The NCAA should just go to 128 and drop the NIT

[andyw715]

NIT should just be the FCS. Split this stuff up.

 

[upperdeck]

if they added even 16 teams over half of them would probably win a first round game against teams seed 5+.. and some of those would probably end up in the sweet 16.

 

[Iceman23]

Going to 128 teams:

4 32-team brackets (alternatively, combine the conference and tournament champions into one pool and at-large into another pool, 2 64-team brackets):
The Tournament of Champions
1. Regular season champions
2. Conference tournament champions (or runner-up if same as regular season champion)
3. Top 6 conferences at-large (as they comprise almost all of the current at-large anyway)
4. Remaining 26 conferences at-large

Data shows that there would be more than enough 'quality' teams from the at-large in each of these brackets - roughly 1 extra team from each of the smaller conferences.

Winners of the four brackets in the Final Four (or if combined, final two of each pool in the Final Four). This would be 1/3 of all D1 teams, much less than what FBS does for the bowls...

The NIT, CBI, and CIT are meaningless and a burden. Fold them and expand the NCAAT and get it over with. Don't see one extra round as an issue but only from a marketing perspective would it cause some headaches and re-workings.

 

[SWC75]

A modest proposal: There were 14 teams that won their conference regular seasons but lost in the tournament and didn't make the NCAAs. If we had a first dozen rather than a first four, we could accommodate them and have automatic bids for both regular season winners and, (the greater achievement IMHO) conference tournament champions.

We've had 24 teams fields, 40 team fields, 48 team fields in the past where some teams had to win an extra game to get to the Sweet 16 or the round of 32. there's nothing new about that. And I don't buy the "it will ruin the regular season" argument. People say the tournament is all that matters anyway. And were there any regular season games this year you didn't care about?

 

[SWC75]

An immodest proposal. There are 351 teams in Division 1, 302 in division II and 416 in Division 3. That's 1069 teams. Half of Division 1 belongs in Division II and I don't know that there is a lot of difference between D2 and D3. It's not football where you need 100 players. Each year, everybody goes through this hand-wringing: will we make it or will we get snubbed? The working of the committee are a mystery.

Let's rank the 1069 teams by some mathematical system. Have the bottom 90 teams play 45 games to get it to 1024 teams. Then play a round to get it to 512, another to 256, another to 128 and another to 64. The higher seeded team would host and not every game has to be on national TV. This would be to qualify for the NCAA tournament. the Final 64 would be in the Division I tournament. You'd do your brackets at that time. The 64 Division II teams that went the farthest but did not make the Division I tournament would play in a Division II tournament, (and the D1 teams that don't really belong there might drop down to D2 to have a chance at a national title knowing that they might still win their way into D1 tournament instead. The 64 D3 teams that went the farther but didn't make the top 64 would play in a D3 tournament.

This would give everybody a shot, maximize the chances of those beloved upsets, secure the best possible tournament fields, make even more money and get rid of all the BS and March Angryness. The focus would be on the games, to be played, not the blind resumes. if your seeidng was #70 and it should have been #60, you aren't going to lose sleep over that.

I know...:noidea::crazy::bat::rolling:Oh Lord

But think about it. It might be fun...

 

[cuseattle]

I always thought 64 was just right. More would cheapen the joy of getting in.

 

[SWC75]

I always thought 64 was just right. More would cheapen the joy of getting in.

I thought 32 was perfect for the same reasons but that ship sailed and the tournament got more popular than ever.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

While "one extra round" may seem like no big deal, you would literally be doubling the amount of games that need to be scheduled. You would most like have to expand the tourney an entire extra week, with every team playing only 1 game in the first week.

Leave it at the current format. Nice and manageable.

Go back to 64 if you want to make it even better.

 

[cuseattle]

I thought 32 was perfect for the same reasons but that ship sailed and the tournament got more popular than ever.

There is such a thing as overkill. When they went to 64, national interest and ratings piqued. An extra 4 teams hasn't made anyone care more, and the regular season is diminished.

 

[Madbiker]

Why play the regular season if everyone gets in the tourney? You have to draw the line somewhere and the current 68 is fine. The bubble teams being left out as 69-70 are very mediocre and that included us this season.

 

[PoppyHart]

I actually think it should go back to 64.

Heck, I'd vote for 48 or 52.

 

[orange79]

NIT should just be the FCS. Split this stuff up.

What does FCS mean in terms of D1 hoops? Villanova could play but Central Michigan couldn't? Only P5 teams in the tournament? Trying to figure out what you mean by this.

 

[mhoff44]

I'm viewing this as "We didn't get in. It's not our fault. It's too hard to get in."

You expand to that many teams as has been said before:
-Regular season loses most of its importance
-Conference tournaments become irrelevant

 

[rstone7727]

I'm viewing this as "We didn't get in. It's not our fault. It's too hard to get in."

