NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

EarlJam · Post by **EarlJam** » March 22nd, 2010, 3:20 pm

I can't believe a poll hasn't been created on this so far.

Quite simply, are you, as a college basketball fan, FOR or AGAINST expansion to 96 teams for the NCAA Basketball Tourney?

I've purposely left out other options such as "Not sure," because I'm treating this as an official vote.

Discuss.

-EJ

Jesus_hurley · Post by **Jesus_hurley** » March 22nd, 2010, 3:34 pm

I like how it is now. Maybe add a playin or remove the one that's there. But expand to 96 and the holes would have been in. Would anybody really have wanted that?

CameronBornAndBred · Post by **CameronBornAndBred** » March 22nd, 2010, 3:44 pm

I was liking the idea of expansion until the tourney actually started. This year has been incredibly exciting, and it has proven to me that it does not need more teams to make it better.

EarlJam · Post by **EarlJam** » March 22nd, 2010, 3:54 pm

CameronBornAndBred wrote:I was liking the idea of expansion until the tourney actually started. This year has been incredibly exciting, and it has proven to me that it does not need more teams to make it better.

Great point CB&B. And much like the ACC Tournament, are you kidding me? If Georgia Tech had beaten us on Sunday, would they REALLY have been deserving of the ACC Championship????

Same with more teams in the NCAA. If a "loser," gets in and gets hot, then why even play the regular season.

Keep it at 64/65.

-EJ

DukeUsul · Post by **DukeUsul** » March 22nd, 2010, 4:05 pm

Jesus_hurley wrote:I like how it is now. Maybe add a playin or remove the one that's there. But expand to 96 and the holes would have been in. Would anybody really have wanted that?

THIS

ArkieDukie · Post by **ArkieDukie** » March 22nd, 2010, 10:58 pm

Jay Bilas made the statement that the movement to expand the NCAA Tourney is an extension of the Little League mentality where everyone plays no matter what and everyone wins. IMO lowering the bar dilutes the value of the experience for those teams that have earned the trip.

bjornolf · Post by **bjornolf** » March 23rd, 2010, 6:33 am

I do NOT want to expand to 96. However, though I hated the idea of a play-in game at first, I've come to like it. I think all four regions should have a play-in game. This would let three more teams into the tournament, and let some of the cannon fodder for the 1 seeds actually have a shot to win a game in the NCAA Tournament. One of the "experts" on ESPN said that they thought that when a 16 DOES finally beat a 1, it'll be the winner of the play-in game that does it. I agree. You come in with a little more practice, a little battle tested, and a little more confidence. Plus, I hardly think it's fair that two teams have to play the game, but the other three don't. Is one of the 16 seeds really so much worse than the other three? And how come the "third" one seed, Duke, gets the play-in game winner and not the "first" one seed, Kansas? What sense does that make? I've also heard 16 seed coaches say that the play-in game is cool, and it's "their" tournament, meaning a game they actually have a shot of winning. So, I DON'T wanna see 96, but I'd love to see a play-in game for every region and make it more a part of the tournament, like having real announcing teams and playing it up a little as part of the first round. I bet more people would watch.

devildeac · Post by **devildeac** » March 23rd, 2010, 5:40 pm

bjornolf wrote:I do NOT want to expand to 96. However, though I hated the idea of a play-in game at first, I've come to like it. I think all four regions should have a play-in game. This would let three more teams into the tournament, and let some of the cannon fodder for the 1 seeds actually have a shot to win a game in the NCAA Tournament. One of the "experts" on ESPN said that they thought that when a 16 DOES finally beat a 1, it'll be the winner of the play-in game that does it. I agree. You come in with a little more practice, a little battle tested, and a little more confidence. Plus, I hardly think it's fair that two teams have to play the game, but the other three don't. Is one of the 16 seeds really so much worse than the other three? And how come the "third" one seed, Duke, gets the play-in game winner and not the "first" one seed, Kansas? What sense does that make? I've also heard 16 seed coaches say that the play-in game is cool, and it's "their" tournament, meaning a game they actually have a shot of winning. So, I DON'T wanna see 96, but I'd love to see a play-in game for every region and make it more a part of the tournament, like having real announcing teams and playing it up a little as part of the first round. I bet more people would watch.

