A change I'd like to see in the NCAA tournament - Page 2

ChuckElias · #16 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 16, 2005, 01:54pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
If I were to pick any expansion, it should go to 96 teams...

With a 96 teams bracket, #33-#96 would play...eliminating 32 teams...back to 64.

Personally, I love this idea. It gets all the conference winners in, plus anybody in the top 25 who lost their conference final, plus anybody who had a good season in a non-glamour conference.

Plus, it harkens back to the days when the top seeds got a first-round bye, which I think is a nice incentive. You play consistently well throughout the season and you're rewarded with a first round bye.

But imagine the headache of seeding 96 teams. The first 20 or so seeds would probably be pretty easy, but what's to distinguish seed #90 from seed #96?

Almost Always Right · #17 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 16, 2005, 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by Almost Always Right
The NCAA has set a pretty good line with the number of teams in that we have never had a 16 beat a 1 but we have had 15s beat 2s. So it would appear that 4 regionals with 16/17 teams per regional works out pretty well.
The money generated from this tournament is tremendous and every team shares in this. No matter if you are a 16 or a 1.
As a matter of fact - Let 3 more teams in and let them share in the moneys too. Let each #1 seed play the winner of a play-in game.
Anything more might be bordering on excessive. But what is our society about though - excess, right - so why not!!
AAR

Having the 1 playin game is just as excessive as playing 4 playin games.

If I were to pick any expansion, it should go to 96 teams...or 128.

With a 96 teams bracket, #33-#96 would play...eliminating 32 teams...back to 64.

For 128, to keep it for extending longer for everyone, I would play #65-#128, to reduce to 96 teams then play the 96 as above.

Both of these would let more people into the tourney but would not extend the number of games for anyone likely to make it deep in the brackets. It would also reduce the number of 1st day demolitions.

All that said, I think 64 is sufficient...get rid of the playin game.

cam - I did say that this society is about EXCESS. Thanks for the agreement. Just kidding.
Of course 128 or even 96 would be too excess. I just thought if we gave 3 more Davids a chance at 3 more Goliaths, it might add just a touch more spice to it(not that this event needs anything extra).
Thanx.
AAR