96-team NCAAT field could come as early as 2011

I’m not going to get into what I actually think of this move by the money-hungry NCAA because my blood pressure needs to stay at acceptable levels. Every time I hear about this move it makes me question the entire NCAA as a whole.

But despite any negative feelings from sports writers, fans, coaches or anyone else, expansion is going to happen. The question now is whether it will happen next year or in 2014 when the current TV contract is up. My money is on next year. The NCAA wants to make more cash as soon as it can. This is one sure fire way to do it. Nevermind that the regular season would become more pointless than it already has become or that 32 teams would actually get a first round bye in the tournament. None of that matters. Just money.

Let me say that I’m not surprised by this. Businesses make changes to make more money all the time. I guess I foolishly allowed myself that the NCAA might not be exactly like every other business. Maybe the NCAA was just a little bit different. A little more concerned with the integrity of competition and the sport itself. Wrong.

NCAA concludes 96-team field would be best fit for expansion

The NCAA appears to be on the verge of expanding the men’s basketball tournament to 96 teams.

Insisting that nothing has been decided, NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen nonetheless outlined a detailed plan Thursday that included the logistics and timing of a 96-team tournament, how much time off the players would have and even revenue distribution.

Shaheen said the NCAA looked at keeping the current 65-team field and expanding to 68 or 80 teams, but decided the bigger bracket was best fit logistically and financially.

It would be played during the same time frame as the current three-week tournament and include first-round byes for 32 teams.

Although the plan still needs to be approved by the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee and passed on to the board of directors, most of the details already seem to be in place.

ESPN’s Dana O’Neil had a good column on the prospect of expansion this morning.

The NCAA made its annual state-of-the-game presentation as the Final Four festivities kicked off across the street from its headquarters. In the process, it unveiled the concoction the evil scientists have been working on over at the lab.

All the bubble battles in the weeks leading up to the tourney? Likely just seeding battles in the future.

No one said a 96-team NCAA tournament was coming for sure.

But they sure used an awful lot of words to explain how hypothetically such a tourney might look.

To be exact, 2,505 words were uttered in the opening address by Greg Shaheen, the NCAA’s vice president for basketball and business strategies.

Yes, I counted.
What do you guys think of expanding the tournament? Good thing? Bad thing?

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

College Basketball

59 Responses to 96-team NCAAT field could come as early as 2011

  1. wolfmanmat 04/03/2010 at 3:25 PM #

    ^I think the issue I point out is that mid-majors(not necessarily ACC/Big East/etc) dont have the same chance to make the tourney because of conference affiliation. Some conferences only get 1 and the rest go home…Butler and Gonzaga are the exceptions, but as we see both can make a run. It isn’t fair for them to ask the Mid-majors to win their conference while they ask the Majors to just finish .500. I think the tourneys plan for expansion would probably allow more deserving mid-majors in while only taking on maybe 1-2 more teams from each the ACC/Big East/Big ten/etc.

  2. VaWolf82 04/03/2010 at 3:33 PM #

    It isn’t fair for them to ask the Mid-majors to win their conference while they ask the Majors to just finish .500.

    This is a gross mis-representation of the current selection process. VT finished way above .500 and was sent to the NIT.

    allow more deserving mid-majors

    Name two that were unfairly left out this year.

  3. Wolfy__79 04/03/2010 at 4:16 PM #

    miss st & dayton

  4. wolfmanmat 04/03/2010 at 5:37 PM #

    Rhode Island/UAB/Dayton/Memphis/Cinci. There’s more. There 350 teams eligible for basketball NCAA tourney. That is a ton of squads. It’s not like football where we have 1AA and 1A. All these schools feed the same tourney.

  5. VaWolf82 04/03/2010 at 5:41 PM #

    Miss St isn’t a mid major and Dayton did nothing special..at least before the NIT.

  6. wolfmanmat 04/03/2010 at 5:47 PM #

    Just kind of trivia here, but when the field expanded from 48 to 64(1985), NCSU had alot to do with it after that title in 1983. Just proves that if you get in, you have a chance. I see nothing wrong with giving more chances.

  7. Wulfpack 04/03/2010 at 9:58 PM #

    Dayton finished 7th in the A-10 at 8-8, a slot behind Charlotte. They weren’t even on the bubble. Cincy is an example of a team that would easily make the field of 96. The Bearcats were 7-11 in the Big East this year. I am fundamentally opposed to any major program making the big dance with a miserable conference record such as 7-11. What’s the point?

    I would imagine all conference regular season champs will get an automaic bid, along with the conference tournament champion. The rest will go primarily to the majors. I truly will have zero interest in the first round. I get it’s all about money. I don’t get anything else about it.

  8. Wolfy__79 04/03/2010 at 11:14 PM #

    i was just poking the fire a little bit. miss st is from the sec technically, but i think they would qualify for a mid major… but so would we nowadays. i choose not to even worry about this expansion b/c i will have no impact on it whatsoever.

  9. Wulfpack 04/03/2010 at 11:20 PM #

    Miss State is in no way, shape or form a mid-major. State institution. Big-time college football (though they suck). And I believe they made the Final Four 10 or so years agp with Dampier.

Leave a Reply