USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

College Hoops discussion
EPJr
Level2
Level2
Posts: 2286
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:44 am
I am a fan of: VCU/A-10
A.K.A.: BigE
Location: Richmond Virginia USA

USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by EPJr »

Support has grown to the point that Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany, a former chairman of the committee that oversees the tournament and a critic of large-scale expansion, sees a move from 65 to 96 teams as likely, he said Tuesday.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... sion_N.htm
Image
http://www.a10talk.com/forums/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.basketballforum.com/atlantic-10-conference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.facebook.com/Atlantic10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://twitter.com/atlantic10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
TheDancinMonarch
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4779
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:23 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
Location: Norfolk VA

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by TheDancinMonarch »

So that's 31 more teams. Let's see that 5 from the Big East, 4 from the ACC, etc., etc., and the 2 extra mid-major programs will play each other in the first round. Sounds like a plan to me.
Image
User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 45627
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: He/Him
Location: Scottsdale

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by dbackjon »

TheDancinMonarch wrote:So that's 31 more teams. Let's see that 5 from the Big East, 4 from the ACC, etc., etc., and the 2 extra mid-major programs will play each other in the first round. Sounds like a plan to me.

Most likely it would guarantee regular season as well as tourney champs auto-bids. So a conference like the Big Sky would have gotten two in.
:thumb:
User avatar
Grizalltheway
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 35688
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:01 pm
A.K.A.: DJ Honey BBQ
Location: BSC

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by Grizalltheway »

TheDancinMonarch wrote:So that's 31 more teams. Let's see that 5 from the Big East, 4 from the ACC, etc., etc., and the 2 extra mid-major programs will play each other in the first round. Sounds like a plan to get every single Big East team in to me.
FIFY
User avatar
collegesportsinfo
Level1
Level1
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:43 pm
I am a fan of: UMass
A.K.A.: Quinn, KingCal

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by collegesportsinfo »

dbackjon wrote:
TheDancinMonarch wrote:So that's 31 more teams. Let's see that 5 from the Big East, 4 from the ACC, etc., etc., and the 2 extra mid-major programs will play each other in the first round. Sounds like a plan to me.

Most likely it would guarantee regular season as well as tourney champs auto-bids. So a conference like the Big Sky would have gotten two in.
Let's hope not. It's bad enough that a top 40 RPI team like Rhode Island was left out (and should have based on the number of spots) while teams like ETSU and Arkanas-Pine Bluff are in. But if anything, 96 will allow the top teams to get in. Not flukes like if Kennesaw St. beat regular season champ USC-Upstate and BOTH (while ranked below 300 overall) get in.

The WCC has a tournament system that works: top 2 seeds AUTOMATICALLY in the conference semi-finals. They are protected. The other lower conferences should all adopt the same system to help themselves. It makes much more sense then rewarding teams for losing their way in at the expense of a deserving team in the top 50.
- Quinn

CollegeSportsInfo.com:
NCAA Message Board Directory, Conference Realignment Forums & Expansion News



Image
User avatar
collegesportsinfo
Level1
Level1
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:43 pm
I am a fan of: UMass
A.K.A.: Quinn, KingCal

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by collegesportsinfo »

TheDancinMonarch wrote:So that's 31 more teams. Let's see that 5 from the Big East, 4 from the ACC, etc., etc., and the 2 extra mid-major programs will play each other in the first round. Sounds like a plan to me.
It does. It's so those boosters at those schools keep donating money to a program that got into the tournament.

Many of those schools do deserve to be in, there just isn't room. Right now, Northwestern is penalized for being in a strong Big Ten. If they were in the Patriot, they'd be the best team. Yet Lehigh is in the tournament. Same goes for the SEC. Mississippi is out, meanwhile not far away, Arkansas-PB is in...just because Arkansas-PB is in an inferior basketball conference compared to the SEC.

As an A10 fan, it would mean similar...we'd have had 4 more teams in, a total of 7 of 14 members.

The only real positive I see for fans is that there will be an increase in upsets which the networks (currently CBS) likes.

UNC was an NIT #4 seed...which means they'd have been a #16 seed in a 86 team scenario. If they beat ETSU in the first round, they'd then have gone on to play #1 seed Kentucky. Let's face it: a #16 UNC team will have a better chance of upsetting a #1 Kentucky team than ETSU did.