I'm fine with that. And that would still have left kerlina out this year.

I think.

pinkbend · Post by **pinkbend** » March 23rd, 2010, 6:55 pm

I am not in favor of expanding the NCAA beyond the number of teams it now has. If an expansion to 96, why not to 192? And then why not include everyone who has a team? Nope...count me in the NO expansion group.

EarlJam · Post by **EarlJam** » March 23rd, 2010, 8:53 pm

Golly, the poll is rather inconclusive. How can we get to the bottom of this?

-EJ

devildeac · Post by **devildeac** » March 23rd, 2010, 9:51 pm

EarlJam wrote:Golly, the poll is rather inconclusive. How can we get to the bottom of this?

-EJ

Did you say "bottom?"

Very Duke Blue · Post by **Very Duke Blue** » March 23rd, 2010, 11:19 pm

I'm not for expansion. I'm sure the NCAA would like it to happen. $$$$$$$$$$. Greedy.

gadzooks · Post by **gadzooks** » March 24th, 2010, 12:31 am

The only benefit to expanding to 96 would be to the NCAA and the broadcasters, i.e. more money. Certainly no benefit to the fans, IMNPHO.

Ima Facultiwyfe · Post by **Ima Facultiwyfe** » March 24th, 2010, 1:02 pm

Nope. Nope. Nope. ( With all due respect to Coach K, who says he favors it.) I like Bilas' reasoning.

Furthermore, I'd eliminate the NIT as a post season tourney. Pre-season for that one would be more exciting rather than seeming like a consolation prize.

Love, Ima

Devil in the Blue Dress · Post by **Devil in the Blue Dress** » March 24th, 2010, 1:30 pm

Ima Facultiwyfe wrote:Nope. Nope. Nope. ( With all due respect to Coach K, who says he favors it.) I like Bilas' reasoning.

Furthermore, I'd eliminate the NIT as a post season tourney. Pre-season for that one would be more exciting rather than seeming like a consolation prize.

Love, Ima

I agree with much of what you say, Ima, but I think Carolina needs a tournament of their own and thus would say keep the NIT post season just for them!

Jesus_hurley · Post by **Jesus_hurley** » March 28th, 2010, 9:20 pm

Devil in the Blue Dress wrote:
Ima Facultiwyfe wrote:Nope. Nope. Nope. ( With all due respect to Coach K, who says he favors it.) I like Bilas' reasoning.

Furthermore, I'd eliminate the NIT as a post season tourney. Pre-season for that one would be more exciting rather than seeming like a consolation prize.

Love, Ima
I agree with much of what you say, Ima, but I think Carolina needs a tournament of their own and thus would say keep the NIT post season just for them!

May the NIT final four be forever known as the carolina invitational. They can go every year as far as I'm concerned

CameronBornAndBred · Post by **CameronBornAndBred** » April 1st, 2010, 3:45 pm

Here is the NCAA's vote---96 teams. Nothing final, it's just what they think would be best IF they go for it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournamen ... id=5047800

captmojo · Post by **captmojo** » April 2nd, 2010, 8:53 am

Why would the NCAA vote for denying the holes an opportunity to hang a 'NIT Runner-Up' banner?

CameronBornAndBred · Post by **CameronBornAndBred** » April 22nd, 2010, 2:53 pm

Now they only want to expand to 68 teams, which would still leave the holes playing in the NIT.

Also, CBS and Turner will show all of next year's games live.

http://crazietalk.net/blog1.php/2010/04 ... d-of-money

Post by **wilson** » April 22nd, 2010, 2:56 pm

CameronBornAndBred wrote:Now they only want to expand to 68 teams, which would still leave the holes playing in the NIT.

Also, CBS and Turner will show all of next year's games live.

http://crazietalk.net/blog1.php/2010/04 ... d-of-money

I can totally deal with 68 teams. A wacky number, but no wackier than 65, and waaay better than 96.

NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

If your vote counted, would you vote FOR or AGAINST expansion to 96 Teams in NCAA B'Ball Tourney?

NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...

Re: NCAA Expansion - If you HAD to vote...