crazietalk.net

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

-EJ

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

-EJ

Did you say "bottom?"

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

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.

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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.