NCAA to expand from 65 to 68 teams

[zippyman23]

http://www.ohio.com/sports/91824649.html

Very pleased to see that the 96-team idea seems to been thrown out the window. 68-teams is a good compromise.

[Dave in Green]

So the "opening round" (or preliminary) expands from 1 game between the 2 lowest-seeded teams to 4 games between the 8 lowest-seeded teams.

That means that while 3 additional teams get into the tournament, the 61st-, 62nd-, and 63rd-seeded teams now have a preliminary round game they didn't have to play before, like the 64th-seeded team.

I suppose that evens things out in that the 16th-seeded teams in each region are now on more equal footing as they prepare to do battle against the #1 seeds in each of the 4 regions.

Who knows, once every 25 years or so that might even have an effect on the MAC.

[lance99]

Can somebody tell me why adding 3 more play in games is going to make it better?

[MDZip]

I don't like it - I don't see how it improves anything and just is going to sneak a few more low level BCS teams in. Joe Lunardi'sfirst four that didn't make it (even though he wasn't exactly right in who did) were Arizona State, Mississippi State , Illinois and Florida. So three out of those four make it and get a little bit higher seed. That means that effectively all of the current 16 and 15 seeds will end up in play in games. With Ohio beiung a 14 this year that puts the MAC dangerously close to being in that tier. Don't see this as being good for the Zips. While I'm glad they didn't go to 96, this is just the first step in that direction.

[g-mann17]

You miss the point of the expansion.

14 years, 10.8 Billions dollars. Additional coverage on TBS, TNT, etc. (NCAA got what they wanted from expansion, coverage and dollar bills)

[skip-zip]

My initial reaction is that I do not like it.

Why? Because, one of the reasons I love the 1st round of the tournament is that never-ending desire to see a #16 team beat a #1, or at least make them very nervous. Now, since all of those #16 teams will have to travel to their conference tournament, play in every game, AND travel for a Tuesday night game, they will all be absolutely exhausted by Thursday when they arrive at the 1st round tournament location.

Yes, as someone already stated, it does indeed create the possibility that a MAC team could slip into one of these 3 extra at-large spots. But, as of late, it has still been rare that someone in our league is good enough to get that, and did not win the MAC tournament.

[Captain Kangaroo]

I don't like it - I don't see how it improves anything and just is going to sneak a few more low level BCS teams in. Joe Lunardi'sfirst four that didn't make it (even though he wasn't exactly right in who did) were Arizona State, Mississippi State , Illinois and Florida. So three out of those four make it and get a little bit higher seed. That means that effectively all of the current 16 and 15 seeds will end up in play in games. With Ohio beiung a 14 this year that puts the MAC dangerously close to being in that tier. Don't see this as being good for the Zips. While I'm glad they didn't go to 96, this is just the first step in that direction.

You are correct. It essentially creates "The Fetid Four" -- Four teams who need to win a bogus NCAA Tourney play-in game just to get the right to participate in the "real" tourney. Three mid-majors that used to play on Thursday now get to play on Tuesday.

Booo....

[RowdyZip]

An absolutely horrid abysmal awful horrendous stupid decision. It is truly all about $$. The MAC rep will be forced to a 15-16 and therefore less chances of upsets of the "big 6".

[zip37]

Anybody that thinks the NCAA gives a hoot about the non-BCS leagues is NUTZ!

[g-mann17]

Anybody that thinks the NCAA gives a hoot about the non-BCS leagues is NUTZ!

Well they better start giving hoots about non-BCS...

Best Ratings for Championship since 1999

Why? Because it was an "underdog" story.

[ZachTheZip]

Playing in the play-in game does not count towards getting an NCAA credit for the tournament payout. You only get it if you win and make it to the 64-team bracket. Unless they changed the rules with this move, it takes NCAA money away from three more mid-majors and gives it to the mediocre BCS teams who will get the extra bids.

[zippyman23]

Playing in the play-in game does not count towards getting an NCAA credit for the tournament payout. You only get it if you win and make it to the 64-team bracket. Unless they changed the rules with this move, it takes NCAA money away from three more mid-majors and gives it to the mediocre BCS teams who will get the extra bids.

Both teams/conferences in the play-in game are awarded 1 unit just like every other team in the tourney. The winner is also awarded a 2nd unit. I assume it will be the same for the additional play-in games.

[skip-zip]

Playing in the play-in game does not count towards getting an NCAA credit for the tournament payout. You only get it if you win and make it to the 64-team bracket. Unless they changed the rules with this move, it takes NCAA money away from three more mid-majors and gives it to the mediocre BCS teams who will get the extra bids.

Both teams/conferences in the play-in game are awarded 1 unit just like every other team in the tourney. The winner is also awarded a 2nd unit. I assume it will be the same for the additional play-in games.

I might not be like everyone. But, just for the record, I have never watched a play-in game. Yet, I avidly watch as many first round games as humanly possible.

My point is that I think adding a full extra round would get plenty of fan attention. I don't think just adding a few more "play in" games will do that. Lets face it, a couple more games of no-chance-of-winning-tournament vs. no-chance-of-winning-tournament has little interest to most people compared to the possibility of a full extra round of games between mid-level seeds and bottom-seeded underdogs, like the 96 team field would present.

[GP1]

Can somebody tell me why adding 3 more play in games is going to make it better?

While it makes more money for the pimps at the NCAA, it does not make the quality of the tournament better. One could even say it devalues the tournament.

This is no different than the expansion of professional sports leagues. When the NHL first started, there were six teams. Was the day in and day out play better, yes. Did they make more money, no. The majority of players playing in the NHL today would have played in the minors when the league first started. If you know anything about hockey, you would have been highly entertained by Olympic tournament. The best players in the world were on the ice for the top level teams every SHIFT.

Imagine MLB with half the teams they have now. The excellent starting rotations would be able to be matched by excellent hitters. The quality of long relievers would be great. Bench depth would be outstanding. Fielding would be better. The game would be better.

As the NCAA "builds" itself, the quality of play is diminished. Does anyone really believe all 135 odd D-1A football teams are equal? Does anyone believe adding five more teams to D-1A will make it better?

[g-mann17]

Can somebody tell me why adding 3 more play in games is going to make it better?

While it makes more money for the pimps at the NCAA, it does not make the quality of the tournament better. One could even say it devalues the tournament.

This is no different than the expansion of professional sports leagues. When the NHL first started, there were six teams. Was the day in and day out play better, yes. Did they make more money, no. The majority of players playing in the NHL today would have played in the minors when the league first started. If you know anything about hockey, you would have been highly entertained by Olympic tournament. The best players in the world were on the ice for the top level teams every SHIFT.

Imagine MLB with half the teams they have now. The excellent starting rotations would be able to be matched by excellent hitters. The quality of long relievers would be great. Bench depth would be outstanding. Fielding would be better. The game would be better.

As the NCAA "builds" itself, the quality of play is diminished. Does anyone really believe all 135 odd D-1A football teams are equal? Does anyone believe adding five more teams to D-1A will make it better?

So GP1 feels that smaller is better.

[ZachTheZip]

Playing in the play-in game does not count towards getting an NCAA credit for the tournament payout. You only get it if you win and make it to the 64-team bracket. Unless they changed the rules with this move, it takes NCAA money away from three more mid-majors and gives it to the mediocre BCS teams who will get the extra bids.

Both teams/conferences in the play-in game are awarded 1 unit just like every other team in the tourney. The winner is also awarded a 2nd unit. I assume it will be the same for the additional play-in games.

How does that not generate tons of complaints? The teams that win the play-in game get paid double what the 15 seeds get?