March Madness goes even madder

ACC College Basketball General43

For those not keeping up with daily sports rumor news, the NCAA is reportedly considering the expansion of the tournament to 96 teams as early as 2010-2011.

This rumor has picked up steam throughout the day today and now seems to be at a flash point. The first outlet to report the possible expansion of the tournament, as far as we can tell, was Sports by Brooks, a sporting celebrity news site similar to Deadspin. That may damage the credibility of the story, but it certainly doesn’t make the chance for expansion or the discussion of it go away.

Here’s some excerpts from the Sports by Brooks story.

Sources at ESPN and inside the administration at a powerhouse NCAA basketball school told me today that the NCAA basketball tournament going to 96 teams is a “done deal.”

An ESPN source said, “It’s a done deal with the expansion of the tournament. Depending on how soon a (TV) deal is done, the added teams could start next year. The NCAA confirmed that bidders would be interested in 96 teams, so they’re going with it.”

Another ESPN source confirmed to me that the network was in the formative stages of pondering a bid for the expanded tournament.

Brooks gives his opinion of expansion later in his post.

I’m one of those guys who lightly follows the regular season but loves the postseason tournament. Going to 96 teams will render the regular season even more meaningless and I’m not so sure that March Madness will be as fervently embraced with the dilution of the field and added number of games. Like my bracket isn’t big enough already?

If they’re going to go to 96 teams, why not just make the whole season a double elimination tournament?

And if the NCAA is going to drag out the hoops tournament even more, causing players to miss more class, how can it continue to justify not having a college football playoff?

Someone needs to check the water in Indianapolis. Might wanna consider a boil warning.

Brooks posted a follow-up this evening along with other links about the issue.

The Sports Business Journal also had a story regarding the possibility of expansion that focused more on the TV side of the argument.

CBS and Turner Sports are in discussions to create a joint bid for the NCAA tournament rights if the NCAA decides to opt out of its current CBS deal.

The broadcaster and cable network could share rights to the tournament if the NCAA decides to expand the field to 96 teams. In that scenario, the channel broadcasting the Final Four would pay 60 percent of the annual rights fee and the other network would pay 40 percent. The broadcast partners would alternate coverage of the Final Four each year.

Other networks, including ESPN and Fox, also are considering making bids for the tournament’s rights.

The broadcasters are basing their bids on an expanded tournament field, according to a request for proposal issued by the NCAA to potential bidders late last year. A copy of the RFP was obtained by SportsBusiness Journal.

The NCAA has its sights set on expanding from a 65-team tournament to either 68 or 96 teams if it opts out of the CBS contract, according to the 12-page RFP.

Aside from allowing 32 mediocre teams the chance to extend their seasons following conference tournaments, I can’t think of a single positive for expansion. More games does mean more TV exposure, but who is going to watch a No. 1 seed like Kansas play a mediocre mid-major or a team from the bottom half of a bigger conference? Does a 6-10 team from the ACC honestly deserve a chance to play for the National Championship?

This episode is yet another example of the money hungry attitude of the NCAA. It’s a shame that the desire to make money overpowers the integrity of the sport.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

ACC College Basketball General

43 Responses to March Madness goes even madder

  1. VaWolf82 02/02/2010 at 10:46 AM #

    You have to wonder which “type” of team the NCAA wants to include in their expanded tourney:

    – The middle of the big conferences that fall just past the bubble (Is 6-10 good enough?)
    – The mid or low majors with gaudy W/L records against a bunch of no-bodies.
    – Regular season champs from the low majors that lose in their conference tournaments (that are now guaranteed entry into the NIT).

  2. bradleyb123 02/02/2010 at 11:20 AM #

    I think the NCAA selection committee should review every team and invite EVERY team that it deems worthy of an invitation. Invite the 31 (or however many) conference champions, and then invite the rest that they feel are deserving of a bid, with a minimum number of 64 teams in the tournament. If there are more than that, then it will mean one additional play-in game for each additional team that gets invited.

    It stinks when I hear about a team that deserved a bid, but had to be left out because Barton County Community College won their conference tournament.

