128 team March Madness...

Y

YeaTexasFight

1,000+ Posts
...is what Scott Drew favors near the end of this article. Article is primarily focused on expanding March Madness to 96 teams which apparently has more traction than I would have assumed:
The Link
 
So if 16-seeds are 0-fer against 1-seeds, how will 24-seeds fare?

I hate, hate, hate this idea, btw.

The tourney is just fine how it is. It's the best thing going in sports.
 
Screw it. Just start the tournament at the beginning of February, and include every single Div 1 school.

That's really where we're headed, right? It's just mean to exclude teams, anyway.

Also: Everyone gets a trophy.
 
Terrible idea that only a selfish conglomerate like the NCAA could come up with. I couldn't possibly understand how any ley-fan or person could ever support this abomination of the idea. There's a perfect amount of teams in the tourney, and already too many terrible teams. None of the teams that aren't included are going to be better than the national champion. You also get plenty of time to prove yourself with all the games in the regular season, it's not like college football where you lose 1 game and the season's a wash. Are they trying to say the regular season counts for absolutely nothing at all? Absolutely imbecilic to say the least.
 
This is a terrible, terrible idea. There already is enough playoff controversy in the BCS. Leave basketball alone. March Madness is perfect the way it is.
 
Katz article: The Link

agree with Coach K. THE tournament effectively starts with the conference tournaments. If you expand it to 96 or 128, the conference tournaments become virtually meaningless...or at the most, you're talking about the 9 or 10 seeds in a 12 team conference fighting to get in the tourney. Plus, would you still expect the selection committee to complete a 96 team bracket in the same amount of time they have now? Or would the conference tourneys have to be moved back a couple of days?

I hate the idea, but then I probably would have hated the idea to expand it to 64/48/32/16/8 teams had I been around when those decisions were made.
 
I was slightly persuaded by the argument of the percentage of participants eligible for the playoffs compared to other (professional) sports.

But it's all about the money, right? Adding 50% more teams doesn't mean 50% more revenue, meaning the current big wigs will lose coin.
 
I'm actually for minor expansion of the tourney.

On one hand, I like the tournament in its current state with the sole exception of the 1 play-in game. If you feel the need to expand the 64-team tourney to 65 with a play-in game, why not just expand it to 68 with 4 play-in games, i.e. give all the #1's the same "advantage"?

On the other hand, the NIT has had some pretty salty teams in their tournament the past few years. You could add 7 teams to the 65-team field and have the new 7 teams play the (4) 15-seeds & (5) 16-seeds as 8 play-in games. The winners get to take on the 1 & 2 seeds.
 
George Mason was the last team in and got to the Final Four beating some loaded teams along the way.

Hey, lets play it out. And I could give two shits about the conference tourneys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top