i don't even know how this would work with the brackets? it would cripple one of the ncaa's biggest money makers in the brackets

Gottleib brought up a good point about how Championship Week will lose its luster here, as there won't be these "only the winner gets in" scenarios as much (IF AND ONLY IF the NCAA takes the second team from mid-major conferences with these extra 32 slots and not the 11th team from the Big East or Big 12).

I wouldn't wanna be the 97th team on the outside looking in.

This will lead to about 9 out of 11 big ten teams making the field. This is being done because the big conferences want less chance for upsets. If the field goes to 96 teams the 32 with byes get an advantage because they play one less game and have one less chance of being upset. The only drama this adds is the appeal of being an 8 seed over a 9 seed. It might become harder to make some conference tourneys then the actual big dance.

sportchampps wrote: I wouldn't wanna be the 97th team on the outside looking in.

This will lead to about 9 out of 11 big ten teams making the field. This is being done because the big conferences want less chance for upsets. If the field goes to 96 teams the 32 with byes get an advantage because they play one less game and have one less chance of being upset. The only drama this adds is the appeal of being an 8 seed over a 9 seed. It might become harder to make some conference tourneys then the actual big dance.

I don't understand what you mean by one less chance for upsets. The top teams are still going to have to win 6 games to win a title. And if you have more major schools sneaking in the third tier, chances are good those schools are still going beat the auto-qualifiers from the rinky dink conferences. Which would seem to increase the potential for round of 64 upsets (seriously, would your team have felt more threatened by Illinois who was left out completely or Arkansas Pine Bluff - and who would have likely won a game between those two).

I haven't seen the actual proposal, so I wonder how the bracket will be set up. Will it be a straight 9 v. 24 plays 1, 10 v. 23 plays 2? Will they play the first round and then re-seed the winners? Will they play the first round and 1 gets the lowest remaining seed? There's a lot of ways to go and a straight bracket could really disadvantage the top couple of teams.

For example, if 9 beats 24, the 1 has a tough matchup in its first game. But if 1 draws the 16-17 winner and 24 upsets 9, then you've got your 8 seed with the "easiest" first game matchup.

Dumb idea. It's funny how eager they are to reform the NCAA tourney, but aren't so quick to change the BCS

jordo212000 wrote: Dumb idea. It's funny how eager they are to reform the NCAA tourney, but aren't so quick to change the BCS

Expand NCAA tourney = more money
Change the BCS = not more money

Not the same.

To everyone who wants this:

Fuck you.

enigmaax wrote: Change the BCS = not more money

Not the same.

I completely disagree there.

Add me in for not wanting it. The field is just about right the way it is: enough incentive during the regular season to compete to virtually lock up a spot, but enough teams getting in to have some awesome upsets. You make it too big, and it becomes too watered down.

KobeStopper wrote: To everyone who wants this:

Fuck you.

This

If we had had the expanded tourney this year, both of my teams, Dayton and Kent, would have been in. That's why I'm in favor of it.

If your teams won enough games, they'd be in. They didn't and they're not.

Win or go home, as they say.

KobeStopper wrote: If your teams won enough games, they'd be in. They didn't and they're not.

Win or go home, as they say.

My teams won enough games, they just didn't win the right games. At least Dayton won the NIT, so that gives me some consolation.

This is a bad idea just like it was to expand to 65 teams a few years back. Assuming they go to 96, I'd like to see them consider capping the number of teams a conference can send. Also, reward conference champs by giving them them a bye. I'd rather see the winner of a conference get a by instead of the 7th place team from a conference.

Wonder how much of an effect the 1st round bye will have? I could definitely see it hurting a few teams.

How would it be seeded? 4 brackets of 24 or 8 brackets of 12. I like the 8/12 idea better than 4/24.

But in general, I hate the overall idea. I hated the play-in game when they added that.

The only description I've seen so far has the extra games essentially packing in the week between the current Week 1 and Week 2. So that the tournament will still begin and end at the same time as it does today, date wise.

From what I read:

First Round: Thursday/Friday Week 1
Second Round: Saturday/Sunday Week 1 (First game for teams with byes)
Third Round: TUESDAY/WEDNESDAY Week 2
Sweet 16: Thursday/Friday Week 2
Elite 8: Saturday/Sunday Week 2
Final 4: Saturday Week 3
Championship: Monday Week 3

Still haven't seen anything about the seeding.

My 8/12 wouldn't work. Essentially, you would have to give like 32 first round byes. That would be horrible. Null my 8/12 idea.

This move totally devalues the regular season and the conference tournaments for the power conferences.

Keebler wrote: My 8/12 wouldn't work. Essentially, you would have to give like 32 first round byes. That would be horrible. Null my 8/12 idea.

In 4/24, you also have 32 first round byes.

Alright, honestly, this is a done deal from what I'm hearing. It's going to be a 4/24, most likely. Problem is, very few people actually want this to happen, except for the coaches, NCAA, an a few fans. The only way to stop this is, if this happens, boycott the tournament. Enough people nationwide do that, and they'll lose money and be forced to return it.

Al Bundy wrote:

Keebler wrote: My 8/12 wouldn't work. Essentially, you would have to give like 32 first round byes. That would be horrible. Null my 8/12 idea.

In 4/24, you also have 32 first round byes.

Yeah, there will be 32 first round byes no matter how you divide them. The wildcard now, assuming its a done deal, is how they determine who plays who in the second round.

Prescott wrote: This move totally devalues the regular season and the conference tournaments for the power conferences.

I tend to agree with this, but the coaches seem to be saying that they like the idea IF all conference champions and all tournament champions receive automatic bids. It would place an importance on both the regular season and conference tournaments.

As it is, the regular season isn't worth as much as it could be in the sense that there are several schools each year who win a regular season title that don't make the big dance because they are upset in their conference tourney. Obviously, this applies to primarily to mid-majors and below. For some of those small time directional conferences, it completely enhances the value of their regular season.

The other thing about this is that it pretty much kills the NIT. Wonder if that has anything to do with the decision?

I hate it.

The regular season and conference tournaments practically mean nothing.

All those teams fighting in the conference tournament to get off the bubble or as their only way to get into the NCAA tournament by winning the conference tourney is GONE.

96 teams? Seriously?

I mean, I absolutely understand that this is 100% about money. I mean sure, they'll be some crazy moments as some upsets happen, but I just think opening the flood gates and letting almost a 1/3rd of the entire d1 into the tournament is a terrible ideal.

Power conference will fill this thing up.

The one thing I can say, is at least the teams still decide the champion with their play, and not based on who voters THINK are the 1 and 2 best teams in the country.