THE FIELD OF 96
by Richard Aceto on Mar 16, 2010 10:53 PM EDT
19 comments
If you are a fan of Penn State or would become one if they weren't one of the most underachieving BCS programs in the country, pray that the NCAA Tournament is expanded to 96 teams. It sounds like it will probably happen.
It's not just that Penn State's chances will increase because there are 32 extra spots and that the NIT will disappear(Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), it's that there will be that much more pressure on the school to now make the field.
Right now making the field of 64 is a tough accomplishment. There are 300 some teams and 65 spots, some of which are guaranteed to the lesser conferences. Compare that to college football where half the teams make a bowl game, the mark of a successful season at most schools.
Right now there are a lot of established programs with winning traditions in the Big Ten and other conferences that Penn State has to eclipse on a given year to get a bid. While we still get on the school for not trying their best and not getting there, we see and know why they don't. They don't believe the additional expense provides any greater guarantee that they will become a NCAA Tournament contender.
If the field expands to 96, now the school has no excuse. If you can't make the field of 96, it truly is embarrassing considering your athletic department regularly finishes in the top 10 in revenue.
Can you imagine the outcry if Penn State was regularly missing NCAA Tournaments with 96 teams? Penn State can't field a top 100 basketball team? What is Tim Curley's excuse now?
Expanding the field if anything puts more pressure on the school because of the embarrassment factor. Even though the program should already be embarrassed for a variety of reasons, there really isn't anything truly embarrassing about about not making the current NCAA Tournament. That changes with 96 teams.
If I had a say in running a 96 team field. Byes for the top 16 teams and the bottom 16(small conference guys). Let the middle 64 where there is parity battle it out in the first round. You keep tradition of the 64 team tournament which every one loves by letting the little guys play the best teams and you still protect the top seeds in the first round. Being one of the top 16 teams will keep the regular season important. You protect the drama of selection Sunday and the controversy for the talking heads. Who should have been the 1 seeds, who wasn't deserving of a 4 seed and a bye, who got screwed with a 5 and no bye. What would be really interesting, and would be a way to honor the NIT it's absorbing and had a long tradition within college basketball is to have teams 32-64 host their first round games at home. The teams that would normally have to play in the NIT would have to win on the road in another teams gym in front of sell out crowds. The logistics and broadcasting would probably prevent this ($$$) but it would make those games much more interesting. This kind of set up would create great story lines throughout the tournament. The Cinderella's coming from the first round road teams, the Cinderella's coming from the first round home teams, the little guys still get to play the top seeds, etc.
If they give byes to the top 32 seeds and let 33 through 96 battle it out, they kill the beginning of the tournament. No one is going to care if a little school beats a middle of the pack Big 12 team. Watching Kansas play a NIT team like Seton Hall in the first round doesn't provide the same interest.
I really believe I have created a great tournament with 96 teams.
Thanks for the fanpost! Please do not post any content from a premium site that requires a subscription. Also, if you just want to share a link consider using fanshots instead. Thanks.
0 recs |
19 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
No to expansion.
That leads to more teams that don’t deserve to be in the tournament and then eventually, they’d probably expand it again.
The number is fine as is, there are a few minor changes I wouldn’t mind (i.e. no teams under .500 allowed), but I fail to see how a drastic change is needed.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 16, 2010 11:07 PM EDT reply actions
About 100 teams have been added to division I...
… since the field was expanded to 64. In that time, they’ve added one team to the tournament. If you want to keep the tournament at 64, find some way to get the low-major conferences out of Division I, so 64 teams is at least a quarter of the field.
The thing is, it's going to happen
There are people that are saying it’s already a done deal. The conference tournaments and the NIT are done. At first I was opposed as well, but the more I thought it about it the more i like it. Even coaches who regularly make the tournament like Jay Wright, Jim Boeheim and Bo Ryan are for it.
You can add more teams and still have the 64 team tournament if you give byes to the top 16 and bottom 16 so that they have to face eachother. All you’re doing is adding one round. At the end of the day it’s still a tournament to crown a champion and you eliminate the NIT.
Could you link to any rumors or articles you got this info from?
I’m just really curious about this, because I hadn’t heard anything.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 16, 2010 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Why would the bottom 16 teams get byes? That makes no sense. You give the top 32 teams byes and then have them play the winners of the first round.
The only way I could be convinced to like this idea
would be if the byes were tiered. For example, #1 and #2 seeds are through to the sweet 16, #3 and #4 to the round of #32, #5 and #6 to 64, and everybody else fights it out in a pigtail round. Note: I did not put the effort into this post to figure out how many teams this would be. Also, I am a fan of getting rid of the conference tournaments. They seem pointless and can really screw decent small screws who lose in their conference tournament.