You expand to that many teams as has been said before:
-Regular season loses most of its importance
-Conference tournaments become irrelevant

Not sure why people think reg season and conf tourney would lose value. All teams would be ranked based on what they did during both. Hoping someone explains that to me because I honestly don't get it.

 

[SBU72]

Give all automatic bids (32) a 1st round bye. (yes ALL) and then double the rest (64) and make them play each other like play in games. Yeah another 32 games. Tell conferences to rearrange their tournys to end earlier and play games Sat and Sun. Bad games (#33 vs #96) don't need to be on TV. Only televise the middle half.

 

[Eric15]

I actually think it should go back to 64.

This x10000.

I don't get it. Are there actually people who sit and watch the NCAA Tournament and think to themselves, "this darn thing needs more 17-14 teams who finished 9th in their conference to be more entertaining."

 

[Hoo's That]

An immodest proposal. There are 351 teams in Division 1, 302 in division II and 416 in Division 3. That's 1069 teams. Half of Division 1 belongs in Division II and I don't know that there is a lot of difference between D2 and D3. It's not football where you need 100 players. Each year, everybody goes through this hand-wringing: will we make it or will we get snubbed? The working of the committee are a mystery. ...

Half of Division 1 needs to go back to Division 3 from whence they came in pursuit of CBS's money.

There were two failed attempts to divide up D-1. The first was "No football, no D-1". It was stopped because of Dean Smith's arrogance in using the 4-Corners against Marquette. Marquette won and the proposal was due to be voted at the NCAA convention that summer. It was voted down because Marquette would have been thrown out of D-1 and wouldn't be allowed to defend its championship. Thanks Deano!!!! Actually you folks really should thank him for losing because if that rule had passed there wouldn't have been a Big East as it became.

The second attempt was more successful. It required anyone who played D-1 basketball to play all their sports in D-1. It was a D-3 proposal, actually, made by the schools in Ohio that played Dayton. They felt that Dayton was able to have an advantage in facilities, etc., because they played D-1 bball.

 

[orange79]

Give all automatic bids (32) a 1st round bye. (yes ALL) and then double the rest (64) and make them play each other like play in games. Yeah another 32 games. Tell conferences to rearrange their tournys to end earlier and play games Sat and Sun. Bad games (#33 vs #96) don't need to be on TV. Only televise the middle half.

You lost me with your first sentence. No way should (for example) a 13-15 Jacksonville St get a bye when a 29-4 UCLA has to play a 'first round' game.

 

[Eric15]

We already have an open tournament. It's called championship week with the league tournaments. We had our chance and lost to Miami.

Exactly. There is no sport that is more forgiving than college basketball. You can be miserable in November, December, January and February, but everyone has one last chance to get to the Dance by winning a few games in their conference tourney.

 

[Eric15]

Give all automatic bids (32) a 1st round bye. (yes ALL) and then double the rest (64) and make them play each other like play in games. Yeah another 32 games. Tell conferences to rearrange their tournys to end earlier and play games Sat and Sun. Bad games (#33 vs #96) don't need to be on TV. Only televise the middle half.

But how does any of that make for a more exciting product?

 

[RandygoCuse]

If it were up to me, I'd cut it back to 64. Not sure the play in games even increase ratings significantly as you don't need to pick them for your brackets pool. This may be the case if you go to 128 as that is too big a sheet for people to complete. Which might mean that you get to pick your bracket once it's whittled to 64. Would people still watch the games?

 

[TexanMark]

The NCAA Tourney works...the selection process could be improved.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I would be against any expansion. However, if it were expanded to 96 (I know this was being considered a little while back), I would make the following change. Each conference gets up to two automatic bids - one for the regular season and one for the conference tournament. However, some rules:

• If the same team wins both the season and the tournament, a second bid is not given
• Only one bid for winning the regular season - a tie breaker process would have to be put in place in the event that more than one team finishes at the top

 

[Hoo's That]

I would be against any expansion. However, if it were expanded to 96 (I know this was being considered a little while back), I would make the following change. Each conference gets up to two automatic bids - one for the regular season and one for the conference tournament. However, some rules:

• If the same team wins both the season and the tournament, a second bid is not given
• Only one bid for winning the regular season - a tie breaker process would have to be put in place in the event that more than one team finishes at the top

There's a significant potential problem with that.

If I'm the coach of any team that wins the regular season, I play my subs in the first half and my walk-ons in the second half of every game of the conference tournament since I know I already have a bid, plus another team from my conference will now get a bid for beating my subs and walk-ons. Since I'm more concerned with how my team does in the NCAAs that how they look posing in t-shirts and hats with a trophy, I won't even dress my starters.

If I'm the conference commissioner of a P5 conference, I'm concerned that the front-line players of my regular season champions probably won't dress for the game and lower the quality of the product for which my schools charge a premium for tickets and ESPN pays me quite well.

 

[jncuse]

I actually like 68 (and would have been OK with 72 if those extra spots were mid majors)

68 gets enough P5 teams in. 72 would have made sense last year as there was several deserving mid majors. This year creating an extra few spots for mid majors made little sense.