What would a 96 team bracket look like? (A possibility... that I don't like)
by chirop1 on Apr 2, 2010 8:21 AM EDT
Email
Print
ESPN.com says that the NCAA is proposing a bracket that would include 32 more teams and would incorporate a bye for the top 32 teams. Furthermore, they have stated that it would be played in the same timeframe as the current 65 team tourney. I have yet to find an article that explains it further, but from what I've seen the tournament would commence as usual and then play Tuesday - Sunday in the second week. (Which is bizarre to me.)
My question is... how would the seeding work from there? I looked at a standard 16 team region and went from there. Hopefully I can get this to sort itself in a rational way, but I looked at the 1-8 seeds getting a bye and then set up the next 16 teams with a 9 playing 24; 10 playing 23; etc.
1
9
24
8
16
17
6
14
19
4
12
22
3
11
21
5
13
20
7
15
18
2
10
23
I would presume that the current 16th seeds would likely end up as the 24th seeds under this format. (i.e. East Tennessee State et al would end up with lower seeds than the UConns, UNC's, and Arizona's that would have made the tourney this year under a 96 team field.) So essentially, a top seed like Kansas would have played a team like Northern Iowa (if a nine seed) in their very first game instead of the second round. Additionally, look at the Big East tournament this year with their dreaded "double bye" system. 3 of the 4 teams with byes ended up losing their opening game. Many people think that a bye is actually a disadvantage because of the "momentum" that the other team gets playing that opening game. I'm not old enough to remember it, but #1 DePaul famously lost their first tournament game after recieving a bye.
There are plenty of reasons for the NCAA to expand the tournament, unfortunately none of them have to do with basketball.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hrrrrrmmmm
As I think about it… I suppose there are other possibilities that wouldn’t have the pitfalls of that format.
23 could play 24 for the right to face #1. A 9 seed could play a 10 seed to face an 8 seed. That would then lead to a “Round of 64” that is much closer to what we are accustomed to.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
we had a word for it in the Army.....
“cluster#$^!”…..that’s what it is going to look like…..
You know what is amazing about this, no one….I mean NO ONE….is in favor of this but the NCAA…….even Pat Forde is against it…..now I kknow it’s a bad idea……when you put another game’s strain on players it is going to have even more effects, domino style.
Players remain out of school longer.
It will mean that it is possible to have 3 games in 6 days for some players.
There will be schools in the tournament every year with losing records.
Winning big games during the season, and conference tournaments no longer have the same meaning, because you can get in without them.
Scheduling is going to go into the tank, becuase teams will start lightening their load every chance they get because they may have to play another game late in the season.
This is worse than adding Bowl games……..
This potentially means that an SEC team could have to win 4 SEC tournament games, followed by 7 NCAA tournament games to win it all…..Impossible………might as well hang a sign out that says “Intermural Games Played Here”
I AM THE CAT......The Cat In The Hat!!!
Well... it puts the lie to the BCS argument
It would take students away from their studies! (Nevermind the fact that bowl games are played mostly during the Christmas break.)
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
Why not?
Why would we, a recent participant in the NIT, not want to see it expanded? Or maybe we don’t want to think about playing a team of Mississippi State’s caliber a third time.
The finals of conference tournaments is somewhat of a first round tournament game. Again, Mississippi State. I believe that would have made an excellent choice to be olaced in the expanded tournament.
Every one loved the fact tath Murray State got into the Big Dance but if they were upset by Morehead in the conference finals and not made it wouldn’t the tournament been a little less entertaining without their participation?
The chosening of the extra teams could be based on record and strenght of schedule.
Why not let them in?
If they had done it a few years earlier we could still be bragging about our lenght of continious participation.
Surely we aren’t afraid of losing to a number 88 seed!
I have be correctly accused of having a 'football fetish'. You know, someone who doesn't think football is the warm up sport to basketball season.
The NIT will be history.....and a third time against MSU nets the same result......
look how far THEY got in the NIT…..
It’s not being afraid of losing to an 88 seed, although for some coaches, I would not want to have to explain that one……
It is about adding more useless games to the tournament that will have no effect on the outcome.
Anyone want to bet on Butler making it to the Final Four if they have to play 3 games in 6 days just to get to the Sweet 16? I just think it is ludicrous to add more games when it will not improve the quality of the competition, and could end up doing more harm than good to a team, player, or coach.
I AM THE CAT......The Cat In The Hat!!!
ABC
If every one is playing three games in six days how is it not equal?
How many of the lower seeds, 9 through 16, make it to the Final Four?
As far as football bowls. It has been proven you can win 1/4 of you conference games, finish last or next to last in a twelve team conference and make it to a bowl. And next year their is going to be at least two more bowls they get to chose one of these teams to fill the slots.
Now has North Carolina done in the NIT?
