12/03/24
June 25, 2006
March Madness Times Two?: Suggestions of expanding the NCAA Tournament could make the month of March a little more interesting in the future.
posted by NightingalesGone to basketball at 03:56 PM - 18 comments
More March Madness! Wasn't it Jim Harrick Jr. who suggested 256 teams participating? Methinks 256 would be WAY too many--after all, how often have the lowest seeds (not named Princeton) had REALLY competitive games in the tourney? However, I enjoy seeing teams such as George Mason, Bucknell, and Albany get some rare national exposure and wouldn't mind other small schools sharing the stage with Duke/North Carolina/Connecticut, etc. But expanding the tournament even more would negatively affect the student-athletes! *sarcasmeter explodes* Won't somebody please think of the NIT!?! LOL--with an expanded tourney there wouldn't be much use for NIT picking. I'm sure South Carolina wouldn't mind keeping the NIT around though.
posted by curtangle at 05:11 PM on June 25, 2006
**Sorry igottheblues--the copy/paste/italicization trio wigged out on me when I tried to edit my post--my response to your quote was in italics initially.**
posted by curtangle at 05:19 PM on June 25, 2006
Why don't they just expand it to allow the entire division 1A to participate! I personally think the idea of MANY more teams joining the tournament is stupid. Like Boehiem said, add a few more teams, maybe 8 or 10. I understand there can potentially be many upsets of higher seeded teams, but when you're talking a single-elimination event, you still don't get a true picture of who the real "best" team is. I'm more in favor of re-seeding the teams after the first weekend in order to keep things more balanced. Often the way they place teams in regions leaves things out of whack for the entire tournament. The George Mason run was fun to watch, but I wouldn't plan on seeing that every year.
posted by dyams at 06:39 PM on June 25, 2006
I think that 64 teams is more than enough. In reality, with the exception of George Mason this season, how many teams actually have a chance to win the championship? That is what the tournament is for anyway to decide the champion not to see how far a cinderella can make it. I think that the tournament should go to 32 teams or maybe 48 and expand the South Carolina invitational tournament to 64 or more.
posted by wshrs1977 at 07:34 PM on June 25, 2006
Expanding to 128? That is way too many teams. Maybe they should just try expanding it enough for those bubble teams. "Now that the NCAA controls both postseason tournaments, coaches think it's time to include some of the bubble teams that annually complain when they are left out." I think that would be best.
posted by STUNNER at 10:32 PM on June 25, 2006
The NCAA would make a ton of money if they did this. Besides, it's only one more game.
posted by dbt302 at 08:50 AM on June 26, 2006
It's one more round, not one more game...and it's a quantum increase in ballyhoo. There's quite enough March Madness flap already.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:03 AM on June 26, 2006
It's one round and one game. You're cutting the field down to 64 by playing one game. I wish they'd find a way to make a football playoff instead of wasting so much time on basketball.
posted by dbt302 at 11:02 AM on June 26, 2006
It's one round and one game. You're cutting the field down to 64 by playing one game. How do you figure that? Seems to me that you play 64 games between 128 different teams. Am I missing sometihng?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:05 AM on June 26, 2006
One more game for each team, lil brown bat
posted by DudeDykstra at 11:59 AM on June 26, 2006
Even though it is "one more game" for every team, that is still 64 more games total. Aside from that, think of how much the competition will be diluted. Yes more bubble teams will be able to make it, but there is no way in hell there are 64 quality bubble teams. You can basically include all the teams from every major conference with that type of tournament. Plus, mid-major teams did have a great tournament, but that doesn't mean the system has to be changed. These were the best teams their conferences had to offer, anyone else would just be an embarrasment. Would there be an occasional upset, maybe, but not enough to make a positive impact. Also, for no other reason, for those people who have trouble with fine print, filling out a NCAA bracket is going to be a bitch.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:26 PM on June 26, 2006
Also, for no other reason, for those people who have trouble with fine print, filling out a NCAA bracket is going to be a bitch. That's exactly what I was going to say. They can barely fit the damn bracket into the newspapers as it is... And the "bracketology" guys on ESPN will need to double their timeslot just to cover all the new teams...
posted by grum@work at 12:52 PM on June 26, 2006
I like Boeheim's idea of adding a few extra teams and having them play against one another on the first day. It would increase the chances of bubble teams who could make a run like George Mason getting a bid without any serious logistical problems.
posted by bperk at 01:49 PM on June 26, 2006
I know there is quite a fuss about 65 teams and how some teams do not get in to the tournament and some do not. Case in point, Michigan this year but 128 teams is way too much! But that's the beauty and suspense of March Madness. Putting 128 teams in the tournament takes away any suspense.
posted by dbenedict at 01:57 PM on June 26, 2006
The NCAA will have to start the season a week earlier or else face the rath of the big conference schools as the add'l week poses a threat to the conference tournaments. The conference tourneys are 8 - 11 total games with no revenue shared with the NCAA while the expanded "April" madness tournament gives only one add'l game to the big conference schools participating. I think only once has a 16 seed defeated a #1. What kind of competition will a #128 vs a #1 bring?
posted by jaygolf at 02:25 PM on June 26, 2006
I've often expounded the idea of expanding to 80 teams with the following format. 1.) Seed your top 48 teams 2.) Select 32 "Play-In" teams similiar to what is being done with that IDIOTIC 65th team. ================================ Whar your looking at is adding maybe one more week and you'd likely pick up the half-dozen to dozen shools who have a legitimate complaint at being left out every year. ============================== In regards to the NIT, there would still be plenty of second tier leftovers OR... The tournament selection could wait until later, absorb the 16 1st round (or additional second round) losing teams to satisfy those who think the NIT is still viable. Don't forget, in the past schools did play in both tournaments.
posted by R_A_Mason at 07:02 PM on June 26, 2006
After reading about a certain group of coaches who want to expand the basketball tournament it reminded me of some of the same things that are happening in other sports and that is it's OK to reward mediocrity.
posted by W. L. S. A. L. S. at 08:15 PM on June 26, 2006
Won't somebody please think of the NIT!?!