.

Thanks for checking in, Keith!

[RootforRoo44]

If you are a Zips fan, you are ecstatic if the field is expanded to 96 teams. That's 31 additional opportunities to get a bid.

There is no other argument.

Dambrot probably won't like it, because he'll need to change his line to: "The MAC is only a 2-bid league," but aside from that, nothing bad can become of a 96 team field if you are a Zips fan (they aren't going to take away our existing bid).

There is only something to gain.

EXACTLY. A true Zips fan cannot be against this because regardless of if we would have made it this year with it or not, (we wouldn't have) we still would have a better opportunity and how could anyone be against that?!

[Zip Watcher]

If you are a Zips fan, you are ecstatic if the field is expanded to 96 teams. That's 31 additional opportunities to get a bid.

There is no other argument.

Dambrot probably won't like it, because he'll need to change his line to: "The MAC is only a 2-bid league," but aside from that, nothing bad can become of a 96 team field if you are a Zips fan (they aren't going to take away our existing bid).

There is only something to gain.

EXACTLY. A true Zips fan cannot be against this because regardless of if we would have made it this year with it or not, (we wouldn't have) we still would have a better opportunity and how could anyone be against that?!

You and Zach's statements of absolutism get a little tiring for me, but I can see your argument.

I think I am a true Zips fan .. and I'm against it, in part because I'm a 2x BCS alumn. Fact is, way too many marginal BCS teams make the tournament already. I think the suggestion that adding 32 teams to the mix will help the smaller conference is way presumptuous. There's very little to suggest that it's similar to just merging the NIT to the NCAA.

When the NCAA goes 96 teams, are they going to take those autobids from the NIT and honor them? No way. Those bids are going to more and more marginal big conference schools. Can't State would likely have been in, but in a normal year (say Toledo a few years ago, or BGSU last year ..) those regular season autobids are going POOF in a grown tournament.

If they want to grow the tournament to 96 to give more opportunities, I think that's fine. But I think you need to make the play in games feed into the 7,8,9 & 10 games and be played by marginal BCS schools that didn't win their regular season or tourney titles. Make them earn it.

The biggest reason I'm against growing the 64/5 team field is that every team in the nation already has an opportunity to win the NCAA title. Simply win your conference tournament and keep winning 6 more times, and you can use the ladder and scissors. With the lone exception being the IVY League, all teams start fresh around 1 March and have the chance to be standing tall the first week in April.

What I think would be interesting would be to make the NCAA tournament field = 2 * the # of Conferences (that's 32 * 2 = 64). Mandate that every team have established tie breakers to declare a regular season champion. Every conference also has a post-season tournament (this is Championship Week) .. blow out the coverage of Championship Week. Every champion, regular and post-season, gets into the dance. When a single team sweeps both titles (like Butler for example), that opens up an at-large bid. This gives some weight and value to the regular season in all league, and gives each league an equal opportunity of multiple bids. Most of all .. every team in the Nation is on a level playing field regarding a chance to play for the national title.

The big schools will never allow this to happen .. but it's what I would do if I were King.

Just as in FB Bowl season, I don't believe you should be an NCAA National Champion if you're not the Champion of your league.

Go Zips!

B)

[Captain Kangaroo]

If you are a Zips fan, you are ecstatic if the field is expanded to 96 teams. That's 31 additional opportunities to get a bid.

There is no other argument.

Dambrot probably won't like it, because he'll need to change his line to: "The MAC is only a 2-bid league," but aside from that, nothing bad can become of a 96 team field if you are a Zips fan (they aren't going to take away our existing bid).

There is only something to gain.

+1

[g-mann17]

If you are a Zips fan, you are ecstatic if the field is expanded to 96 teams. That's 31 additional opportunities to get a bid.

There is no other argument.

Dambrot probably won't like it, because he'll need to change his line to: "The MAC is only a 2-bid league," but aside from that, nothing bad can become of a 96 team field if you are a Zips fan (they aren't going to take away our existing bid).

There is only something to gain.

96 means the Current 64 and the 32 NIT teams, nothing more, nothing less.

The problem actualy is in how they want to do it. Which is 4 8 team "play in" tournaments to fille the 16 seed. So now yeah the MAC has 2 bids, but they get seeded in a "play in" tournament.

