96-team NCAAT field could come as early as 2011

I’m not going to get into what I actually think of this move by the money-hungry NCAA because my blood pressure needs to stay at acceptable levels. Every time I hear about this move it makes me question the entire NCAA as a whole.

But despite any negative feelings from sports writers, fans, coaches or anyone else, expansion is going to happen. The question now is whether it will happen next year or in 2014 when the current TV contract is up. My money is on next year. The NCAA wants to make more cash as soon as it can. This is one sure fire way to do it. Nevermind that the regular season would become more pointless than it already has become or that 32 teams would actually get a first round bye in the tournament. None of that matters. Just money.

Let me say that I’m not surprised by this. Businesses make changes to make more money all the time. I guess I foolishly allowed myself that the NCAA might not be exactly like every other business. Maybe the NCAA was just a little bit different. A little more concerned with the integrity of competition and the sport itself. Wrong.

NCAA concludes 96-team field would be best fit for expansion

The NCAA appears to be on the verge of expanding the men’s basketball tournament to 96 teams.

Insisting that nothing has been decided, NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen nonetheless outlined a detailed plan Thursday that included the logistics and timing of a 96-team tournament, how much time off the players would have and even revenue distribution.

Shaheen said the NCAA looked at keeping the current 65-team field and expanding to 68 or 80 teams, but decided the bigger bracket was best fit logistically and financially.

It would be played during the same time frame as the current three-week tournament and include first-round byes for 32 teams.

Although the plan still needs to be approved by the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee and passed on to the board of directors, most of the details already seem to be in place.

ESPN’s Dana O’Neil had a good column on the prospect of expansion this morning.

The NCAA made its annual state-of-the-game presentation as the Final Four festivities kicked off across the street from its headquarters. In the process, it unveiled the concoction the evil scientists have been working on over at the lab.

All the bubble battles in the weeks leading up to the tourney? Likely just seeding battles in the future.

No one said a 96-team NCAA tournament was coming for sure.

But they sure used an awful lot of words to explain how hypothetically such a tourney might look.

To be exact, 2,505 words were uttered in the opening address by Greg Shaheen, the NCAA’s vice president for basketball and business strategies.

Yes, I counted.
What do you guys think of expanding the tournament? Good thing? Bad thing?

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

College Basketball

59 Responses to 96-team NCAAT field could come as early as 2011

  1. Pack Mentality 04/02/2010 at 1:15 PM #

    This makes it to where there cannot be a clear cut criteria for a coach that is agreed upon. Say you keep having mediocre seasons but win a few games in the expanded tourney to get to the round of 32 every year. A lot of people would be happy with that, where before expansion you may not have made the field and nobody would be happy.

  2. Broccoman 04/02/2010 at 1:32 PM #

    Seeding would only matter top 8 vs bottom 16.

    Less incentive for teams like NCSU/VT to try really.

    Just go 6-10 in conf and you’re in for a game.

    This is going to cause so many boring games

  3. 4in12 04/02/2010 at 2:11 PM #

    They can do this but we can’t have a football tournament?

    Bull****

  4. Wulfpack 04/02/2010 at 2:30 PM #

    Awesome point 4in12. What a travesty. Let everyone in. Dilute the product. Saturate us with Central Florida vs. Northwestern. Every ACC team gets a bid, so no incentive for a good regular season. Just part of the culture we have today to award trophies for participating and finishing last place. Boring snoozefest.

  5. PapaJohn 04/02/2010 at 2:37 PM #

    ^^ Great point 4n12, if the rationale works for hoops, why not football? That tournament could definitely rival the NCAAT.

  6. ncsukyle 04/02/2010 at 2:40 PM #

    I liked the point John Feinstein made in his Q&A with the VP, but we’ve known for a while that at most places (hopefully not at NCSU) its athletic students not student-athletes. The 1 and done rule demonstrated that the NCAA has no concern with the intellectual well being of players. They just have to keep up good grades (in easy entry level classes) for a semester and a half to be able to play.

