i put us there because theres more to our upside thatn theirs

davidson=mediocre team with NO FANS, NO TV, NO RATINGS

nc state=mediocre teach with fans, tv, ratings, a bigger upside

the big reason for this expansion is to provide a more enjoyable tournament for more fans. do more fans wanna see nc state or davidson?

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2009 10:43:03 PM

Wilbon said it perfectly:

March Madness, as it is, is one of the few perfect things in sports, one of the few perfect things in life. Don't mess with it

12/11/2009 6:44:23 AM

bttt

so apparently John Wooden is on record as saying he thinks all D-1 teams should be in the tournament per http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/basketball/ncaa_talking_tournament_expansion_HVcXETQthYZvijhJZaDPuN

what the hell...why even have a season?

1/4/2010 9:21:01 PM

also, it's not the 1st-4th rounds of the tournament without GUS JOHNSON

1/5/2010 10:56:39 AM

this bullshit is looking more like a reality

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/54015/the_ncaa_tournament_will_soon_include_every_d-i_school__

2/1/2010 5:46:25 PM

great

they are going to fuck up one of the greatest events in sports

and further water down the competition by letting in shitty teams like us in

do not want

2/1/2010 5:49:00 PM

This is ghey.

Dumbass decision. Why in the world would you mess with this now? It is the perfect tournament as it is. Now we'll there will be more terrible games to watch early on and it discounts the entire regular season for anyone not gunning for a 1 or 2 seed.

2/1/2010 5:54:38 PM

i think the part i dislike most is that it appears ESPN will cover the games ... the CBS road to the final four theme is as dynamic as the nba on nbc theme that we dont have anymore

2/1/2010 5:56:23 PM

96 teams is not every team. still only the top 3rd have a chance. shitty teams won't be in. There are some pretty good teams like south carolina that could now get in.

2/1/2010 6:01:51 PM

It is all just an attempt to make sure nobody ever fills out a perfect bracket.

2/1/2010 6:45:30 PM

Quote :

"do more fans wanna see nc state or davidson?"

LOL, surely you jest.

I virtually guarantee that those Steph Curry Davidson teams were FAR, FAR more interesting to every non-NCSU fan out there than any team we've had in a quarter century...

2/1/2010 6:52:30 PM

its all about the benjamins

its the NCAA, do you expect anything less?

2/1/2010 7:06:15 PM

Quote :

"just my opinion.....but if my team was a true 66th place team in the NCAA, I think i'd rather see my team win a few games in an NIT tournament than watch them get the crap beat out of them in the first round of a 96 team tournament.....just my 5 cents."

The 50th best team in the nation might not make the tournament because 15 worse teams happened to win their conference championships. Of course that team would rather be in the NIT than be a 16 seed, but if the field is expanded, then that team could potentially be a 12 seed.

2/2/2010 1:31:53 AM

I don't like this. The current system is perfect. Every team in the nation has a fair chance at the national title since all conference champions get an automatic bid. The season means more than some people think. Teams like Kentucky this season are setting themselves up for a free pass to the second round while teams like UNC, or NC State could still get in, but if they do they will find themselves in an 8/9 or 7/10 game fighting to get to the second round. A 65 team tournament allows teams to lose a few games and still get in, but they still have to prove themselves by winning against good competition at some point during the season.

2/2/2010 3:12:22 AM

the text on the new brackets is going to be too small. do not want.

2/2/2010 9:46:22 AM

Quote :

"and further water down the competition by letting in shitty teams like us in"

ha, nah i'm sure we still won't make it

2/2/2010 9:46:41 AM

if it's not going to be 64, then it should be 68, and just have 4 play-in games for all the #1 seed opponents

2/2/2010 10:22:09 AM

The season should just be one big tournament, and the seeding should be based on the previous year's results.

2/2/2010 10:26:51 AM

^So that would make us the 300 seed right?

2/2/2010 10:38:40 AM

what about some system that involves polls and computer averaging

and we can end the year with 5 major basketball games but with only one true championship game

2/2/2010 11:14:00 AM

^ And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, the two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

2/2/2010 11:18:35 AM

Up to 68 (i.e. 4 play-in games) is OK, but one at a time as more conferences pop up.

