72or 76 team NCAA tournament on the table

[catfan220]

This news is a couple days old, but I haven’t seen a thread on it. Apologies if I’m double posting.

Apparently the NCAA has presented to the conference presidents their proposal to expand the tournament to 72 or 76 teams. The 72 team version would basically be a second first four on the West Coast somewhere. I don’t really understand what the 76 team format would look like.

The most laughable part of this initial reporting is that they wouldn’t necessarily make any more money, and may lose money on the expansion. As if we’re supposed to believe they’re doing this for the love of the game, just want to watch more basketball. Let’s be serious. Maybe they lose money in year one, maybe even year two, but at some point, someone will be making more money or they wouldn’t consider this.

I know the tournament had to expand to get to the 64 team version that we all love, and maybe I would’ve resisted expansion back in the day to get to this point. But it just feels like these decisions are made out of greed, with no consideration for the state of the game. As far as I’m concerned, the tournament starts with the first round, and the First Four adds nothing to my experience. I’ve probably watched one game from start to finish since they added it into the tournament, and bits and pieces of others. I’m sure they’ll tell us they’re giving more student athletes the opportunity to participate in this event!

The earliest the tournament may expand is the 2026 tournament.

 

[StubbornPenny]

Ugh god no, the play ins we have is already enough

 

[UK90]

I hate it. Too damn many mediocre teams get in already.

 

[SemperFiCat]

I think they need to do the reverse. Take a college football approach, and dwindle it down to a 16 team tournament. Now, I know it'll never happen, and I know why it'll never happen. But, as far as I'm concerned, if you aren't a top 16 team by the end of the regular season, you have no claim to play for a national championship. All you're doing is playing spoiler and making money for rich people. We place so much emphasis, already, on a tournament where the best team historically wins less than 50% of the time, and almost zero value in finishing the regular season #1. It's already out of whack.

 

[chroix]

They’re just trying to figure out what the threshold is for Calipari to be able to win a first round game.

 

[H00SIER-Cat]

They’re just trying to figure out what the threshold is for Calipari to be able to win a first round game.

 

[RunninRichie]

I just don't want to hear them say this is for ''competition''. If that was the case. The tournament would still be 32 teams. This is just for the almighty dollar. Also, obligatory:

 

[RunninRichie]

I think they need to do the reverse. Take a college football approach, and dwindle it down to a 16 team tournament. Now, I know it'll never happen, and I know why it'll never happen. But, as far as I'm concerned, if you aren't a top 16 team by the end of the regular season, you have no claim to play for a national championship. All you're doing is playing spoiler and making money for rich people. We place so much emphasis, already, on a tournament where the best team historically wins less than 50% of the time, and almost zero value in finishing the regular season #1. It's already out of whack.

32. They won't do that though. Viewership would drop. Most people only watch because the cinderella teams.

 

[westerncat]

Why are people always wanting to change things ? If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[RunninRichie]

Why are people always wanting to change things ? If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Money

 

[Rockford]

As to this proposal, I will quote my three year old granddaughter.

“No! Leabe me awone!” (throw what ever is in my hand on the floor and run out of the room)

 

[catsfanbgky]

Maybe with the expansion, they could have all of smaller teams that come in at 18-16 record and upset the small tournament favorites, play each other and weed them all out. There has been some 11 seed play in games that was really good and I actually felt both deserved to get in the field of 64. Save the 65-72 / 76 for small conference guys and weed them out. Teams that made the field of 68 last year :
Longwood - 21-14 6-10 (5th in the Big South)
Grambling - Good record, but terrible schedule / conference
Howard - 18-17 - finished 3rd in the MEAC
Wagner - 16-17 - 7-9 (6th in the NEC)

2 of the teams finished 5th and 6th in their conference, Howard 3rd. While teams like Boise State / Colorado had to play each other just to get in the field of 64. Sometimes the winner of the conference tournament is a bad thing.

 

[HeismaNole]

College basketball's regular season is already meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. What does it matter what you did all regular season if you can win 3-4 games in a conference tourney and get in, or now be mediocre all year and get put in as another bubble team.