  3. fullmoon1 02/02/2010 at 11:58 AM #

    “It stinks when I hear about a team that deserved a bid, but had to be left out because Barton County Community College won their conference tournament.”

    I am with you bradleyb123. The opposition says we would no longer have meaningful ooc games in the pre season but some of these games would just shift and happen in the post season unplanned. Perhaps they could leave it at 64 but leave the nit for the Barton County Community Colleges and reserve the ncaa tourney for the big boys. That would have the same effect without screwing up the current format.

  4. WolftownVA81 02/02/2010 at 12:12 PM #

    If everyone got to participate I guess that would be ok. After all, everyone deserves a chance to play right? I mean, they’re all winners right? How can the NCAA possibly exclude anyone – is that fair? Way to screw up a good thing NCAA.

  5. fullmoon1 02/02/2010 at 12:20 PM #

    People bitch and moan every year about this or that team getting in or not getting in. Some teams get in with 20. Some teams need 20+, others skate in with 18 or 19. The committee seemingly arbitrarily weighs difficulty of schedule and that is totally subjective. Increasing the # in the tourney take a little subjectivity away. Why are so many people scared of changing it, it is far from perfect now.

  6. Clarksa 02/02/2010 at 12:28 PM #

    Upward NCAA Basketball

    Providing the Experience for every NCAA basketball player.

    Winning is about so much more than the final score.

    Upward is a first-class experience that emphasizes healthy competition, sportsmanship, skills building and fun versus the “win-at-all-costs” mentality found in many NCAA sports leagues.

    Why choose Upward?
    Currently, more than 5000 student athletes participate in Upward NCAA Basketball. For over 1 year, Upward has been conducting exciting NCAA Basketball and camps in the US.

  7. drizzlewolf 02/02/2010 at 12:30 PM #

    I’m with the poster that says 68 teams. I mean, aren’t there already 3 post season tournaments? Besides, anyone who thinks that making it into an EXPANDED NCAA Tourney will save their job is fooling themselves.
    I guess my point is that if twice the number of tems make it, the value of each spot is halved, and so on.

    Also, the NIT is cool to watch because you get to watch the games without them being overlaped and cut into by other games.

  8. Daily Update 02/02/2010 at 12:59 PM #

    I support expansion. The regular season is already meaningless. If you only want 64 teams, then don’t bother watching until the round of 64.

    Expansion will strengthen the field that is currently watered down with automatic bids and mid-majors. Strengthening the field of 64 will produce more upsets and more interesting stories in the tournament.

    I see no reason not to expand since the regular season of college basketball is already meaningless.

  9. wbnation 02/02/2010 at 1:11 PM #

    Isn’t the expansion going to be that the bottom 32 in this 96 team tournament play to then get seated against the top 64? So its basically a play in tournament? Or does the top 16 teams get byes? how they structure the tournament will go a long way in whether or not most people will see a benefit or liability to it. I just don’t have an opinion until I see that.

  10. EdMar 02/02/2010 at 1:31 PM #

    Here’s a brief comparison of the recruits of two of the worst teams in the ACC (using Scout’s ranking). I’m not sure what is says about recruiting? coaching? which team to be proud of (if any)? Just numbers….

    Shows: position, Scout’s ranking at that position and class year( NR = not ranked)

    NCSU

    PF 16 2009
    PF 18 2007
    PF 20 2009
    SF 22 2006
    SF 28 2008
    SG 30 2009
    PG 30 2007
    SF 40 2007
    SG NR 2008
    C NR 2009
    SF NR 2009

    UNC-CH

    PF 1 2009
    PF 3 2008
    PF 4 2008
    C 5 2006
    PF 7 2008
    SG 8 2009
    C 11 2006
    SG 13 2009
    PF 13 2009
    PF 14 2009
    SF 18 2006
    SG NR 2008

    Next year State gets a 6, 8 and a 13

    That other team gets a 1, 2 and a 5

  11. Peanut Packer 02/02/2010 at 4:03 PM #

    I don’t like the idea of expansion but 68 may be ok. The additional play-in games may make for a better 1st round. If 96 is the choice then I definately think they should devise a plan for play-in games of the lower 48. I believe this would result in overall better games.