Please no more. PLEASE!

2/2/2010 5:37:12 PM

120 is the best. whats wrong with adding an extra round? the 1 seeds get a bye.

2/2/2010 5:41:27 PM

256 is best, whats wrong with making the regular season 100% worthless?

2/2/2010 5:43:12 PM

because if the regular season is completely worthless then A nobody will watch B teams won't really care. that would kill the whole sport.

2/2/2010 5:44:39 PM

^ hey look, you just made the same point people are making about allowing 96 teams. Congratulations.

2/2/2010 5:50:31 PM

after we lose 2 or 3 more conference games, the remainder of our regular season will be meaningless

2/2/2010 5:50:38 PM

no more of "the ball is tipped....

in all seriousness, how will the brackets look? get Joe Lunardi on the phone, ASAP

2/2/2010 5:55:46 PM

256 teams, triple elimination


and every team gets to utilize an NBA player, NCAA Draft allows worst team to get first pick

[Edited on February 2, 2010 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

2/2/2010 6:35:45 PM

the nbdl should be converted into a graduate school giving these players eligibility while working on a masters in coaching, training or scouting so they can continue to/start playing college while working on an advanced degree.

2/2/2010 7:02:41 PM

Quote :

"what about some system that involves polls and computer averaging and we can end the year with 5 major basketball games but with only one true championship game"

genius

2/2/2010 9:01:19 PM

Waiting for Greg Gumbel (or Vitale/Bilas) to roll out the 96 selections over 90 minutes before Vitale cries foul that UT-Chattanooga is left out because no elite team will give them a home and home.

2/2/2010 9:33:22 PM

this is fucking garbage and it will please noone except ESPN. they run sports now for their own benefit. congrats on destroying the last perfect thing.

they'll probably put the final four on cable, too, and have dick vitale call it while all the ESPN shit clutters the screen because i ABSOLUTELY MUST KNOW NOW during the national championship that Kimbo Slice punched some guy in the face and Fantasy Baseball updates are available now.

kill me now.

2/3/2010 1:39:15 PM

ugh this is retarded. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Although since there are ~3 teams every year complaining about not making the field, I guess that makes it "broke".

It's shit like this (well, amongst other reasons) that the BCS won't change to a playoff. They assume there will always be teams complaining about not making it.

On a side note, and it probably should go into another thread, but: I think Lowe supports this fully for next year - as he just has to make the field of 96 now to keep his job!

2/3/2010 2:47:27 PM

I'll support an expansion to 80 if they cancel the NIT, the CBI, the CIT, the RPI, and Women's Basketball.

2/3/2010 2:47:36 PM

An all D-I team tourney would basically create an FA Cup for college basketball.

2/3/2010 3:00:54 PM

We should do away with divisions, too, and let all current D-1, 2, and 3 teams in. Also some high school teams.

2/3/2010 3:35:05 PM

^ oak hill

2/3/2010 3:40:53 PM

Quote :

"Tournament expansion has been a roundly panned idea, mostly for one reason: No one wants to watch teams 66 through 96 play a bunch of low-quality, NIT level basketball. It really comes down to that. There are reasons you could list for expansion, and some of them are valid (chief among them the NCAA's desire to make more money, which isn't necessarily a bad thing). But the bottom line is that very few people like the idea of expanding the NCAA tournament, because expanding the NCAA tournament means shoehorning the NIT into the NCAA. Even in vague form, it's not a very attractive idea. How about in not-so-vague form? College Gameday asked Joe Lunardi to project a 96-team field on this morning's show. He did so. Here are some of bracketology-esque elements that resulted. A word of warning -- if you weren't against tournament expansion already, you might be now: CONFERENCE BREAKDOWN " Big East (13) " ACC (8) " Big 12 (8) " Atlantic 10 (6) " Big Ten (6) " SEC (6) " Conference USA (5) " Missouri Valley (5) " Colonial (4) " Mountain West (4) " Pac-10 (4) " WAC (4) " West Coast (3) " Metro-Atlantic (2) " Mid-American (2) LAST FOUR IN " Missouri State " North Carolina " Arizona " Akron FIRST FOUR OUT " Charleston " IUPUI " Wright State " Fairfield Gross, right? Do you have a losing record in the Missouri Valley? Not a problem! A major program going struggling to stay above .500 in a down year? Come on down! Are you, um, Fairfield? Great! You're all in the tournament! Woo-hoo! Expansion, baby! I'm probably be a little bit too snarky here, so you'll have to forgive me. I'm just a little, I don't know, shocked? Talking about tournament expansion -- which, again, I'm not 100 percent against -- and actually seeing that expansion in action are two entirely different things. I get the pro-expansion arguments, but really? 13 Big East teams? Who, besides those teams' coaches, want this? And why? Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmail"