Greed has absolutely corrupted everything.

NFL adds a 17th game, now pushing for an 18th
CFP goes to 12 teams (like why? I can understand 8 but getting a 9-3 team in is ridiculous)
NCAAB wants another 8 teams and will eventually push for even more

None of this is about quality and certainly isn't for the players. These are giant money grabs.

 

[HeismaNole]

Maybe with the expansion, they could have all of smaller teams that come in at 18-16 record and upset the small tournament favorites, play each other and weed them all out. There has been some 11 seed play in games that was really good and I actually felt both deserved to get in the field of 64. Save the 65-72 / 76 for small conference guys and weed them out. Teams that made the field of 68 last year :
Longwood - 21-14 6-10 (5th in the Big South)
Grambling - Good record, but terrible schedule / conference
Howard - 18-17 - finished 3rd in the MEAC
Wagner - 16-17 - 7-9 (6th in the NEC)

2 of the teams finished 5th and 6th in their conference, Howard 3rd. While teams like Boise State / Colorado had to play each other just to get in the field of 64. Sometimes the winner of the conference tournament is a bad thing.

I'll tell you what I take major issue with- the 16 seeds being forced to play each other. That's utter BS. You win your conference tournament as a mid-major, you deserve to face one of the big boys. Make the bubble teams all play each other.

 

[katwest]

If they expand it anymore it's rewarding mediocrity plain and simple. The NCAA tournament isn't an invitational, it rewards teams who have won consistently throughout the season. With the conference tournaments the way they are now, there are enough upsets for lesser teams to get in already. The more teams, the more it is watered down, leave it alone.

 

[HeismaNole]

If they expand it anymore it's rewarding mediocrity plain and simple. The NCAA tournament isn't an invitational, it rewards teams who have won consistently throughout the season. With the conference tournaments the way they are now, there are enough upsets for lesser teams to get in already. The more teams, the more it is watered down, leave it alone.

I'm really against conference tournaments. I think it's absolutely bogus that you can have a losing record all season and then you win three games and everyone just ignores the rest of the body of work. So one team is allowed to have 18 losses in a year and be in the tournament but the mid major who maybe went undefeated in the regular season and gets left out of the NCAAT because they lost a conference tourney game? How does that make sense?

I'm against the NCAAF playoff having 12 teams as well. That makes conference championships pointless as well and it's only going to reward a team that has lost three times already. When has anyone ever argued teams ranked 10-12 were deserving of competing for a title? Never.

 

[Phil_The_Music]

I think they need to do the reverse. Take a college football approach, and dwindle it down to a 16 team tournament. Now, I know it'll never happen, and I know why it'll never happen. But, as far as I'm concerned, if you aren't a top 16 team by the end of the regular season, you have no claim to play for a national championship. All you're doing is playing spoiler and making money for rich people. We place so much emphasis, already, on a tournament where the best team historically wins less than 50% of the time, and almost zero value in finishing the regular season #1. It's already out of whack.

I wouldn't be opposed to a 16 team double elimination tournament, similar to baseball.

 

[catsfanbgky]

I'll tell you what I take major issue with- the 16 seeds being forced to play each other. That's utter BS. You win your conference tournament as a mid-major, you deserve to face one of the big boys. Make the bubble teams all play each other.

SO you think teams like Longwood (16-17) and Wagner (18-17) who finished 5th and 6th in their regular season conference should get a free pass over teams like Boise State and Colorado ? I respectfully disagree. Those teams play NOBODY and had losing records before their shitty conference tournament began. I feel Power 5 teams who finished 22-10 or something like that and has a lot better SOS, Quad wins, etc. should get in the 64 over the scrub sub 500 teams with 250 rankings get a free pass. Those teams didn't beat ANYONE of substance. If say Boise State played in their conference, they would go undefeated.