    Also isn’t this a slap in the face of the conference tournament winners from the minor conferences. I think it’s kind of unfair already that two of them have to play an extra game to earn the right to be in the field of 64 but this will be even worse for them because you know that they will be seeded in the bottom 8 (or whatever) that don’t get the first round bye. Now they have to win an extra game to have a shot at the title (I realize they don’t really have a shot anyways but the fairness of it is the issue.)

  7. Tiew 04/02/2010 at 4:16 PM #

    One of the arguments I’ve heard made against a football tournament is that tournaments always get expanded. Does this give that “slippery slope” argument more weight?

  8. tcthdi-tgsf-twhwtnc 04/02/2010 at 7:06 PM #

    This would bring a big time lawsuit from the NIT which is being leased by the NCAA because of the last NCAA expansion which the NIT said created a monopoly intended to kill the NIT. If the NCAA must expand how about just adding 3 more god-awful play in games to go agains the other top seeds? This would expand the field by 6 without changing the current structure.

    Another option would be to create a two day ‘play in’ tournament on Tuesday and Wednesday before the Thursday-Friday first round to determine first round match-ups. Of course this would screw up the NIT.

  9. VaWolf82 04/02/2010 at 7:54 PM #

    The NCAA BOUGHT the NIT…not leased.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2136724

  10. howlie 04/02/2010 at 8:11 PM #

    It’s stupid, ludicrous, etc., etc., but that never stopped the NCAA fools. That aside… it WILL happen because what we think doesn’t matter.

    … MY question, then, is how it will affect the work of the Selection Committee on ‘selection Sunday’? Will it be as now, where 58 or so are already ‘automatic’, and all the work is about deciding those last 8 or so slots among 13 or so that could qualify for consideration?
    Will anyone really give a #**# about watching the selection show to see who the teams are selected at #84-#96?

    The expansion just de-hypes the entire process and turns something special into something ordinary.

  11. Wolfy__79 04/02/2010 at 8:15 PM #

    i’m a mild college hoops fan. but i’m a huge NC STATE fan. it’s been so long since we’ve really been a threat on a national level that this makes no difference to me. i do see the point that avg teams are rewarded, that seems pretty obvious.

    i don’t think it will affect the regular season at all.. other than length/# of games. being a die hard NCSU fan, i’m going to be just as interested in the PACK as i’ve ever been. hell, this season i watched every single game that i could, despite knowing i was going to be watching some piss poor basketball. so under this new format, i want to see the team win and improve through the reg season and on into ACC play. then i’d like to see them win the ACC CG. so to me, this is only a down and distance penalty, but actually from where we are coming from.. it actually increases our chances of winning a NC. you just have to play the hand you’re dealt i suppose. HAPPY EASTER.

  12. Wolfy__79 04/02/2010 at 8:17 PM #

    i like the idea of having a conference football tourney for bowl seeding. then let the big boys battle it out.

  13. Wolfy__79 04/02/2010 at 8:23 PM #

    the bigger issue for me is the problem with college athletes leaving early for the nba. that’s where i have a real concern. i don’t think this expansion will have the impact that kids leaving early has. if a student athlete were to graduate early, that would be different. but just to get bought out by the nba, that’s just crazy and disrespectful. that’s a trend with the younger generation, most of us anyway.

  14. 61Packer 04/02/2010 at 10:06 PM #

    Greed for more money never brings good change, and this idea is grand-scale greed. An expansion to 68 teams by having the top 4 seeds instead of just one vs a play-in winner makes sense, because it’s usually about 3 teams that are wrongfully left out each year instead of about 30.

    The two best things about the current NCAA Tourney are Selection Sunday and the opening day on Thursday. A 96-team format would destroy the anticipation and fun of those two days. If you want to know what the opening week of an expanded NCAAT would look like, look no further than to what the opening day of a 12-team ACCT looks like compared to the previous 8-team ACCT. Before ACC expansion, Friday at the ACCT was the best day of the year in local sports, and was widely regarded as one of the toughest tickets in all of sports. Now, even when they play the expanded ACCT in Greensboro, they can’t sell tickets. And it’s not because of a down economy. Who wants to sit through an entire day of watching the worst teams play?

