From the article.
“The most front-facing change comes in championship participation. The 25% recommendation for all sports sponsored by at least 200 schools opens the door for possible expansion of the March Madness basketball tournaments from 68 to as many as 90 teams each.”

NCAA recommendations call for bigger championship events

I've always said the NCAA tournament starts with the league tournaments. If you win one of those you get to the round of 64.

Who cares... what is that... 22 more play-in games for no one to watch

NIT should be destroyed, I don't know when that ESPN contract ends but it absolutely shouldn't be renewed.

(01-03-2023 04:26 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I've always said the NCAA tournament starts with the league tournaments. If you win one of those you get to the round of 64.

Agree. Shrink that ***** back down to 64.

Agree. 64 teams feels perfect. If they did expand it to 90, don’t stop there, just go to 96 teams. Drop the NIT, and probably would have a stronger final 64 teams in the end.

(01-03-2023 10:15 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  Agree. 64 teams feels perfect. If they did expand it to 90, don’t stop there, just go to 96 teams. Drop the NIT, and probably would have a stronger final 64 teams in the end.

That seems like a better idea. The NIT is a snooze fest that nobody but the participants care about.

More excitement if you get into the Big Dance, even for a game. There's always a chance.

Ha, go the other direction and shrink it to just conference champions.

(01-04-2023 07:12 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Ha, go the other direction and shrink it to just conference champions.

Except for 8 or 10 champs, max, who would bother to watch? The point is to make money. That's where the lion's share of the NCAA revenue for the whole year comes from.

80 is the number I think is best. Gets you more qualified teams without rewarding the downright mediocre.

(01-04-2023 11:20 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  80 is the number I think is best. Gets you more qualified teams without rewarding the downright mediocre.

Actually, I think 64 is best, but we all know that, given a choice, the NCAA and/or the schools, will never go in that direction.

Just like bowl games so far.

(01-03-2023 10:15 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  Agree. 64 teams feels perfect. If they did expand it to 90, don’t stop there, just go to 96 teams. Drop the NIT, and probably would have a stronger final 64 teams in the end.

Thats actually a really good point. Lots of very good bubble teams (who would not have made the tournament in its current form) would end up replacing many of the marginal auto-qualifiers from weak one bid leagues in the round of 64 if the tourney was substantially expanded.

(01-03-2023 04:29 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Who cares... what is that... 22 more play-in games for no one to watch

NIT should be destroyed, I don't know when that ESPN contract ends but it absolutely shouldn't be renewed.

I agree, go to 128, add one more game to tournie and kill the NIT. First 2 rounds just like now will be the exciting place of upsets, and the first round would get way better viewership and coverage than the NIT.

You rarely would have an 126 thru 128 seed knocking off an 1thru 3 seed. But I think people would be surprised how many 100 type seeds would come up with a shocking win vs a 20 type seed.

(01-04-2023 12:06 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-03-2023 04:29 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Who cares... what is that... 22 more play-in games for no one to watch

NIT should be destroyed, I don't know when that ESPN contract ends but it absolutely shouldn't be renewed.

I agree, go to 128, add one more game to tournie and kill the NIT. First 2 rounds just like now will be the exciting place of upsets, and the first round would get way better viewership and coverage than the NIT.

You rarely would have an 126 thru 128 seed knocking off an 1thru 3 seed. But I think people would be surprised how many 100 type seeds would come up with a shocking win vs a 20 type seed.

I'm not a fan of 128, but I prefer it over 96 or whatever because I think in a tournament everyone should (potentially) play the same number of games to win it. Byes or play-ins are dumb.

(01-04-2023 11:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2023 10:15 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  Agree. 64 teams feels perfect. If they did expand it to 90, don’t stop there, just go to 96 teams. Drop the NIT, and probably would have a stronger final 64 teams in the end.

Thats actually a really good point. Lots of very good bubble teams (who would not have made the tournament in its current form) would end up replacing many of the marginal auto-qualifiers from weak one bid leagues in the round of 64 if the tourney was substantially expanded.

Or the power conference bottom feeders that no one cared enough to watch late in the regular season will muscle out deserving bubble teams. It just means more, right?

(01-04-2023 12:29 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 12:06 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-03-2023 04:29 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Who cares... what is that... 22 more play-in games for no one to watch

NIT should be destroyed, I don't know when that ESPN contract ends but it absolutely shouldn't be renewed.

I agree, go to 128, add one more game to tournie and kill the NIT. First 2 rounds just like now will be the exciting place of upsets, and the first round would get way better viewership and coverage than the NIT.

You rarely would have an 126 thru 128 seed knocking off an 1thru 3 seed. But I think people would be surprised how many 100 type seeds would come up with a shocking win vs a 20 type seed.

I'm not a fan of 128, but I prefer it over 96 or whatever because I think in a tournament everyone should (potentially) play the same number of games to win it. Byes or play-ins are dumb.

At 96, there are still a large number of teams with byes (32 teams get byes in a 96-team tournament)

If you want equal paths, its either 64 or 128.

//

What sucks the most is that the Play-In Games are hosted in a completely different city. It's completely unfair for the winner of the Play-In game to have to travel cross-country and get ready to play a game in 36 hours.

Look at Notre Dame last year. Their game tipped off in Dayton, OH at 9:10pm EST 3/16 and the game ran late. Finished the game past midnight technically 3/17 now. They then needed to hop on a flight to San Diego, CA to play at 1:15pm PST on 3/18. That's Notre Dame with their seemingly unlimited resources. If you put a smaller budget team in that scenario it would have been mayhem.

Play-In Games should be played at their corresponding regional location or a neighboring city. You shouldn't be changing time zone with the timetable March Madness demands.

Hate play-in games and hate the idea of expanding. Only would go for it if NO teams with sub .500 conference records got at large bids. Gotta at least break even in your conference.

90 teams isn't enough:

https://www.theonion.com/ncaa-expands-ma...1819594781

The play-in games aren't going away so go ahead an make all the 16 seeds have play in games. That way at lest they have a legit chance to win a game before going on to be sacrifical lambs. It also opens up 2 more spots for deserving teams. JMHO

that would be 70 teams I believe.

clt says go with 69!