Whatever
I don’t care if it happens or not. There’s money to be made by it happening, so it probably will, but I just don’t care. The field is both too big (allows far too many teams) and too small (doesn’t include all of the good ones) already, and I can’t see the addition of teams making the NCAA smarter or less political, which is the real problem.
The field is already so big that the #1 overall seed rarely wins it (I have no idea about the percentages on this, but I’d bet it’s less than 40%), but big enough and good enough that the champ is always a really good team.
Reach out; touch faith.
The field is both too big (allows far too many teams) and too small (doesn’t include all of the good ones) already,
I don’t see how it’s “too small” currently. All of the good teams are already included. The bubble teams that miss out are your #11-13 seed type teams, who can be competitive for a few rounds but have no realistic shot at winning the whole thing. When a team like PSU 2009 (or Illinois this season, etc.) misses and talks about “deserving” to be in, it just means that they are as good as some of the other at large teams that made it, not that they are teams that really deserve a shot at the national title.
Define "good"
There are a lot of teams who played legitimate schedules, had winning records, don’t get in, and who are totally capable of winning 2 out of 5 against a 1 or 2 seed. This is what I mean by too small. And by “deserve a shot at the national title,” I assume you are equating the basketball regular season to that of football. I don’t have a problem with that, but I’m okay with the idea that the regular season in basketball doesn’t mean as much as it does in football.
Reach out; touch faith.
I’m defining “good” as “having a chance to actually win the NCAA tournament”. Adding some additional 11 or 12 seed types (which are the “bubble” teams that miss out) doesn’t add anyone who has a real shot at winning the whole thing. Sure those teams might win some games, but their only real gripe is not being picked over other teams that also have no realistic shot of winning. As long as the tournament already contains all the teams who could actually win — and it does, easily, with 65 teams — there’s no particular competitive reason to add more teams. It’s only about money and that’s a silly (though understandable) reason to expand.
FWIW
The field is already so big that the #1 overall seed rarely wins it (I have no idea about the percentages on this, but I’d bet it’s less than 40%), but big enough and good enough that the champ is always a really good team.
The #1 overall seed rarely wins because it’s a single-elimination college basketball tournament. Basketball is random enough that you’ll probably hit one game where strange things happen in six, college kids are prone to emotional highs and lows, and a single-elimination tournament means one bad day (or even a bad half against a better opponent) probably kills you except for high seeds in the first weekend. The NBA playoffs are the complete opposite (best of 7 series the whole way through played by athletes mostly in their late 20s), so the best team almost always wins.
I can imagine the out cry, o jebus I can
(crickets)
No one is going to care. In fact, making the field of 96 will mean less to the casual fan than it does now, so it will mute interest in the program even more.
And I don’t get the beef with the NIT. If you’re a fan of the game of basketball, it’s a nice appetizer for the Big Dance on the weekends.
God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...
The NIT
I’ve always liked the NIT. The NIT has far fewer bad teams than the NCAA. Take the example of Mississippi State last year: If Tennessee and the SEC refs don’t combine for an epic fail in the SEC championship game, MSU not only doesn’t make the NCAA, they’re probably one of the first teams out of the NIT. They got a 13 seed, and nobody had a problem with that. That means that the worst at-large team in the NIT (since the NIT-NCAA lawsuit, there have been NIT auto-bids) was better than 12-16 teams in the NCAA.
I always view the NIT final four as teams that could’ve been sweet 16ish if they had the chance.
Reach out; touch faith.
It's just a better tournament
More even matchups from the outset.
I mean, I love the NCAA tournament, but when you’ve got 32 pretty even teams, it makes for better basketball through more of the tournament. I’d be sad to see it go.
God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...
by fugimaster24 on Mar 16, 2010 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
It’s not like the NIT is filled with scrub teams or mid-majors either. Look at who we played last year: ND, Florida, Baylor. All were quality D-1A programs.
I really enjoyed the NIT and to give those teams a separate chance to end the season on a win, well, that’s just awesome. What they’re really doing is jobbing those teams even more by adding them to a watered down preliminary round to the tourney. At least now they have the chance to go out and win a championship instead earning the right to get shellacked by a semi-pro Duke or Kansas team.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
...And we already mentioned that those teams
are in the big dance this year, so they were no slouches.
Shakes head at PSU not being there as well
Anyways, I can only hope we see more upsets to make March Madness even better.
Computers rank me number 1, blame the BCS...it's their fault.-Joe Budden
I agree that moving to 96 teams isn't going to change
the AD’s office approach to the basketball program very much. No one will really care if we don’t make it.
The NIT sucks for the simple reason that its a consolation tournament. There are always a significant number of teams that are disappointed to be there and just don’t care.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
If anything
I think it would send them back to the “let’s schedule easy non-conference teams so we can assure that we are at least .500” approach.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