    And another thing. Expansion would hurt the small schools worst of all, because few if any of them would be seeded 32nd or above. This would purposely send the vast majority of those small schools to road games rather than to neutral courts in order to sell more tickets. Venue size moreso than records and RPI would determine home-court seeding. Most of those small schools would get exactly what William & Mary got in this year’s NIT. It’s all about marketing of brand-name recognition to make money, money, money. Don’t they have enough of that already?

  15. UpstateSCWolfpack 04/02/2010 at 10:24 PM #

    Why not just make it 128 and the losers go to the NIT?

  16. packalum44 04/02/2010 at 11:44 PM #

    Great idea! Hey guys, its not fair to the little teams that get left out every year they have feelings too. Everyone should be treated equal. Except State they suck.

    Obama approves this message.

  17. MatSci94 04/03/2010 at 12:13 AM #

    edit: nevermind, my point was mentioned earlier and I missed it.

  18. MatSci94 04/03/2010 at 12:16 AM #

    “Greed for more money never brings good change, and this idea is grand-scale greed. An expansion to 68 teams by having the top 4 seeds instead of just one vs a play-in winner makes sense, because it’s usually about 3 teams that are wrongfully left out each year instead of about 30.”

    I totally agree with that idea, and if you really want to, I wouldn’t be that opposed to adding another 4 on top of that, winners to play the #2 seeds, but I don’t see how it makes sense past that. I know they think they will get a massive TV contract, but what happens when noone watches those games?

  19. PackerInRussia 04/03/2010 at 12:22 AM #

    Regarding the timing of when the games would be played (from the article linked to by VaWolf82):

    “Rather than lengthening the tournament a week and risk hurting TV ratings by having the Final Four go head-to-head against the Masters, the NCAA instead intends to cram an extra round of basketball into the usual three-week time span. Under that plan, 64 teams would play the round of 96 on the Thursday and Friday of Week 1 and the 32 winners would face the 32 first-round bye recipients on Saturday and Sunday. Then after a one-day respite on Monday, the 32 remaining teams would play on Tuesday and Wednesday to whittle the survivors down to our familiar Sweet 16, which would start on Thursday of Week 2 as it always has.”

    Check out the article to read the affect this would have on the “student-athlete.”

  20. PackerInRussia 04/03/2010 at 12:25 AM #

    It will be interesting to see who gets shoved to the bottom? Will BCS schools from the bottom part of their conference be seeded higher than small-time conference winners currently receiving 16 seeds? Will lower-tier BCS schools even make it in or will more mid-majors and less-than-mid-majors make it in? If they’re going for the $$, then I’m guessing more BCS schools will make it in and maybe a few more mid-majors who win the regular season, but not the conference tourney.

  21. wolfmanmat 04/03/2010 at 8:41 AM #

    I think this is a good thing for the tourney…obviously, I am one of the few. But, here’s the reason: in the current basketball environment nearly every decent team is capable of beating a top team on any given night. This year we saw 1 seeds lose in the 2nd round; we saw TWO five seeds make the finals; We saw NCSU beat a team that has a 50/50 chance to win the title IMO. In order to get back to giving the top seeds an advantage, they have to start giving them a bye.

  22. Wulfpack 04/03/2010 at 9:01 AM #

    I think it’s a great idea.

    Signed,

    Lee Fowler & Sidney Lowe

  23. RTPMedic 04/03/2010 at 11:50 AM #

    I would love to see a discussion thread (yeah, I know…there wasn’t one) from when the NCAAT went from 32 to 64 teams.

    However, I can see nothing good coming from the expansion and I think it’s true that the reason CBS is not making money is that they have overpaid for the rights. This move will do more damage to the tournament than it will do good.

  24. tjfoose2 04/03/2010 at 2:39 PM #

    NCAA Tourney expansion will have the same effect as the ACC expansion did on the quality of ACC basketball.

  25. tjfoose2 04/03/2010 at 2:41 PM #

    “I think this is a good thing for the tourney…obviously, I am one of the few. But, here’s the reason: in the current basketball environment nearly every decent team is capable of beating a top team on any given night.”

    Exactly. That’s why there is a regular season – to EARN entry to the tourney with proven, sustained good play. There’s even a second chance for those ‘good’ teams – conference tournaments.

Leave a Reply