The NCAA is considering a move to a 96 team tournament format in 2011. NCAA officials are trying to terminate their existing TV contract with CBS in order to provide coverage of the additional games.
I have been on numerous message boards, and the 100% consensus is that this would be a terrible idea. Every college basketball fan is opposed to the change, feeling that it will water down the tournament product and diminish the importance of regular season games.
I can understand if NCAA football officials decided to move to an eight team playoff, that an SEC/elite team may feel like it has a margin for error in the regular season, and would possibly take the pedal off the metal. College football teams only play 11 or 12 games under the current BCS format, so every regular season game is of vital importance. If college football moves to a playoff format, yes, it may diminish the importance of regular season games.
College basketball teams play 35 games in the regular season/conference tournament. Within the 35 games there are ebbs and flows, peaks and valleys. I don’t think that Gary Williams would tell his Terps: “Hey, let’s mail in this game tonight at Florida St., so we can save our energy for Sunday at home against Carolina. Heck, we can lose a bunch of extra games now and still get in the NCAA tournament.”
Basically, the extra 32 teams that would be invited to the Big Dance would be the NIT field. Honestly, the teams in the NIT are not as bad as you think. Everyone thinks that the major conferences would be rewarded, and that all of their bubble teams would get in undeservedly. So what? They won’t have any chance of winning it all, so who cares if they are in the field of 96?
What about the MAC, MWC, and MVC teams that go 14-2 in the regular season and lose their conference tournament? These teams often times do not have a strong enough RPI’s to get into the NCAA tournament because there are not enough at large bids available. Is it a terrible thing that they would now be invited into the field of 96? I love seeing the little guy make a cinderella run to win their conference tournament and get in the NCAA tournament. But, why punish the team that dominated the conference in the regular season?
Honestly, I don’t care if the tournament stays 65 teams or moves to 96 teams. I just don’t understand why anyone would be against the change. We all know that only a handful of teams every year have a chance of winning the whole thing anyhow. Seriously, there are very few underdog runs to the Final Four (yes, I remember George Mason). You may think that the N.C State team in 83 or the Villanova team in 84 were underdogs, but go back and dig a little deeper. They were actually elite teams that simply underachieved at times in the regular season. However, the pedigree and talent was there and they both turned it on in the second half of the season. Most of the time you can look at the college basketball preseason rankings and isolate the half dozen teams that have a chance of cutting down the nets. One of those teams accomplishes this goal 90% of the time.
If the tournament field expands to 96 teams you have more David vs. Goliath. You would have mediocre teams from major conferences, and non-noteworthy teams from smaller conferences, getting destroyed by the top dogs all for the sake of the NCAA generating additional revenue. More TV money, more stadium ticket sales, more vending, and more revenue for the host cities. So what? It would mean more games for us to hook work and watch! More games to gamble on in Vegas with our crew.
Who cares if the bracket is harder to fill out? That is a ridiculous argument. Just shrink it down and jam it on to the page, because in the end we are all taking two #1 seeds, a #2, and one darkhorse. There could be 300 teams in the tournament this year but 90% of America will have Kansas winning it all. Everyone knows that if you do not have three NBA prospects on your roster, you are not cutting down the nets in early April.
Everyone that complains will embrace the change as soon as the tournament starts. And please, don’t argue with me like I am an advocate of the 96 team format. I just don’t care!!! I will watch the tournament and love every minute of it regardless of how many teams start out in the field. And yes, for all of you that will say, “you are just happy because it gives your crappy, mediocre Terps more margin for error”, so what? I love Maryland basketball and want them in the tournament every year! I am always realistic of their chances. People act like Maryland can go 6-10 in the ACC and still get in the tournament. NO! The margin for error increases slightly, but not as much as you would think. I wonder what America’s #1 sports fan, President Obama thinks of this possibility?
I know this topic is a hot button, so please hammer me and tell me I am an idiot.
Woodman – if only Len Bias had lived, we would have been the UCLA of the east
Filed under: Basketball, College Hoops Tagged: | 96 team tournament, college basketball, ncaa tournament
Why is it that the two best things going in sports aren’t satisfied?
The NFL wants to go to an 18 game schedule and expand to more games overseas while the NCAA wants to change the best tournament in all of sports.
Do the ratings lie? NFL games in general and the NCAA Tournament are, year in and year out, the 2 highest rated sporting events in this country.
If it ain’t broke, why fix it?
tim, I couldn’t agree more with your sentiments…Nothing in sports is even close to march madness and the nfl …i thought the change to 65 teams was stupid and a change to 96 would be even dumber….i can see how terp fans would normally be pushing this but after last night’s win, i think they seem to be heading safely into the field of 65. as a tarheel fan, i am fine with them not making it this year because they are not good …a field of 96 would just be delaying the inevitable for 32 mediocre to bad teams having their seasons come to an end.
I have no interest in seeing a second Ivy League team make the NCAA tourny…
Tim,
I need to see more teams from the MAC!! Go Hounds!!!