Why do people get upset at the prospect of a 96-team NCAA tournament?
I get confused about the outrage surrounding the possibility of the NCAA tournament expanding the field. My reaction is pretty much the same as the one I have when I hear of a new bowl game pairing 6-6 teams in mid-December: Crusty, old reporters and stupid college football writers for CNNSI.com and ESPN.com will whine and complain but I'm ambivalent unless there's a chance Michigan will be playing in it. If the host community and the fans of both teams want it, what do I care? If I don't like the matchup, I won't watch. I'd have no problem whatsoever if there were bowl games for every team in the country regardless of record. Just more games I won't watch, but I wouldn't seek to deprive someone else of the entertainment value they get from those games. So when it comes to the tournament, if I really don't like any of the 16 new first-round games, I just won't watch them. Chances are I'll like plenty of them, though, and March will be all the better.
Anyway, honest question: Whether it's crappy bowl games or an expanded hoops field, why do you care? Eye-rolling and good-natured jokes about the qualifications of some of the teams that find their way into the postseason, that makes sense. But the rage seems out of place to me. Why is a bigger postseason a problem when you can ignore the new games and just start watching when the round of 64 begins?
EDIT: I don't mean to suggest anyone is wrong, by the way. I just feel like I'm probably missing something because the only time I ever see it addressed here or any other forum it's to complain about it. Maybe there's a serious problem with it that I haven't considered.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^
it is watering down the tourney a bit too much, wish I had that link to the onion spoof from a couple of days ago. Basically it would weaken the tourney but it would also most likely force the NIT tourney to collapse.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^
I saw it. Hilarious:
NCAA Expands March Madness To Include 4,096 Teams
NCAA Expands March Madness To Include 4,096 Teams
February 6th, 2010 at 3:05 AM ^
Hey GNR, weren't you on the Wolverine Den site a lot before it shut down?
February 6th, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^
I was. By God, that was the best damn sports message board in the land. I didn't post often, but I do remember an epic throwdown with someone who wanted Carr fired for losing so often. Of course, I didn't make friends when I said, between the 2003-04 seasons, Braylon Edwards was very overrated.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
It ruins all the brackets
February 5th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
stupid.
That's why.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^
I think it is because the NCAA Tournament is suppose to find a National Champion. And by asking one question I think you can determine that this move is the wrong one. Is anyone being excluded from the tournament that can win the National Championship? No. (There are some that can win a game or two that don't make the tournament right now, but they aren't going to win it all.)
February 5th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
I think you're 100 percent right that none of the 31 new teams will ever win the title, but that's true of any tournament more than around 20 teams. Maybe as many as 32. So why is 64 what's considered acceptable? If you want the field trimmed by half, I guess I can respect that.
Anyway, for me and a lot of others, I expect, the tournament is only partially about determining the champion. The games themselves have a lot of entertainment value.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
64 teams accommodate all of the conference champions from the mid majors who in a 32 team tourney would squeeze out lots of potentially good teams.
OTOH, expanding the field by 32 more doesn't increase the odds of a Cinderella, it does just the opposite, by forcing the lower ranked teams to play in yet another game.
So why bother robbing the NIT of its teams? are you going to watch that 9 v 24 seed game?
February 5th, 2010 at 12:01 PM ^
They actually care about teams who win their conferences. If you make it any smaller and still include all the auto-bids you're going to end up taking some teams out that actually are capable of at least making the final four - if not win the whole thing. Right now the general cut off for at large bids is around a 12 seed - if you cut it in half you're looking at a cut off of a 6 seed. It wasn't that long ago that Wisconsin made the Final Four as a 7 seed (IIRC).
February 5th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
Next, ask yourself this: if this is the same as "a new bowl pairing 6-6 teams," why would you want that? If you like a sport and care about how it arrives at a champion, why would you not care about something that waters down BOTH the regular season and the playoffs? Why wouldn't someone care about that?
February 5th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
It's not that I want new bowl games for mediocre teams and new tournament slots for 10th-place ACC teams, it's that I just don't care. Once it gets to the round of 64, the field will very closely resemble what it would have been, anyway. This is extraordinarily unlikely to alter the champion so the games are simply there for entertainment purposes.
