Comments on: Expanding The NCAA Tournament Without Destorying The Current Format

By: Michelle

Michelle — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 04:30:01 +0000

Expanding the NCAAA tournament to 96 teams does have its pros and cons. Tradition will certainly be broken if the tournament is modified. The current 64 team tournament includes a formula that works and the feeling of many people is, “don’t try to fix it if it ain’t broke.” My opinion is that the format should be not be modified. The 64 team tournament is for the elite teams, and the NIT is for the teams that couldn’t cut it this year. I also don’t think I have enough space on my DVR to record that many games.
The new format guarantees that a 96 team tournament will not prolong the season. Time out of class will be the same. The tournament will be complete in the same time frame as the 64 team tournament which is three weeks. By expanding the tournament the new bracket could include the 32 NIT teams, and may altogether do away with the NIT. This is not good because many NIT teams simply do not belong in the NCAA tournament. The 96 team tournament is also only proposed for men’s teams. Women’s programs have just as many teams, are just as competitive and fun to watch and should be given the same opportunity to expand.
What this all boils down to is money. Revenue distribution is very important in the NCAA tournament. College institutions rely on money from March Madness to supplement their athletic program budgets. The NCAA also generates 90% of its revenue from the NCAA Tournament. Proposals for television coverage are currently being drafted. Over the air networks and cable networks are currently submitting proposals for split air time to cover such a large tournament format. This could lead to broadcast deals of over $750 million dollars.
Many of the unknown schools that are allowed in the 96 team format will certainly benefit from media exposure. This would be live broadcast of their contests, more newspaper, internet, radio coverage will be generated. This would also boost the business of college public relations departments and definitely keep them busy. Once again, if the goal here is to make money, this is the right way to conduct business.

By: nml

nml — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:55:58 +0000

Expanding the tournament to 96 teams is a terrible decision by the NCAA. The tournament clearly works now just fine. It lasts the perfect amount of time to keep the viewers interested. If the tournament was expanded it would no longer be March madness it would have to spill over into April.
I think expanding the tournament would be a bad idea for ratings. There would be teams in the tournament that do not deserve to be there and audience members would become uninterested and bored with the over abundance of basketball.

By: Brian Gleason

Brian Gleason — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:52:49 +0000

I agree, I really don’t want a 96-team field, although I do think this plan would be a nice upgrade of the play-in format to bring the tournament to 68 teams. Something we need to be remember though, is that expanding the tournament is all about the $$$, not really about making “snubbed” teams feel better. That’s definitely the motivation for the NCAA.

By: sportsandalatte

sportsandalatte — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:58:32 +0000

“To me, there are “snubs” every year, but those teams had 25+ games and a conference tournament to prove themselves worthy to be in the 64 team dance.”

I totally agree with Tom on this and there’s really no solution to it all. Somewhere, somehow, someone is going to be unhappy and feel “snubbed”…as with the BCS system. I think the tourney is long enough as is and pretty fair all around and adding another 31 games would be overkill.

By: Brian Gleason

Brian Gleason — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:54:50 +0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for stopping by. I’m with you on not expanding the tournament. I think it’s hilarious that people are screaming about the bowl system and the NCAA won’t touch it, while everyone thinks the basketball tournament is pure gold, but the NCAA wants to mess with that. The NCAA is being viewed as a complete money grubbing joke right now, and has serious PR issues.

By: Tom O'Keefe

Tom O'Keefe — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:48:35 +0000

Wow. I didn’t realize that this was so close to fruition.

I don’t like the expansion at all and think the tournament is just long enough and just small enough. Why fix what isn’t broken?

But, as usual, the NCAA sees the $ signs and wants to make a few extra bucks on this.

To me, there are “snubs” every year, but those teams had 25+ games and a conference tournament to prove themselves worthy to be in the 64 team dance.

I like your idea, Brian, but what about the next 4 out? How long until they start complaining that they deserve a shot, too?

To me, there’s really no way to “fix” that problem.

Anyway, this further proves to me that the NCAA isn’t about the “students” or the colleges, but is all about the money.

By: Franco

Franco — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:16:11 +0000

I just think when you talk about the NCAA Tournament, you are talking about something that is a symbol of the way things should be done. When people talk about the BCS they reference the NCAA Tournament and that’s how it should be done.

Obviously my initial reaction is to be opposed to it because I enjoy this format so much, but just thinking about all the teams that I thought were snubbed in recent years, this would give them a chance to prove themselves come tournament time. But of course, by saying that, that brings up the argument of do they deserve that chance?

So many different thoughts going into this it’s hard to come up with an intelligent response.

By: Brian Gleason

Brian Gleason — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:10:22 +0000

Thanks, I enjoyed checking out your blog as well and will continue too. I totally agree on expanding to 96 teams, I don’t like the idea and think it will just water everything down. I don’t think I’ll get as excited for the first round, and wonder if it will limit my excitement for the entire thing. Hopefully they slow down and rethink this. Not that anything serious will happen to them, but I could see ESPN getting a little fan backlash on this.

By: Franco

Franco — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:04:08 +0000

I wasn’t aware that this was coming to life so soon to be honest. I had just started hearing about it two weeks ago and now apparently it’s a done deal?

I agree that it could possibly be more exciting and it makes winning the tournament that much more impressive, but I think some of the games are going to be downright awful. Two teams can play a sloppy game for 39 minutes and 10 seconds and since it’s decided in the last 10 seconds of an NCAA Tournament game people are going to talk about it like it was an instant classic. So when Pacific meets UNLV in the 1st round of the tournament and each team shoots 38% from the field, I will have watched a “classic”

This is disheartening, if true.

Also, very nice stuff you have written here.