BTW, I'm not a fan of expansion to 96. I perfer 68 so that 3 more bubble teams get in. And I actually like the NIT...which will be gone.
- Quinn

CollegeSportsInfo.com:
NCAA Message Board Directory, Conference Realignment Forums & Expansion News



Image
User avatar
griz37
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1557
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:14 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: unwrittengriz

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by griz37 »

Worst idea ever!
User avatar
ASUG8
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 17570
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:57 pm
I am a fan of: ASU
Location: SC

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by ASUG8 »

Assuming this isn't an April Fool's thingy, why don't we just hand out participation trophies to every team. Then have a big circle of kumbaya afterwards to celebrate the season. :coffee:
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19511
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by SDHornet »

collegesportsinfo wrote:
dbackjon wrote:

Most likely it would guarantee regular season as well as tourney champs auto-bids. So a conference like the Big Sky would have gotten two in.
Let's hope not. It's bad enough that a top 40 RPI team like Rhode Island was left out (and should have based on the number of spots) while teams like ETSU and Arkanas-Pine Bluff are in. But if anything, 96 will allow the top teams to get in. Not flukes like if Kennesaw St. beat regular season champ USC-Upstate and BOTH (while ranked below 300 overall) get in.

The WCC has a tournament system that works: top 2 seeds AUTOMATICALLY in the conference semi-finals. They are protected. The other lower conferences should all adopt the same system to help themselves. It makes much more sense then rewarding teams for losing their way in at the expense of a deserving team in the top 50.
I think a possible solution would be to eliminate the notion that ALL teams get an invite to their conference tournament. The Sky only takes the top 6 of 9, which adds value to the regular season imo. If this were somehow able to be enforced across the board, it would eliminate the terrible teams that get hot for a short stretch in the conference tourney. I'm not a fan of having a field of 96, but I guess this move was inevitable. Say goodbye to all the other post-season tournaments. :twocents:
User avatar
FargoBison
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:44 pm
I am a fan of: NDSU

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by FargoBison »

Not a fan but this was going to happen eventually. My only concern is what happens to the guarantee conference champs got from the NIT? I know a lot of coaches liked at least having that in their backpocket because anything can happen in the conference tournament.

I think at the very least the NCAA should guarantee that any regular season conference champ with an RPI below 100 gets in. Regular season champs that field competitive teams should be rewarded.
User avatar
bluehenbillk
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7660
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:26 am
I am a fan of: elaware
Location: East Coast/Hawaii

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by bluehenbillk »

This idea is like throwing up in your own mouth. Makes the regular season almost worthless. I hope if they do this, and I know they won't have the sack to, but make a provision that you have to have a .500 or better conference record. Otherwise, what's to prevent 12 or 13 Big East teams making a 96-team field??? Don't get me wrong, I love the Big East but, 96 is too much. Worse, this paves the way for 128 in the next decade.
Make Delaware Football Great Again
User avatar
putter
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:39 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by putter »

bluehenbillk wrote:This idea is like throwing up in your own mouth. Makes the regular season almost worthless. I hope if they do this, and I know they won't have the sack to, but make a provision that you have to have a .500 or better conference record. Otherwise, what's to prevent 12 or 13 Big East teams making a 96-team field??? Don't get me wrong, I love the Big East but, 96 is too much. Worse, this paves the way for 128 in the next decade.
That is an excellent point. UNC may play in the ACC but if they can't finish with a winning record in conference then they should not be rewarded with a tourney invite. So what if a few Mid-Major teams would get an at-large over a BCS conference sub .500 team. Allows the OOC and regular season to keep some legitamacy.
‎"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Hugh White, 1801
User avatar
collegesportsinfo
Level1
Level1
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:43 pm
I am a fan of: UMass
A.K.A.: Quinn, KingCal

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by collegesportsinfo »

SDHornet wrote:
collegesportsinfo wrote:
Let's hope not. It's bad enough that a top 40 RPI team like Rhode Island was left out (and should have based on the number of spots) while teams like ETSU and Arkanas-Pine Bluff are in. But if anything, 96 will allow the top teams to get in. Not flukes like if Kennesaw St. beat regular season champ USC-Upstate and BOTH (while ranked below 300 overall) get in.