I read Brian's post on the matter. Obviously I disagree with his position. I've always been mystified when people complain about crappy new bowl games when it's much easier to ignore them and I'm wondering if there's something intrinsic about a tournament that makes the comparison invalid. If so, I'll join the opposition. If not, I'll watch or ignore the new games depending on how bored I am when they're being played.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
I don't like it because it undervalues an already less meaningful regular season. I would have never imagined that a team with a less than .500 conference record would get into the dance, with 96 teams, it would probably happen. The idea that a post-season tournament rewards the good teams, and excludes the mediocre is something that I like. I feel that a 96 team tournament is the equivalent of a youth sports league, where everyone get a trophy.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
It doesn't water-down the tournament, it adds to it. There's more games before the 64-team tourney we're used to. We can choose to ignore the games leading up to that, just as we currently ignore the play-in game for the 16th seed team. If undeserving teams play in the tournament they'll lose. It doesn't compromise the tourney's ability to determine a champ in the least.
What IS compromised is the regular season. Its already only moderately relevant; its at best a preview and prep for the tournament. The conference tournament auto-bids have also further watered-down the regular season relevance.
The reason people don't like this are pretty simple:
1 - Its unnecessary. EVERYONE loves the tournament and there is no reason to mess with it.
2 - Its overt greed. Given reason 1, money is the clear motivation. Most fans are sick of feeling like they're being milked for every dollar and this is more of the same.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
"We can choose to ignore the games leading up to that, just as we currently ignore the play-in game for the 16th seed team"
Exactly. If people already ignore the play in game, which I believe most people do, why would anyone watch the EVEN WORSE games that would come before it.
And it does water it down. If you look at seeds as probability, ex. 1 seeds have x% chance of winning the whole thing, compared to 16th seeds who have a much smaller x% chance of winning, the addition of more teams cuts the pie into smaller and smaller pieces. More teams = lower chance of winning for everyone. Therefore, you have the best teams, winning less. The point of the tournament, from a pure sports perspective, is to determine the best team in the country. Even under the current system, you would have a tough time persuading me that any team lower than, let's say...., a 4th seed is the best team, even if they win the tournament.
What is the point of including teams that effectively have a 0% chance of winning, when everyone knows they shouldn't win, and when their inclusion harms actual good teams that a have a legitimate claim to the title? This has nothing to do with basketball. It has everything to do with money.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
I think the biggest deal for me is that it lessens the importance of the regular season...there's obviously still going to be a bubble, but it'll be a bubble involving the third and fourth team in the Ohio Valley conference instead of Michigan or Minnesota or Northwestern.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
The tournament is now a reward for having a good season, making it 96 teams rewards teams for being mediocre.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^
expands to 96 teams they may as well invite everyone. In essence, teams in conference tournaments are in a NCAA playoff at that time anyway.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
If you want to watch more games and different match-ups, go to Justin.tv or buy a dish. But to add new teams makes no sense - especially with most conferences adding their own tournaments within the past 20 years.
And besides, as most of us know, we truly don't like "Ch..Ch..Ch..Ch...Changes!" anyway, as Bowie would say.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
where it really starts to make a mockery of the regular season. When over a quarter of the teams make the NCAA tourney, there's a problem.
The tourney is fine the way it is. Half the tourney is conference champs. The other half is at large teams.
Clarification, the tourney is fine other than the play in game. That is a complete joke and a horrible slap in the face to the team that loses the play in. Drop the play in and drop one at large.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
There's too many bowl games; it needs to be scaled back. 6-6 teams shouldn't be getting into bowls, period.
64 teams in the NCAA tournament is more than enough. How many mediocre teams need to be rewarded? Why stop at 96? Let's do 128 so there will be a full round of games? How about another full round? Let's do 256; now it gets fun.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
I wonder if this same argument went on in 1950, 1952, 1974, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, and 2000. Honestly, if you aren't one of the best 16 teams in the country come tournament time, you shouldn't have a shot at the title. The 65 team playoff is meant to give exposure to programs and bring in more money for the teams and the NCAA. I see no problem with going to 96 teams because it won't dilute the tournament any more than it already is. If a team would rather play in the NIT, they can still do so if they wish.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
The only reason I personally get annoyed with the possibility of expanding the NCAA tourney is cause it's just ONE more change in the sporting world that is primarily created due to $$. More teams = more $$, simple as that.