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/5367/behold-the-96-team-field

Do not want

3/7/2010 6:09:20 PM

I could see having two play-in games once the Great West gets an automatic bid (akin to when they added the game when the Mountain West got an automatic bid).

3/7/2010 6:12:28 PM

Quote :

"13 Big East teams? Who, besides those teams' coaches, want this? And why?"

It might have something to do with them having the deepest conference, with the most talent, and the best coaching from top to bottom.

Why would this guy use conference affiliation as a reason why a team should or shouldn't be there. That seems like a weak argument to me. He's not talking about what they did on the floor, he's excluding them simply for the fact that they played in a tough conference where 1/3rd of the teams were in the top ten at some point.

I could give a shit what conference a team is from. All I care about is if they deserve to be there, and if the 12th best Big East team is better than the 4th best Pac 10 team, then so be it.

3/7/2010 6:22:56 PM

You'll see a 96 team tournament next year. There are plenty of great reasons why you shouldn't, but those don't really matter. It will get two things, more money for everyone and many teams that now have the chance to say "I made the tournament this year".

What is bad for the fans and what is bad for the teams are very different. Fans are right to hate this, because it's stupid. Looking at it from the other perspective, though, and it's easy to see why it goes through. Top level teams don't care, letting in shitty teams doesn't make their run any more difficult, it actually makes it easier, because their first few games are against lower level competition, and they can work things out a bit. Small conference teams will like it because now they don't have to win their tournament to be in. Mid level teams who are on the border each year will like it because there is much less chance that they'll get left out, even when they have a weak year.

3/8/2010 12:02:21 AM

Is there any literature from 1985 that detracts the expansion from 48 to 64?

3/8/2010 12:10:18 AM

some people are saying that if it went to 96 teams, that maybe the regular season champions of conferences would get automatic bids...

how would that work when teams share the regular season championship, like Duke and Maryland did this year? i know that maryland gets in anyway, but would it be considered an automatic bid or would they be at-large?

3/14/2010 10:13:24 PM

I think it's rare enough to where it could be automatic. Sometimes there are going to be teams with 2, 3, or even 4 regular conference champions, but it shouldn't happen too often. Should it be deemed a probably, simply go by the conference tie-breakers or a standardized tie-breaker.

3/14/2010 10:16:11 PM

I think Bob Knight criticized expanding to 64.

3/14/2010 10:24:38 PM

^^^they would probably just use some tiebreaker to determine the 'seeding' winner, like how Duke got the #1 seed in the ACC tourney, and Maryland would then get in as an at large...because if not, you might have a 5-way tie for the conference title in a shitty league

3/14/2010 10:26:15 PM

Course it would the number 1 seed, they are the true conference winner

All this Co-Champion bullstuff is just an excuse to hang banners and wave dicks

3/14/2010 10:29:46 PM

i don't get why adding more mediocre teams is considered a good idea

3/14/2010 10:32:31 PM

CMB CASH MONEY BROTHERS MO MONEY MO PROBLEMS CASH MONEY MILLIONAIRES CASH RULES EVERYTHING AROUND ME CREAM GET THE MONEY DOLLA DOLLA BILL YALL

3/14/2010 10:33:24 PM