Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

How a 96-team field would look

Posted on: March 11, 2010 12:25 pm
 

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The NCAA laid out what a 96-team bracket would look like to Big 12 administrators on Wednesday.

--The first, second (and third) round would extend from Tuesday through Sunday. That means first, second and third-round games would be Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday in some sites. Other sites would have Wednesday, Friday, Sunday games.

It's kind of the same as we have now with first and second round games Thursday and Saturday and Friday and Sunday.

--The 32 teams in the top half of the bracket would have to win six games to win the national championship. The bottom 64 would have to win seven.

--Concern about missed class time is negligible. We're basically talking about the 32 games from the NIT. Those games are far flung and on different days. With 96 teams, we'd still end up with a Sweet 16 after the first week.

--There was no mention of revenue distribution. That's a key point. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, among other, are on record as saying schools will have to make more than they do per "unit" in the current setup. To prevent "the $100,000 free throw", the NCAA long ago went to paying schools equal-share "units" for every game they win in the tournament.

--Depending on who you talk to, this is a) a done deal and will start next season; b) could be folded in over a period of years or c) will come in three years after the current CBS contract expires.

 

Category: NCAAB
Tags: Big 12, Big Ten, NCAA
 
Comments

Since: Jan 17, 2008
Posted on: March 11, 2010 8:39 pm
 

How a 96-team field would look

I like that one guy who earlier in the threat  -  make it a draw - for all teams  -  and have Cinderellas go deep in the tournament by the luck of the draw  -   and other good teams lose early on because of the draw.
This has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You must not be a fan of a good team. If my #1 seed Jayhawks drew a first round game against a #2 seed while another #1 seed drew a #24 seed, there would be rioting in the streets.

There is absolutely no good reason to change the tournament right now. And can we please stop referencing freakin' soccer?!?



Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: March 11, 2010 7:30 pm
 

How a 96-team field would look

They don't. They've got to play a game they're probably not going to win to get to that game. More often than not, the No. 20 seed would not beat the No. 13 seed.

96 teams is a stupid idea. Reduce the field by one and it's perfect.



Since: Dec 28, 2009
Posted on: March 11, 2010 6:02 pm
 

How a 96-team field would look



Over all its a bad idea



The best idea was to mix up the seedings  -  and getting "Group of Death"



Since: Dec 28, 2009
Posted on: March 11, 2010 5:51 pm
 

Sweet Spot



OK   this is what I meant   -    a play-in game for the right to play a 1, 2, 3 or 4 seeded team is alot worse than a play-in game to play a 5, 6, 7, or 8 seeded team.



So the 20, 21, 22 seeds have it better than the 16, 17, 18, 19 seeds.



That's what I'm trying to say.



I like that one guy who earlier in the threat  -  make it a draw - for all teams  -  and have Cinderellas go deep in the tournament by the luck of the draw  -   and other good teams lose early on because of the draw.


That would be more fun than what we have now.


Now, the seeding makes too many blow-outs in the first three games of the tournament  -     Sure, it is fun to see who the Cinderellas will be, however that is not exceeded by the number of games we know the winner of based on the seeds.




Right now the 8-9 match-ups are most competitive early on  -  but how good is that ??     For the right to play the number one seed?



I rather be a 12 or 13 seed  -  play a 4 or 5 seed    and go that way   -     you have the same problem with a new round.




.



Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: March 11, 2010 5:50 pm
 

How a 96-team field would look

Where did you come up with that math? It would be as follows:

1 vs. 16/17
8 vs. 9/24
5 vs. 12/21
4 vs. 13/20
6 vs. 11/22
3 vs. 14/19
7 vs. 10/23
2 vs. 15/18

That just looks so awful. North Carolina would be in the field if this happened. Any NCAA tournament that involves this year's Tar Heels, unless they won the ACC tournament, is just ridiciulous.



Since: Dec 28, 2009
Posted on: March 11, 2010 5:41 pm
 

How a 96-team field would look



The advantage is the larger field gives the lower ranked teams a chance to win a game before facing the top seeds and elimination.




However -  there is a problem   -   



Under a 96 team field   -   there is a sweet spot   -    if seeds 20 and 21 win, they will be able to play the 8 and 9 seeds   -   while the 16 seed has to beat the 17 seed to play the number 1 seed.



Something like that   -    I don't know how it will work   -  




Or the 9 seed will play the 24th seed for the right to play the number 8 seed???




Would you rather do that    -   than be the 16th seed playing the 17th seed for the right to play the number one seed??



It seems like  seeds 15, 16, 17, 18   are still horrible   -   but then a sweet spot starts to develop   -   the lower ranked teams, if they win the first (new game) get to play the 10, 11, 12, 13 seeded teams



or something like that



Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: March 11, 2010 5:36 pm
 

How a 96-team field would look

Think how much more exiting it will all be! Especially for us! More Games=More Entertainment just think about it! More upsets, more great finishes, more brackets, more cinderellas, everything is MORE and BETTER. But it won't be. More games doesn't equal more entertainment. It's going to equal less. You'll get lousy first round matchups that nobody cares about. I don't want to see a first-round game between Arizona State and Portland. That's boring. It's going to result in less upsets, less great finishes and less Cinderellas. I'll give you more brackets, but that's the only thing.

Everything else is going to be less and worse. The interest is going to drop and March isn't going to be nearly as fun as it is now. It's going to be bigger, worse and a lot less fun. Anyone who's for this needs his head examined.



Since: Dec 28, 2009
Posted on: March 11, 2010 5:30 pm
 

How a 96-team field would look



Terpfan68 has a great idea:


The only thing more exciting would be if there were no seeded teams and a televised draw for pairings took place like the FA Cup.

Can everyone say "Group of Death"?




Why NOT ???



This is a great idea   -  right now the first two rounds are pretty boring, everyone knows who is going to win.     Yea, there is a search for a Cinderella, but no one knows who that is going to be until the exciting games are over.



Yea, it would be exciting if some weaker teams had easier schedules  -    


In a sense, right now the highest ranked teams have the easiest path  -   let's mix it up



Since: Dec 28, 2009
Posted on: March 11, 2010 5:24 pm
 

Insanity



It is called March Madness  -  however 96 teams is insanity



There is no reason to give 32 teams an advantage of a bye  - 



AND really  -   what is the history of 11-16 seeds in the tournament  -   not very good.



OK   so right now you have 16 and 15 seeds   having very little chance of winning a game  -  it would be nice to see them win a game  -   maybe add only 16 teams     -  or 8  additional teams.


But adding 32 teams is complete insanity   -   



Since: Jan 17, 2008
Posted on: March 11, 2010 4:57 pm
 

How a 96-team field would look

Here is a website that built a projected 96 team bracket:



Are there any games that would be played on the first two days of the tournament that you would want to watch? The #16 versus #17 matchups would be the teams closest together in seeded and likely the most competitive games. They feature such stellar matchups as:

(16) Murray State vs. (17) Virginia Commonwealth
(16) BOSTON COLLEGE vs. (17) St. John's
(16) North Carolina vs. (17) Tulsa
(16) Wichita State vs. (17) South Florida

Again, these are likely the BEST games on for the "new" frist two days of the tournament. I don't see myself running out to a sports bar to watch that junk.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com