The WCC has a tournament system that works: top 2 seeds AUTOMATICALLY in the conference semi-finals. They are protected. The other lower conferences should all adopt the same system to help themselves. It makes much more sense then rewarding teams for losing their way in at the expense of a deserving team in the top 50.
I think a possible solution would be to eliminate the notion that ALL teams get an invite to their conference tournament. The Sky only takes the top 6 of 9, which adds value to the regular season imo. If this were somehow able to be enforced across the board, it would eliminate the terrible teams that get hot for a short stretch in the conference tourney. I'm not a fan of having a field of 96, but I guess this move was inevitable. Say goodbye to all the other post-season tournaments. :twocents:
i like it! no reason all the teams need to be in the conference tourney.
- Quinn

CollegeSportsInfo.com:
NCAA Message Board Directory, Conference Realignment Forums & Expansion News



Image
User avatar
collegesportsinfo
Level1
Level1
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:43 pm
I am a fan of: UMass
A.K.A.: Quinn, KingCal

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by collegesportsinfo »

bluehenbillk wrote:This idea is like throwing up in your own mouth. Makes the regular season almost worthless. I hope if they do this, and I know they won't have the sack to, but make a provision that you have to have a .500 or better conference record. Otherwise, what's to prevent 12 or 13 Big East teams making a 96-team field??? Don't get me wrong, I love the Big East but, 96 is too much. Worse, this paves the way for 128 in the next decade.
So you're saying that a Georgia Tech team that finished 7-9 in a tough ACC (23-12 overall) should be left out of the tournament in favor of Liberty team that finished 10-8 (15-16 overall) in the Big South?

It's a fun notion, but it's pointless to penalize a team like Georgia Tech just because they happen to play in a conference that is on another level than the Big South, MEAC, A-sun, SWAC, etc.

If this were the case, a team like GTech might as well move to the A-Sun where they could dominate and ensure they are over .500.

Note that in most cases now, it's a rare exception that a team under .500 in conference even makes the tournament. But it seems wrong to reward teams in scrub conferences just because they finish over .500 in them, when they would likely be 0-16 in the ACC.
- Quinn

CollegeSportsInfo.com:
NCAA Message Board Directory, Conference Realignment Forums & Expansion News



Image
User avatar
collegesportsinfo
Level1
Level1
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:43 pm
I am a fan of: UMass
A.K.A.: Quinn, KingCal

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by collegesportsinfo »

putter wrote:
bluehenbillk wrote:This idea is like throwing up in your own mouth. Makes the regular season almost worthless. I hope if they do this, and I know they won't have the sack to, but make a provision that you have to have a .500 or better conference record. Otherwise, what's to prevent 12 or 13 Big East teams making a 96-team field??? Don't get me wrong, I love the Big East but, 96 is too much. Worse, this paves the way for 128 in the next decade.
That is an excellent point. UNC may play in the ACC but if they can't finish with a winning record in conference then they should not be rewarded with a tourney invite. So what if a few Mid-Major teams would get an at-large over a BCS conference sub .500 team. Allows the OOC and regular season to keep some legitamacy.
Or just eliminate the conference tournaments. At worst, set them up like the WCC so the top 2 teams start in the semi-finals. If neither 1 or 2 can win 2 games in a row in their conference tourney, they probably don't deserve to be in the NCAa tournament.
- Quinn

CollegeSportsInfo.com:
NCAA Message Board Directory, Conference Realignment Forums & Expansion News



Image
JALMOND
Level4
Level4
Posts: 5469
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:04 pm
I am a fan of: Portland State
A.K.A.: JALMOND

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by JALMOND »

collegesportsinfo wrote:
putter wrote:
That is an excellent point. UNC may play in the ACC but if they can't finish with a winning record in conference then they should not be rewarded with a tourney invite. So what if a few Mid-Major teams would get an at-large over a BCS conference sub .500 team. Allows the OOC and regular season to keep some legitamacy.
Or just eliminate the conference tournaments. At worst, set them up like the WCC so the top 2 teams start in the semi-finals. If neither 1 or 2 can win 2 games in a row in their conference tourney, they probably don't deserve to be in the NCAa tournament.
But then you're messing with tradition. Tradition is big in college sports. It is why the FBS still has a bowl system and no playoffs.
JayJ79
Level3
Level3
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:52 pm
I am a fan of: myself

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by JayJ79 »

JALMOND wrote:But then you're messing with tradition. Tradition is big in college sports. It is why the FBS still has a bowl system and no playoffs.
Partially tradition,
but also boatloads of cash.

Which is also the reason for expanding the tournament: to make more money
EPJr
Level2
Level2
Posts: 2286
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:44 am
I am a fan of: VCU/A-10
A.K.A.: BigE
Location: Richmond Virginia USA

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by EPJr »

dbackjon wrote:
TheDancinMonarch wrote:So that's 31 more teams. Let's see that 5 from the Big East, 4 from the ACC, etc., etc., and the 2 extra mid-major programs will play each other in the first round. Sounds like a plan to me.

