In Defense of a 96-team NCAA
First of all, let me say that this time of year is the best in all of sports. The conference tournaments, the selection process, the NCAA, even the NIT, CBI, and collegeinsider.com tournaments are a unique process in all of sports. I may be a college basketball geek, but I love following teams through the various brackets -- and it is the only sport where someone 0-31 could win 10 straight or so and end up national champions. I like that aspect of it -- as it gives teams (save the Ivy League and those leagues where not all teams make it) a reason to keep playing hard and keep improving, knowing there is a remote chance they could put it all together and still pull off the improbable.
Second of all, I want to say that I am not in favor of expanding the field to 96 teams. I favor a modest expansion to 68 teams -- have for a while -- because frankly there are 3 teams or so every year that should be in, and I hate the fact only one region has a play in game. The fact is, the number of teams in college basketball has expanded the last 25 years (since the field went to 64) and I think a modest increase to 68 makes sense.
I also don't like the idea of going to 96 teams because right now, the NIT is a good tournament. I do enjoy watching it, as it is a bunch of decent teams that are still in the Top 100 of college basketball. I think trashing this tournament would be a mistake, as I think having a real consolation tournament is a good idea -- and CBI and collegeinsider.com just dont do the job, in my view.
That all being said, I am not as anti-96 as others are, and think it does have it's merits.
The fact is there are 350 teams and having 96 would still put the college basketball postseason below most other leagues/sports in the percentage of teams making the official postseason tournament. Also, because I do consider the NIT a major postseason tournament, it really is essentially combining the two tournaments, so it's not like you're admitting teams that aren't making the postseason at all.
So, let's immediately put to bed any notion that expanding the field would result in teams like Colorado and Nebraska being on the bubble. That's ridiculous. The Big 12 this year would still get just 7 teams. What you would see, however, is teams like Ole Miss and Minnesota -- currently very much on the bubble and looking out, probably making the field without much question. Is that a good thing? Perhaps it is, perhaps it is, but It would hardly ruin the tournament.
Furthermore, if you're a believer in the notion, as I am, that one great part about college basketball is that conference champs like Coastal Carolina get a chance to prove themselves, then you should like this...Coastal Carolina is going to be a 16 seed in this year's field probably. Well, in a 96 team field, they're probably a 22, 23, or 24 seed. But, a 23 seed is much more likely to beat a 9 than a 16 beating a 1. That means that conference champs like Coastal Carolina -- who do deserve to be in - have a chance to get a win or two.
To me, that can only HELP college basketball. That's because high school talent is much more likely to look at a "smaller school" and consider attending there. Though parity has increased in college basketball, there is still a pretty clear dividing line between the haves and have nots, and I think a 96 team field would help more teams emerge, which in a 350-team sport, is not a bad thing at all.
Just for grins, I did an analysis and estimate that these 96 teams would qualify if that were in effect this year. I put an asterik next to the teams that would likely not be in the 65 team field this year:
America East (1): Stony Brook
ACC (7): Duke, GA Tech, VA Tech, Clemson, FSU, Wake, Maryland
Atlantic Sun (1): Campbell
Atlantic 10: (7): Richmond, Temple, Xavier, Rhode Island, SLU*, Dayton*, Charlotte*
Big East: (12): Syracuse, Marquette, Villanova, West Virginia, Pitt, Louisville, G'Town, Notre Dame*, Cincy*, South Florida*, Seton Hall*, UCONN*
Big Sky (1): Weber State
Big South (1): Coastal Carolina
Big 10 (7): Ohio State, Mich State, Purdue, Minnesota*, Illinois, Wisconsin, N'western*
Big 12 (7): KU, KSU, MU, NU, OSU, ATM, Baylor
Big West (1): UCSB
Colonial (4): Old Dominion, Northeastern*, William & Mary*, VCU*
CUSA (4): UTEP, UAB, Memphis, Tulsa*, Marshall*
Horizon (1): Butler
Ivy (2): Cornell, Harvard*
MAAC (3): Siena, Fairfield*, Iona*
MAC (2): Kent State, Akron*
MEAC (1): Morgan State
MVC (3): Northern Iowa, Wichita State*, Illinois State*
MWC (4): BYU, New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State
Northeast (1): Quinnipiac
Ohio Valley (1): Murray State
Pac-10 (4): Washington, Arizona State, Washington*, USC*
Patriot (1): Lehigh
SEC (6): Miss State, Ole Miss*, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Florida, Tennessee
Southern (2): Wofford, Charleston*
Southland (2): Sam Houston State, SFA*
SWAC (1): Jackson State
Summit (2): Oakland, IUPUI*
Sun Belt (1): North Texas
West Coast (3): Gonzaga, St. Mary's, Portland*
WAC (3): Utah State, NM State*, LA Tech*
Now, a lot of teams, I understand, arguably do not belong in a championship tournament. But it is not a bad field, and aspects of it would be more interesting watch for sure. A 24 seed, say, like IUPUI, would play a traditional 9 seed, say, like St. Mary's. That's a far more interesting matchup than say, Oakland vs. Duke. And, with a 16 seed being more like a quality mid major like North Texas instead of Jackson State, you could no longer just write #1 seeds to the next round automatically without doing a little bit of research.
So, while I would prefer 68, I don't believe 96 teams would be the end of the world. Logistics would be an issue -- getting teams to that extra round -- would you play it Tuesday (quite quick) or simply make the first weekend the first two rounds, and then push the "Round of 32" later?
It's an interesting concept and one I think is probably coming down the pike. So, while we may hate it and not wish it to happen, I do think it's wise to not say it's the end of college basketball -- and I'd go as far to say it's not ruining the tournament.
