(04-06-2010 07:03 PM)MercerFan Wrote: Until the NCAA themselves releases the set-in-stone details on how a 96 team format would work, I'll hold my opinion. I know people are talking about how it might be, but we'll see what actually happens.
A spokesperson from the NCAA (I forget what his name was) described what the format would
probably be:
1. The play-in game would be eliminated, meaning there would be one less host site used for the NCAA Tournament.
2. Each of the four regions would have 24 teams instead of 16. The top 8 seeds in each region would get a bye in the first round. So, in each region, you would have the following first round matchups:
#9 seed vs. #24 seed
#10 vs. #23
#11 vs. #22
#12 vs. #21
#13 vs. #20
#14 vs. #19
#15 vs. #18
#16 vs. #17
64 teams would play one another in the first round. The 32 teams who advance out of the first round would play the 32 teams that had a bye. So, essentially, you would have two rounds of 64 teams playing, then have a round of 32 teams, then the Sweet 16, Elite 8, Final 4, and national title game.
I like this idea because (a) we would have more basketball to watch, and (b) the first-round games would be more competitive with the higher seeded teams getting the bye. However . . . .
1. I would like the idea even better if regular season champions had automatic bids as well as conference tournament champions.
2. I would like the idea even better if teams with sub-.500 records were left out (a sub-.500 team that wins a conference tournament would be the only exception to this rule that I would be okay with).
3. I would like the idea even better if teams that had losing records in their conferences did not get in (barring the one exception I just mentioned above).
So I guess, at this point, I like the 96-team idea as long as they don't do something really screwy with it.