The other solution was 32 teams get seeded and a bye, and the rest play in to fill that spot. So now a #10 has to play 6 games to get to the final four or 7 games to get to the final and #1 get's a huge breather.

The expansion is to limit the "cinderellas" it's not to help them.

Applying this to the KD era...We still only get to the dance once because the bids will likely be tournament winner and regular season champ.

[GP1]

Want to make college basketball more exciting? Want to make the conference tournaments more exciiting (let's face it, the major tournaments are meaningless)? Want to make the regulare season more exciting?

Step one...Go back to 32 teams. This makes the conference tournaments mean something.

Step two...At large bids must have a .500+ record in their conference.

I have no interest watching Kansas play whatever garbage team gets the 96th bid into the tournament. If you want to watch that, you have too much time on your hands.

[ZachTheZip]

Want to make college basketball more exciting? Want to make the conference tournaments more exciiting (let's face it, the major tournaments are meaningless)? Want to make the regulare season more exciting?

Step one...Go back to 32 teams. This makes the conference tournaments mean something.

Step two...At large bids must have a .500+ record in their conference.

I have no interest watching Kansas play whatever garbage team gets the 96th bid into the tournament. If you want to watch that, you have too much time on your hands.

Step 2 is good. Step 1 eliminates at-large bids almost completely.

Instead of going to 32, why not 48? If you enforce the winning conference record rule it wouldn't really change who gets in, but it eliminates some of the crappier at-large bids from the BCS conferences.

[GP1]

Instead of going to 32, why not 48?

I like good ideas. This is a good idea.

[UAZip0510]

You can never get rid of at-large bids...otherwise, what's the point of the regular season?

[Z.I.P.]

I like good ideas. This is a good idea.

Here's another. Rank the conference-winner automatic bids. Make the bottom 16 (of 31/32?) play off against each other in round 1. Then you get to add 8 at-large teams that would not otherwise be there. All the at-large teams are still better than any of the bottom-16-ranked automatics. This adds just 8 more teams, increases odds of upsets, and (hopefully) increases mid-major participation.

[xu9697]

ZipWatcher basically says a lot of what I feel about the tournament= regular season and conference tourney winners get in. Rest go to at-larges.

Danger in that is, would teams/schools POSSIBLY "throw" a game to get a 2nd team in. Butler lost to CSU last year, allowing 2 (not saying they threw it at all). This year they beat the hell out of Wright State. I don't think it is a BIG concern, but if year after year conferences get only 1 bid b/c team wins regular and conference tourney..then you might have some sentiments to "throw" a game for the benefit of the conference.

To make it a bit easier..I believe there are 32 Division 1 conferences= allow 2 teams from each conference (64 automatics), then 32 at-larges. Now, if team #2 did not win the conference or regular season tourney, they would have to have at least, say, 18 wins and an RPI less than 120. I know 18 is not that many, but we would not want to run into massive amounts of "KD scheduling" if we said 20 or 22 wins. If a conference's 2nd team does not meet those requirements, then a conference could get just one win.

Excluding all above (for 96) inmy ideal world:

76 teams. Eliminate the 16 v 16 play in game.

Top 36 go to seeds 1-9

Seeds 13 to 16 remain for the smaller schools/confernce champions

Seeds 10,11 and 12 are "play in" games for bubble teams (did not win their conferences designated auto bid)

[ejcool27]

Keep it they way it is....This is the best tournament for Mid majors......in a bigger tourney Ohio has no chance to beat Georgetown right off the bat.....in a smaller one you miss some of the best games like Texas/Wake Forest last night!

[RootforRoo44]

ZipWatcher basically says a lot of what I feel about the tournament= regular season and conference tourney winners get in. Rest go to at-larges.

Danger in that is, would teams/schools POSSIBLY "throw" a game to get a 2nd team in. Butler lost to CSU last year, allowing 2 (not saying they threw it at all). This year they beat the hell out of Wright State. I don't think it is a BIG concern, but if year after year conferences get only 1 bid b/c team wins regular and conference tourney..then you might have some sentiments to "throw" a game for the benefit of the conference.