Our brackets could handle it, folks.
FanPosts may be posted by any RMN member and may not reflect the views of the management staff of Rock M Nation or SB Nation.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What's the point though?
we all know the 3rd place team from the MAAC won’t do anything in the tournament. It will make the first round of the tournament lose some of it’s allure, and downgrade the importance of the regular season for the Big East (Thus reducing Seth Davis’s wet dreams), ACC, Big 12 so on. Logistics isn’t the issue, reduced quality of play is.
"So we finish the 18th and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, 'Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know".
If that's the logic
then we should shrink the field to 24 teams or something.
"I'm a genius, but I'm a misunderstood genius."
"What's misunderstood about you?"
"Nobody thinks I'm a genius."
by Transmogrified Tiger on Mar 5, 2010 7:31 AM CST up reply actions
I'm not sure I'm on board with this
No offense to anyone, but I did some looking at numbers and schedules— I don’t have time to type more up right now, but as an example, Stony Brook.
They are ranked 184 by KenPom with quality wins against … ehrm…Boston University (134) and Vermont (141)? Their losses? Rhode Island (69), St. John’s (74), Fordham (312!), Sacred Heart (276!), St. Peter’s (154), Binghamton (273), Maine (201) and New Hampshire (263).
Just because the numbers (21-8) say that you should get a look doesn’t mean that you should.
"This team is just one unit that gels so good. We need everybody, but we don’t need nobody." --Mr. Coffee
by Other Side of the Pillow on Mar 5, 2010 4:58 AM CST reply actions
yea, they lost to Binghamton
BINGHAMTON…they are terrible.
Going to 96 is a foolish idea, to thrust the tourney into either an additional weekend or a whole lot of midweek games. the extra teams are not deserving. If you want to get to the table, play harder. Don’t lobby for more chairs.
Formerly known as Mizzou Grad
http://twitter.com/Ausgiano
Probably a poor example...
…as Stony Brook would only get into the field of 96 if they won their conference tournament … which is exactly the same situation they face to get into the field of 65. A better example of why expansion would suck would be taking a look at teams like Fairfield (losses to Rider, Hofstra, Niagara) and Illinois State (losses to Indiana State, SIU, and again Niagara).
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
I want Illinois State to make it, damnit
I have a degree from there. :)
Pigskin Punditry
"Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee is for closers." ~ Blake (Alec Baldwin), Glengarry Glen Ross
I had checked a number of those other schools
including IUPUI, Iona, ILL State, Fairfield, NM State, LA Tech, etc. I just literally had to leave the house 2 minutes after I posted :)
"This team is just one unit that gels so good. We need everybody, but we don’t need nobody." --Mr. Coffee
by Other Side of the Pillow on Mar 5, 2010 5:11 PM CST up reply actions
And for what it's worth...
(I know it’s a poor excuse!) but I swore there was an asterisk on Stony Brook at 4:45 this morning.
"This team is just one unit that gels so good. We need everybody, but we don’t need nobody." --Mr. Coffee
by Other Side of the Pillow on Mar 5, 2010 5:13 PM CST up reply actions
Alright, just threw together my own list of 96 teams...
…that would have been included using the same method I used to figure out the field of 65 for Monday’s Rock-M-tology. I have a slightly different breakout of teams. TiK, I think your field above would have far too many mid-major teams for the committee’s liking. No way do they pick a Stephen F. Austin over a Miami-FL, for example. Here’s how I think it would shake down (only conferences with multiple bids below, *’s for the teams who weren’t in my field of 65):
Atlantic 10 (7): Temple, Xavier, Richmond, Dayton, Rhode Island*, Charlotte*, SLU*
ACC (10): Duke, Maryland, Florida State, Wake, Ga Tech, Clemson, Va Tech, UNC*, BC*, Miami*
Big 12 (8): Kansas, KSU, Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, OSU, Texas Tech*
Big East (13): ‘Cuse, WVU, ’Nova, Georgetown, Pitt, Marquette, Louisville, UConn, ND*, Seton Hall*, Cincy*, USF*, St. John’s*
Big Ten (6): Purdue, tOSU, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota*
Colonial (3): ODU, Northeastern*, VCU*
Conference USA (5): UAB, UTEP, Memphis*, Marshall*, Tulsa*
MAC (2): Kent State, Akron*
MVC (4): Northern Iowa, Wichita State*, Illinois State*, SMS*
MWC (4): UNM, BYU, UNLV, SDSU
Pac-10 (4): California, Arizona State*, Washington*, Arizona*
SEC (7): Kentucky, Vandy, Tennessee, Florida, Ole Miss*, Miss St*, South Carolina*
WAC (3): Utah State, La Tech*, Nevada*
WCC (3): Gonzaga, St. Mary’s, Portland*
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
The only way I can see expansion working out
is if they added three more play-in games. Sucks for mid-majors, but it gives a few more at large bids.
"So we finish the 18th and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, 'Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know".
A quatrain to explain my perspective
It seems to me
expansion was a fait accompli
when the NCAA
acquired the NIT
Pigskin Punditry
"Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee is for closers." ~ Blake (Alec Baldwin), Glengarry Glen Ross
by D-Sing on Mar 5, 2010 10:28 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Well done
Mike doesn’t want that. He doesn’t need to go out and sign a bunch of McDonald’s All-Americans. He just needs to go find a few Burger King-type guys and he’ll get it done.
by tigers and chiefs fan on Mar 5, 2010 2:53 PM CST reply actions

by 