 

[catfan220]

Unless/until they get all the way to 96 teams or *gulp* 128, all lesser expansions are derivatives of the 64 team field, which I believe is a perfect format. You’re just exporting some of the committees work of determining who made the cut and who didn’t, to quasi tournament games that ultmately widdle the field down the the real 64 teams. I don’t think and “first four” or “first eight” or wherever we end up should be considered to have made the NCAA tournament unless they are in the field of 64.

With that said I agree with another poster that it seems unfair to for any conference champions to have to play in the pre-tournament anyway. I think for non-major conferences the regular season winner should be auto qualified, and for major conferences the tournament winner gets the automatic bid (since regular season champ is almost certainly already in).

 

[bthaunert]

Maybe with the expansion, they could have all of smaller teams that come in at 18-16 record and upset the small tournament favorites, play each other and weed them all out. There has been some 11 seed play in games that was really good and I actually felt both deserved to get in the field of 64. Save the 65-72 / 76 for small conference guys and weed them out. Teams that made the field of 68 last year :
Longwood - 21-14 6-10 (5th in the Big South)
Grambling - Good record, but terrible schedule / conference
Howard - 18-17 - finished 3rd in the MEAC
Wagner - 16-17 - 7-9 (6th in the NEC)

2 of the teams finished 5th and 6th in their conference, Howard 3rd. While teams like Boise State / Colorado had to play each other just to get in the field of 64. Sometimes the winner of the conference tournament is a bad thing.

I totally disagree with this. I've always thought the play-in games should be all the last teams in who got an at-large bid. You shouldn't punish a team for winning their conferences automatic bid by sending them to Dayton to play a fellow 16 seed on a Tuesday night. Those teams should automatically get to play their first game on Thursday or Friday to get the real experience. Teams like 2024 Michigan State (19-14/10-10), 2024 Mississippi State (21-13/8-10) and 2023 WVU (19-14/7-11) should be playing in the play in games.

 

[HeismaNole]

SO you think teams like Longwood (16-17) and Wagner (18-17) who finished 5th and 6th in their regular season conference should get a free pass over teams like Boise State and Colorado ? I respectfully disagree. Those teams play NOBODY and had losing records before their shitty conference tournament began. I feel Power 5 teams who finished 22-10 or something like that and has a lot better SOS, Quad wins, etc. should get in the 64 while the scrub sub 500 teams with 250 rankings get a free pass. Those teams didn't beat ANYONE of substance. If say Boise State played in their conference, they would go undefeated.

My argument is this

1. I'm against conference tournaments as it disregards the whole year for just one tourney

But if you're going to do the conference tournaments then the conference champion should already be in the tournament and not forced into another qualifier instead of double-digit loss power five team. Conference championship should automatically put you in the real first round of the tourney. Make the bubble teams play each other to get into the tourney since they didn't win their conference.

 

[HeismaNole]

I totally disagree with this. I've always thought the play-in games should be all the last teams in who got an at-large bid. You shouldn't punish a team for winning their conferences automatic bid by sending them to Dayton to play a fellow 16 seed on a Tuesday night. Those teams should automatically get to play their first game on Thursday or Friday to get the real experience. Teams like 2024 Michigan State (19-14/10-10), 2024 Mississippi State (21-13/8-10) and 2023 WVU (19-14/7-11) should be playing in the play in games.

This is exactly my argument. Why are we rewarding non conference champs like that who didn't win anything? It reminds me of that one year in the BCS bowl games where they made TCU/Boise State play each other instead of letting them play the big boys.

 

[nssdigitalchumps]

I hate it. Too damn many mediocre teams get in already.

That has been us for five years lol

 

[EliteBlue]

Stupid.

If you’re going to add teams…expand the NIT to 64 …then just play the NIT before the NCAAT and let the winner (or final 4) get a bid as the four 12 seeds.

It makes the games meaningful and essentially doubles the NCAAT field indirectly.

4 day event somewhere like Disney wide world of sports where they have multiple courts for simultaneous games.
Day 1: R64
Day 2: R32
Day 3: R16 and R8
Day 4: F4 and title game

It would be like a summer AAU set up of of 1 to 2 games a day. Give them 4 days to a week off after and then start the NCAAT

 

[fatguy87]

Seems reasonable to me given the momentum to expand.

