Just want to throw this out there more for future than current discussion, and before I get so busy that I have no time to post it.
Maybe the small schools could concede the single bye to the top 32 if certain concessions are given in return. In my format the bottom 64 teams (of the 96) would play down to 16 at the same time that the top field of 32 would play within that field to get down to 16. At that point we would combine these fields for a total of 32.
This would require the 4 regional brackets to be seeded from 1 to 24 with the 1-8 seeds going to the single bye field and the 9-24 going to the other. The catch for this would be the introduction of chaos and excitement into the bottom 64 field by giving the 9-24 of each region a blind draw (no seeding with no regular season rematch restrictions) Maybe 9 plays 10 with a chance to face the winner of 22 vs 11. (who knows? it is a blind draw.)
Should the 1-8 seed field be blind drawn or not could be a seperate question but the first round (or whatever you want to call it) matchups of regular season opponents should be avoided. (for that 32 team single bye field)
I realize that there are loose ends here all over but I believe it is just a matter of time before the NCAA will propose a well thought out 96 team proposal that will tilt the balance even further to the power conference schools. We need to have our own answer which has something for us before this debate even begins. I think we talked about this eventual expansion to 96 on the old board and couldn't seem to agree on anything. Maybe now is the time for mid-major schools to establish a united position?
Lord I hope not. 64 teams is enough. If you really think about it, if you include the conference tournaments, I would estimate over 95% of teams have a chance or last chance to win the national championship. It will start looking like the bowl system - where all kids win and get their ice cream.
At 64 teams, about one of 5 teams make the tournament. Make entering this an accomplishment rather than something is expected.
I agree that going very far beyond 68 teams is pretty ridiculous. Perhaps going to 72 with four play-in games, but nothing more. Interestingly, I think that the move to have the last four at-large teams "play-in" and have the four bottom teams play-in has been more advantageous to teams outside of the power six conferences. VCU went all the way to the final four and last year two #15 seeds beat number two seeds. Three (or all four) of the last at-large teams are from mid-majors this year (beating out Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, etc.).
I doubt that the major conference teams will try to find some way to slight the mid-majors. There may be a handful of schools that are against mid-majors, but I think that the vast majority are OK and still recognize the significant advantage they have with scheduling.
NCAA Expands March Madness To Include 4,096 Teams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxyPeME9TbI#)
Why stop at 96? How about 4,096!
No expansion is necessary. Virtually all conferences have a conference tournament to determine the automatic entry. Any expansion would negate the NIT, CBI and CIT.
Quote from: covufan on March 20, 2013, 02:24:58 PMNo expansion is necessary. Virtually all conferences have a conference tournament to determine the automatic entry. Any expansion would negate the NIT, CBI and CIT.
I wonder what VCU would think of this the year the started in the "play-in" game and lost to Butler in the Final Four.
Quote from: historyman on March 20, 2013, 05:45:48 PM
Quote from: covufan on March 20, 2013, 02:24:58 PMNo expansion is necessary. Virtually all conferences have a conference tournament to determine the automatic entry. Any expansion would negate the NIT, CBI and CIT.
I wonder what VCU would think of this the year the started in the "play-in" game and lost to Butler in the Final Four.
Expanding from 65 to 68 is not much of an expansion. VCU did receive an 'at-large' bid, but there were 4 #11 seed bids that were at large and 2 #12 seed bids, so there is a good chance that VCU would have made the field before the expansion to 68.
If the NCAA were to go to 96 teams, that means that an additional 28 teams would receive 'at-large' bids. I would highly suggest to the NCAA that preference should be given to above .500 teams in their conference (as well as overall) when comparing teams with similar ratings (RPI, Sagarin, whatever). We don't want the increased field of 28 to have a bunch of 16-15 teams from the Big Six (or 7 with the new Big lEast).
I think expanding it to 96 teams is a dumb idea...there's enough teams in it
And it's not for the benefit of mid-majors, anyway.
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 21, 2013, 05:37:03 PM
And it's not for the benefit of mid-majors, anyway.
Correct. As was said, it's about the money that extra NCAA games generates.