  12. wolfbuff 02/02/2010 at 4:57 PM #

    I am adamantly opposed to this plan (as if I have a say), for many of the same reasons espoused above – why mess with a good thing, dilutes the field, adds meaningless games, moves the “student” further away (than they already are) from student-athlete, makes the regular season less meaningful, etc. But the other big reason is that is will make the conference tournaments meaningless. They’re (specifically the ACC) what started this whole thing, and still a big part of our culture. If every shmoe with a 6-10 or 5-9 record gets in, what’s the incentive to excel in either the conference regular season or the tournament? The field should be MORE exclusive, not less. That adds excitement to not only the NCAA tournament itself, but also to the conference tournaments.

    I’m all for giving the mid-majors a shot through their conference tournaments with a few at-large bids thrown in. That adds excitement and is why the tourney is what it is. But to expand so MORE of them can get in is absurd. It adds junk games for the sake of games. The chance of any of them going very far into the tournament is very small. If anything, I think we ought to go back to 48.

    Not that I’m in favor of this, because I want a CFB playoff. But if the NCAA asses the tournament up, I say create a basketball equivalent of the BCS and go create their own tournament. The NCAA needs to leave well enough alone.

  13. PoppaJohn 02/02/2010 at 5:21 PM #

    “…allowing 32 mediocre teams the chance to extend their seasons ”

    Don’t forget, we aspire to be one of those 32 mediocre teams. LOL

    Seriously, gotta agree. Leave it to TV to screw up the greatest sporting event in the world. Next thing you know, “Celebrity NCAA Tournament”, “NCAA Tournament On Ice”, and of course, “NCAA Idol”

  14. ldr of the pk 75 02/02/2010 at 5:35 PM #

    Would any of you really watch? I hope your lives aren’t that worthless.

    Money doesn’t buy happiness, and neither does going to the dance at 65-96 and being gone by 32 at the latest.

    The idea is horrible. The NCAA and the TV wizards are whores.

  15. choppack1 02/02/2010 at 9:15 PM #

    I really don’t understand where this is coming from.

    It reminds me of being in Seattle and seeing Starbucks on opposite sides of the streets of one another.

    Even if this works out one year, it probably won’t produce consistent results.

    I imagine, they’ll invite teams 33-96 to have a “play in game” to face teams 1-32. These match-ups will have regional interest, but rarely will they have national interest.

    Heck, the first round attendance is often putrid already.

    Does anyone remember what they did to the tournament the year after we went to the championship from the play in game? They came up w/this monstrosity that didn’t have the 1 seed playing until Saturday or something…It was horrible.

    As for conference post-season tournaments. The thrill is gone. Rarely is there magic in the air for the fans (the ACC officiating helps make sure that beating the champs is like unseating a top-ranked fighter.)

    This will make it even less interesting.

  16. Wolfy__79 02/02/2010 at 11:17 PM #

    i don’t like this idea at all, but unles there was some kind of boycott.. i would probably watch NCSU play, regardless of how stupid this idea is! but again, i would protest the hell out of this… if the oppurtunity was there…

  17. Wulfpack 02/03/2010 at 6:36 AM #

    “It stinks when I hear about a team that deserved a bid, but had to be left out because Barton County Community College won their conference tournament.”

    I’m on the opposite end. I think it stinks when a middle of the road big conference team that managed to go .500 in conference play finds a way in. I guess we just have different definitions of “deserved”. If you finish 8th place in the Big East, you’re now likely in. If you finish 6th in the ACC, you’re likely in. If you finished 5th in the Big Ten, you’re in. I’m sorry but that is not impressive to me. What is impressive to me is teams that find success against their peers. I do not consider mediocre play in conference “success”.

  18. ldr of the pk 75 02/03/2010 at 9:36 AM #

    ^Right there with you Wulfpack

1 2

Leave a Reply