I mean honestly, concepts like tradition and history just don't seem to apply anymore. Instead we have douche bag executives who have nothing better than to do than change the rules and layouts of sports that had previously remained unchanged for decades, if not longer.
And while these d bags are ruining our sports, the press that follows them seems to be taking on the style developed by E!. Sports news is no longer about highlights (remember when you actually could SEE every game that was played the day before??). Now it's about drama, controversy, and a sole focus around star players. I mean honestly, how often have you ever seen an NHL highlight that DOESNT include Crosby or Ovechkin??
So yeah, I'm bitter about the tourney cause it's just one more change, in one more sport, and I know it won't be the last.
Rant over
February 5th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
because it means that Michigan will go dancing.
That is all.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:32 PM ^
Not at this rate they won't.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:07 AM ^
Michigan needs to make it into the 64 team tournament. Not a good enough reason IMHO.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
Becuz Brian doesn't WANT IT. WHAT OTHER REASON DO YOU NEED! AAAAAAAAAASDLFKJSDLKHBKBLH!
Seriously though, it's just watering down the tournament. There's an increased risk of injury to someone on a great team while playing a terrible team, there's no added benefit to the purpose of the tournament, namely to choose a national champion, and it's not like anyone can follow that many games anyway.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
"What is common is always of little value" as the old saying goes
If you are one of 64 people with $100, then that $100 is worth man than if 96 people have $100, because the money is easier to get.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^
Skip the conference tournaments and let everyone in. It works in high school, at least in Michigan. That way, nobody gets to bitch and everyone gets a chance. Also, bringing back a true regional setup based on region instead of having teams fly from Maine to California to play a first-round "regional" would be a great thing to do for fans and students.
Once again, it's supposedly "all about the students," so let all students see their team play a tournament game close enough to their school that they can attend if they choose to do so. A last place MAC team against the Big Ten winner might look like a crappy game to most, but not to the schools involved.
As for the money, it will be there no matter what "system" they use. I would imagine that all the NCAA is really doing here is consolidating the NCAA and the NIT, anyway.
What this will accomplish, though, is to ensure that teams from bigger conferences that are better than small-conference champions can't feel like they are getting a raw deal anymore.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
I spend too much time filling out brackets as it is (yes, I'm one of those guys with 10 different brackets). Having 96 teams would kill me.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
Currently, watching a 13 seed beat a 4 seed, or a 14 beat a 3, or even the occasional 15 over 2 is fun because the teams winning are Autobids from the MAC, the SWAC, the Atlantic Sun, or some other low-powered conference beating a high-major team. The games are exciting, and you generally have a rooting interest as you want to see the underdog win. However, if the tournament expands to 96 teams, you'll see the same teams that would have been 13, 14, or 15 seeds playing as teams seeded somewhere in the 19-23 range, meaning that they would have to beat another probable high-major in the first round to get into the second round to play against the higher seeded teams. This would dramatically reduce the number of low-major teams making it to play the best high-major teams in the country, thus heavily reducing the number of games where we see a great upset. This would make the tournament boring.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^
Things it DOESN'T offer the "sport", but rather self-serves certain people:
1) A money grab by the NCAA/TV.
2) When mid/small conferences started splitting off and forming new ones, it was in hopes of getting a better shot at their own auto-bid. If we go to 96, this will become even more rampant, as it will create more room for more auto-bids. Everybody and their brother will have a conference.
3) Offers the top seeds (already a huge advantage playing a 16, then at best an 8 in the first 2 rounds) and even bigger advantage.
This is one of the few close-to-perfect things the NCAA has going. Everyone reasonably represented, "fair" chance to all participants, format not under debate currently by "fans". Leave it be!
February 5th, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^
Just another item in a long list of hypocrisy in my belief. The regular season will mean very little for the top 6 to 8 conferences causing an anti climatic wait until the tournament finally rolls around in March. But there is light at the end of the tunnel for those of us who want a football playoff. If you extend a season two weeks for hoops, in semester, why cant you extend the football season two weeks during winter break? I look forward hearing more weak arguments from this corrupt organization in the future.