Most likely it would guarantee regular season as well as tourney champs auto-bids. So a conference like the Big Sky would have gotten two in.
unless the same team wins both - then you get one
Image
http://www.a10talk.com/forums/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.basketballforum.com/atlantic-10-conference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.facebook.com/Atlantic10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://twitter.com/atlantic10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 36292
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by BDKJMU »

96 teams doesn't make as much sense as 128. 64x2=128. If they're going to do an extra round, might as well make it 128.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
EPJr
Level2
Level2
Posts: 2286
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:44 am
I am a fan of: VCU/A-10
A.K.A.: BigE
Location: Richmond Virginia USA

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by EPJr »

BDKJMU wrote:96 teams doesn't make as much sense as 128. 64x2=128. If they're going to do an extra round, might as well make it 128.
..with 96 the higher seeds don't have to play a extra game
Image
http://www.a10talk.com/forums/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.basketballforum.com/atlantic-10-conference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.facebook.com/Atlantic10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://twitter.com/atlantic10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Fresno St. Alum
Level3
Level3
Posts: 2623
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:03 pm
I am a fan of: poontang
A.K.A.: Rainman
Location: My House

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by Fresno St. Alum »

I wish 96 team format would follow the NIT's rule about letting all regular season champs in. So Lipscomb, C.Carolina, Stony Brook could have gotten in as a 24 seeds. The mock 96 they had today on cbssportsline had W&M, VCU, Northeastern, Illinois St., Portland getting in but it was mainly more shitty big time schools like NC, Cincinnati, Nevada etc...

I wonder if this will make conference tournaments pointless, at least at the FBS level schools minus the Sun Belt & MAC. Are they going to scrap them on the top end now?
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketb ... ist_footer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Fresno St. Alum on Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 45627
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: He/Him
Location: Scottsdale

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by dbackjon »

Fresno St. Alum wrote:I wish 96 team format would follow the NIT's rule about letting all regular season champs in. So Lipscomb, C.Carolina, Stony Brook could have gotten in as a 24 seeds. The mock 96 they had today on cbssportsline had W&M, VCU, Northeastern, Lehigh, Portland getting in but it was mainly more shitty big time schools like NC, Cincinnati, Nevada etc...

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketb ... ist_footer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That has been discussed - Regular season champs if they don't win the tourney.



Since when is Nevada a big time school??
:thumb:
User avatar
Fresno St. Alum
Level3
Level3
Posts: 2623
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:03 pm
I am a fan of: poontang
A.K.A.: Rainman
Location: My House

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by Fresno St. Alum »

dbackjon wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:I wish 96 team format would follow the NIT's rule about letting all regular season champs in. So Lipscomb, C.Carolina, Stony Brook could have gotten in as a 24 seeds. The mock 96 they had today on cbssportsline had W&M, VCU, Northeastern, Lehigh, Portland getting in but it was mainly more shitty big time schools like NC, Cincinnati, Nevada etc...

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketb ... ist_footer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That has been discussed - Regular season champs if they don't win the tourney.



Since when is Nevada a big time school??
They're FBS in a conf. that gets 4 teams out of 9 under the new rule. big time enough is FBS minus MAC & SBelt, plus MVC & A10
Image
User avatar
Fresno St. Alum
Level3
Level3
Posts: 2623
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:03 pm
I am a fan of: poontang
A.K.A.: Rainman
Location: My House

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by Fresno St. Alum »

dbackjon wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:I wish 96 team format would follow the NIT's rule about letting all regular season champs in. So Lipscomb, C.Carolina, Stony Brook could have gotten in as a 24 seeds. The mock 96 they had today on cbssportsline had W&M, VCU, Northeastern, Lehigh, Portland getting in but it was mainly more shitty big time schools like NC, Cincinnati, Nevada etc...

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketb ... ist_footer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That has been discussed - Regular season champs if they don't win the tourney.



Since when is Nevada a big time school??
Has the NCAA said they'll take the regular season champ if they don't win the conf tourney? At 96
Image
User avatar
Skjellyfetti
Anal
Anal
Posts: 14681
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
I am a fan of: Appalachian

Re: USA Today: Expansion to 96 team tournament "probable"

Post by Skjellyfetti »

If the regular season champ thing is true... that really sucks.

The NCAA tournament should go back to taking the winner of every conference tourney... and that's it. No at large teams.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
Post Reply