 

[gojvc]

I hate it. Too damn many mediocre teams get in already.

Get used to it. It’s eventually going to 128.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

I won't watch the additional games if they do (unless UK is in one), but money rules all.

Same with football. 12 teams in 2024 and probably going to 14 in 2026. Idk why they just don't go to 16 and be done with it. I think anymore than that and it gets a bit stupid.

I agree with Nole that other than money, it makes 0 sense for the sec, and big 10 to have conference title games in football. Both the winner and loser are 100% locks for playoff and the conference title game can only resort in injuries. The regular season champ should suffice.

 

[catsfanbgky]

I get you guys argument, no right or wrong. I just feel the power 5 teams that played a tougher schedule and in many cases even have a better won / loss record than the teams like Howard had, should be in over these scrub sub .500 teams. Even those teams mentioned above, the WVU, Miss State, etc. are a lot better than Howard. I get SOME of the little schools do have some solid teams, the Samfords, McNeese States etc. But I am talking about the teams who finished 5th or 6th in these bottom feeder conferences getting in because they got hot for 3 days against even below par teams that won the regular season tournaments. Look at the rankings of those teams, 250-300, ZERO quad 1,2 or even 3 wins. If we are truly trying to get the best 64 teams, Boise State and Colorado was better than ANY of those teams I listed that got in last year. There have been the NC State in the 80's, Nova with Messamino, that have went on to win it all. There will NEVER be a Howard or Grambling who will. Michigan State and Syracuse has went deep in the tournament (final 4) when they had finished 20-14 / 19-13 type seasons. Because they played in very tough conferences and had power 5 talent. Hell, everybody said NC State this year didn't deserve a bid, well what do those people say now ?

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

This news is a couple days old, but I haven’t seen a thread on it. Apologies if I’m double posting.

Apparently the NCAA has presented to the conference presidents their proposal to expand the tournament to 72 or 76 teams. The 72 team version would basically be a second first four on the West Coast somewhere. I don’t really understand what the 76 team format would look like.

The most laughable part of this initial reporting is that they wouldn’t necessarily make any more money, and may lose money on the expansion. As if we’re supposed to believe they’re doing this for the love of the game, just want to watch more basketball. Let’s be serious. Maybe they lose money in year one, maybe even year two, but at some point, someone will be making more money or they wouldn’t consider this.

I know the tournament had to expand to get to the 64 team version that we all love, and maybe I would’ve resisted expansion back in the day to get to this point. But it just feels like these decisions are made out of greed, with no consideration for the state of the game. As far as I’m concerned, the tournament starts with the first round, and the First Four adds nothing to my experience. I’ve probably watched one game from start to finish since they added it into the tournament, and bits and pieces of others. I’m sure they’ll tell us they’re giving more student athletes the opportunity to participate in this event!

The earliest the tournament may expand is the 2026 tournament.

😂Beyond retarded. The tournament would benefit from shrinking not over extending even more

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

I get you guys argument, no right or wrong. I just feel the power 5 teams that played a tougher schedule and in many cases even have a better won / loss record than the teams like Howard had, should be in over these scrub sub .500 teams. Even those teams mentioned above, the WVU, Miss State, etc. are a lot better than Howard. I get SOME of the little schools do have some solid teams, the Samfords, McNeese States etc. But I am talking about the teams who finished 5th or 6th in these bottom feeder conferences getting in because they got hot for 3 days against even below par teams that won the regular season tournaments. Look at the rankings of those teams, 250-300, ZERO quad 1,2 or even 3 wins. If we are truly trying to get the best 64 teams, Boise State and Colorado was better than ANY of those teams I listed that got in last year. There have been the NC State in the 80's, Nova with Messamino, that have went on to win it all. There will NEVER be a Howard or Grambling who will. Michigan State and Syracuse has went deep in the tournament (final 4) when they had finished 20-14 / 19-13 type seasons. Because they played in very tough conferences and had power 5 talent. Hell, everybody said NC State this year didn't deserve a bid, well what do those people say now ?