To make it a bit easier..I believe there are 32 Division 1 conferences= allow 2 teams from each conference (64 automatics), then 32 at-larges. Now, if team #2 did not win the conference or regular season tourney, they would have to have at least, say, 18 wins and an RPI less than 120. I know 18 is not that many, but we would not want to run into massive amounts of "KD scheduling" if we said 20 or 22 wins. If a conference's 2nd team does not meet those requirements, then a conference could get just one win.

Excluding all above (for 96) inmy ideal world:

76 teams. Eliminate the 16 v 16 play in game.

Top 36 go to seeds 1-9

Seeds 13 to 16 remain for the smaller schools/confernce champions

Seeds 10,11 and 12 are "play in" games for bubble teams (did not win their conferences designated auto bid)

You are a genius....seriously that is a great setup.

[Zipmeister]

Lets cut the NCAA back to 8 teams and expand the NIT to 129. The teams tanked 128 and 129 will do a play-in game to see who gets to take on the top team.

[RACER]

there are 330 teams so if you take 96 you are taking the top 1/3 of the b-ball teams.i don't think that's watered down.

i think that would be a good thing.maybe if they had 96 teams akron would have better chance of making the big dance.with 64 teams we are one bid leauge.with 96 maybe we are.no would no until it happens.i just know right now only one mac team makes the big

dance.kaorn has nothing to lose by going with 96 teams.

[akzips10]

The line akron fans have no choice but to agree or recognize how the move to 96 can only help is questionable.

If this is the case you have to believe 2 things, 1. the tournament will not be watered down and 2. it provides for a better tournament set up. I for one believes it waters down the tournament and stand strong in the belief that the mac as of now would be a 1 bid league even in the 96 team set up. I mean there seems to be some better options out there including the current 64 team set up beside the 96, some of which that have been outlined in this topic. As far as the tournament as a whole I think the current schedule is great for fans and teams alike. The bid is something that is coveted and fought hard for and the tournament has produced the hard fought games and upsets that I believe everyone looks for. I want my tournament to provide a high level of basketball from the start, while providing an opportunity for teams who have earned a spot to make a run. As a true honest zips fan, with no mac regular season or tournament titles, we dont deserve to go.

[Captain Kangaroo]

As a true honest zips fan, with no mac regular season or tournament titles, we dont deserve to go.

What if we have a regular season championship, but lose to a 24-5 K.e.n.t. team in the MAC finals?

What if Zeke went 18ppg/13rpg and led us to a legit 24-5 record, where we actually beat California and Dayton during the regular season?

Just because we aren't NCAA tourney material today doesn't mean we need to resign ourselves to never being NCAA tourney material.

If we continue to schedule weakly, and lose to all our decent OOC opponents, it is a moot point. But I refuse to resign myself to that scenario.

[GP1]

Danger in that is, would teams/schools POSSIBLY "throw" a game to get a 2nd team in.

In a world of uncertainty, there is too much on the line for schools to throw a game.

[Captain Kangaroo]

Danger in that is, would teams/schools POSSIBLY "throw" a game to get a 2nd team in.

In a world of uncertainty, there is too much on the line for schools to throw a game.

Unless it is a Toledo football game.

[akzips10]

As a true honest zips fan, with no mac regular season or tournament titles, we dont deserve to go.

What if we have a regular season championship, but lose to a 24-5 K.e.n.t. team in the MAC finals?

What if Zeke went 18ppg/13rpg and led us to a legit 24-5 record, where we actually beat California and Dayton during the regular season?

Just because we aren't NCAA tourney material today doesn't mean we need to resign ourselves to never being NCAA tourney material.

If we continue to schedule weakly, and lose to all our decent OOC opponents, it is a moot point. But I refuse to resign myself to that scenario.

I wasnt proposing us as never being tourney worthy, simply explaining my position of being against the expansion because I dont think it helps us or the tourney and also adding.... we didnt win either so we didnt deserve it this year anyways... and there arent many recent examples of mac schools with no piece of a championship- reg or tourney- that deserved a bid. So I was trying to point out the fact of the expansion not being a good idea from a few different perspectives. Thats all, and I still think a zips team with wins over Cal and dayton regardless of indiv stats and no championship gets snubbed.