I have be correctly accused of having a 'football fetish'. You know, someone who doesn't think football is the warm up sport to basketball season.
The NIT is done under this plan.....it will no longer exist. UNC didnt go to the NCAA tourney
which it will next year even if it is worse than this year, (under this plan)……
I AM THE CAT......The Cat In The Hat!!!
OR
Why not shorten it? Sixteen teams max.
Let only regular season conference winners in.
Pick from the conferences based on strenght of schedule.
That’ll show the lttle guys they are playing for NOTHING!
No more Butlers, Murray States, St, Mary’s etc.
Yep, make it a club for the big guys.
I have be correctly accused of having a 'football fetish'. You know, someone who doesn't think football is the warm up sport to basketball season.
Your sarcasm indicates that you don't think it should be a "club for the big guys"
I have yet to hear anyone say that they think this expansion would allow for both Morehead and Murray to make the tournament. This expansion will only benefit the lower tier of the power conferences year in and year out and likely will have little to no effect on the overall outcome.
If (when) the expansion does occur, I would be in favor of a policy that guarantees admission for both the regular season and conference tournament winners. Most of the time you would likely have no changes to the field, but on occaision you might end up with two teams from the Colonial Athletic Conference or the Ohio Valley Conference.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
Nah
You need to tweak that. If it’s just regular season champ and tourney champ, the regular season champ will lay down in the conference tournament to get the conference two bids (or the refs being really biased to get the conference two bids, perhaps). You need to make it regular season champ and tourney champ, but with a minimum of two bids per conference. If those two teams are the same, the 2nd place regular season team gets bid #2.
At any rate, having 2 teams per conference is the only thing that could make tourney expansion palatable. Always like to see the little guys get their shot. I don’t want UNC and UConn to get their shot in years where they each lose 11 conference games.
by Incipient_Senescence on Apr 3, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
My sarcasm? I was making a point that should be considered.
Your right, I don’t think it should be a club for the major conferences. Did St Mary’s have an effect on the outcome? How about Butler? I don’t think either was from a major conference. Is Northern Iowa in the Big Ten?
If you fear losing you shouldn’t be playing the game.
Its a tournament for the entire membership for the Division One schools of the NCAA in basketball.
I have be correctly accused of having a 'football fetish'. You know, someone who doesn't think football is the warm up sport to basketball season.
You do make some valid points, and here is the best solution I have heard to this situation.
This was not my idea, but I believe it has merit, and the guy that came up with this hybrid is just a fan who wants to see things better, just not bigger.
First:
The NCAA tournament starts with the Conference Tournaments. So everyone who belongs to a conference is in the dance to start. Every conference gets a bid, 1 bid guaranteed.
Second:
All independents get their own play in tourney, call it the Independent Invitiational if you will. They have a chance to play their way in, seeding to be determined.
Third:
A conference gets a second bid if their Reg Season Champion is different from their tourney champ.
Fourth: All Div I teams with winning records only get consideration for the remaining bids out of the 64 teams.
Fifth: The NIT remains as an additional tournament, with the possibility of making the NIT champ another bid as well( although this was considered a long shot as to being feasible)
I dont know that it is a workable solution, but I think it’s a good place to start.
I AM THE CAT......The Cat In The Hat!!!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Any other commentary is superfluous.
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom" - Hayek
Please don't consider -
And all this time I thought it was a young man’s dream to get to play in an NCAA tournament game! I bet there’s some young men at Western Kentucky University that enjoy the fact they made it there.
And of course the money. I bet the President of the NCAA is making millions to put in his own pocket. Heck, he’s probably makeing more than Bill Gates.
Wonder if any of that money goes back to the teams? Or maybe to run the organization? How about staging tournaments for the non profit sports in the various divisions?
How about an audit to show the millions that follows the trail to all that has be socked away by the men and women in Indianapolis?
I have be correctly accused of having a 'football fetish'. You know, someone who doesn't think football is the warm up sport to basketball season.
I feel like you just regurgitated the NCAA commercials that have been running throughout the tourney
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
Maybe there is some truth in it I guess.
I don’t think they would fill Rupp to watch the Rifle Championships. And I doublt any of the teams traveled by Greyhound Bus.
I have be correctly accused of having a 'football fetish'. You know, someone who doesn't think football is the warm up sport to basketball season.
I just saw a mock bracket on ESPNU while home for lunch
Apparently, they would have the 16/17 seeds play against each other to face the 1.
Which is all fine and good, with the exception that the 16/17 seeds in the new tournament would likely be more equivalent to a 12 or 13 seed as they are currently seeded. Lets be honest… the 8 seeds that currently make up the 15th and 16th seeds will be the new 23s and 24s. So by adding these teams and giving a bye game, they are making the opening game significantly more difficult for the top teams.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 01/18/2012]
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