The solution is then to let less midmajors in. Midmajors are really only good for a yearly Cinderella/big upset story. Like you says a midmajor will never win the tournament

 

[catsfanbgky]

If you enjoy watching the little guys "get in" and go on to lose by 30/40 points, well that is what happens. These power 5 play in teams win games and often make it to the second weekend,,, or further.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

The solution is then to let less midmajors in. Midmajors are really only good for a yearly Cinderella/big upset story. Like you says a midmajor will never win the tournament

Butler almost did but I agree it is 99.99% unlikely to ever happen.

And winning a dog crap conference tournament doesn't impress me any. Any sec team would go undefeated in these tiny conferences and probably easily win the conference tournament. Yet people want the cupcake champs to get guaranteed spots while more legit teams play n play in games. It's bizarre to me.

 

[oldcat52]

Another very bad idea.

Not making the tournament after an entire season simply means your team didn't win enough games or didn’t win the critical games or lost games they should have won.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

Butler almost did but I agree it is 99.99% unlikely to ever happen.

And winning a dog crap conference tournament doesn't impress me any. Any sec team would go undefeated in these tiny conferences and probably easily win the conference tournament. Yet people want the cupcake champs to get guaranteed spots while more legit teams play n play in games. It's bizarre to me.

Gonzaga too now that I thought about it, though when they’ve always crumpled in the Final Four. When was the last midmajor champion, UNLV in 90’?

 

[bthaunert]

I get you guys argument, no right or wrong. I just feel the power 5 teams that played a tougher schedule and in many cases even have a better won / loss record than the teams like Howard had, should be in over these scrub sub .500 teams. Even those teams mentioned above, the WVU, Miss State, etc. are a lot better than Howard. I get SOME of the little schools do have some solid teams, the Samfords, McNeese States etc. But I am talking about the teams who finished 5th or 6th in these bottom feeder conferences getting in because they got hot for 3 days against even below par teams that won the regular season tournaments. Look at the rankings of those teams, 250-300, ZERO quad 1,2 or even 3 wins. If we are truly trying to get the best 64 teams, Boise State and Colorado was better than ANY of those teams I listed that got in last year. There have been the NC State in the 80's, Nova with Messamino, that have went on to win it all. There will NEVER be a Howard or Grambling who will. Michigan State and Syracuse has went deep in the tournament (final 4) when they had finished 20-14 / 19-13 type seasons. Because they played in very tough conferences and had power 5 talent. Hell, everybody said NC State this year didn't deserve a bid, well what do those people say now ?

I think our difference in thinking is that they have never been trying to get the best 64 teams. That's never been the goal. If that was the case, then there would be no automatic conference bids and it would just be the best 64 teams out there.

The teams that are the last teams to get in (the bottom 8 at-large teams) should be the 8 teams that play in the play-in games as the last 8 teams in the tournament. You should not punish automatic qualifiers.

 

[BlueSince92]

Every year we keep about ten good teams out of the field of 64 because those spots went to automatic bid teams. Teams that are frankly worse. If this bumps us up to where about the best 32 teams in the country really are dancing I’m okay with it.

 

[TucsonCat]

I don't mind more teams, I don't like more games
You add two teams, then two 10 or 9 seeds have to drop down and play them.
Now I'm losing track of decent teams because I don't have all that much free time.
Where's Texas A&M I thought they could be good. Oh, they got beat by Miami on Tuesday.

 

[rick64]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[kywildcat41086]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

This right here… I just don’t understand why they want to water it down some more…

 

[specialkd24]

If they go to 76 ... there will be a second First Four (probably West of the Mississippi) with 8 teams (just like Dayton has 8 teams now).

So every 1 seed would end up playing a First four 16 seed, and 4 other teams would end up winning its way into the Round of 64.

If it has to be this way, this is what they need to do. No more than 76. They actually probably CAN'T go more than that, because they cannot add weeks to the event (since The Masters follows the Final Four).