Basketball tournament expanding to 68 teams in 2011

[www.usatoday.com]

The sport's signature event will grow to 68 teams from 65 in conjunction with a new 14-year, nearly $11 billion television agreement with CBS and Turner Sports announced Thursday. That gives the NCAA a 41% hike in annual media and marketing rights connected to the tournament — and "financial stability through the first quarter of this century," interim President Jim Isch said — without the controversy of a more dramatic move to a 96-team bracket.

Dumb.

Jim Hyla
Dumb.

Yes, but not as dumb as 96.

If you're gonna have 68, you might as well have 69. Heh heh heh.

Al DeFlorio

Jim Hyla
Dumb.

Yes, but not as dumb as 96.

I dunno, 68 says "fuck you" to eight minor conference champions instead of two. 96 would at least make the bye/non-bye division a little saner (1/3 with byes, 2/3 without).

jtwcornell91
I dunno, 68 says "fuck you" to eight minor conference champions instead of two.

I had to read this four times to understand it, but, yes.

Oh good, more basketball for me to ignore.

jtwcornell91

Al DeFlorio

Jim Hyla
Dumb.

Yes, but not as dumb as 96.

I dunno, 68 says "fuck you" to eight minor conference champions instead of two. 96 would at least make the bye/non-bye division a little saner (1/3 with byes, 2/3 without).

96 would have watered down the season too much though, practically the whole Big East and ACC would make it every year, these teams would then play even weaker non-conf schedules since it wouldnt matter which would only hurt the mid majors

How about we go to a 33 team tournament. After all there are 33 DI conferences by my count.

KeithK
How about we go to a 33 team tournament. After all there are 33 DI conferences by my count.

The traditionalist rises again!

While I don't like the jump to 68 either, MidMajority.com points out that there is a hidden advantage in the move to 68 (as there was in the move to 65). Yes, that means that 8 teams/conferences will be in PIGs instead of 2, but it also means that 4 conferences will get win shares for winning the PIG instead of 1. Counter-intuitively, it will send more money to the bottom-tier conferences, since it is incredibly rare for a 15/16 to bring back any more money than the appearance fee otherwise.

ugarte

KeithK
How about we go to a 33 team tournament. After all there are 33 DI conferences by my count.

The traditionalist rises again!

While I don't like the jump to 68 either, MidMajority.com points out that there is a hidden advantage in the move to 68 (as there was in the move to 65). Yes, that means that 8 teams/conferences will be in PIGs instead of 2, but it also means that 4 conferences will get win shares for winning the PIG instead of 1. Counter-intuitively, it will send more money to the bottom-tier conferences, since it is incredibly rare for a 15/16 to bring back any more money than the appearance fee otherwise.

I dont think the NCAA has even decided if the 4 play in games will be for the 16 seed spot or will they be the bubble teams playing for a 12/13 spot.

phillysportsfan

ugarte

KeithK
How about we go to a 33 team tournament. After all there are 33 DI conferences by my count.

The traditionalist rises again!

While I don't like the jump to 68 either, MidMajority.com points out that there is a hidden advantage in the move to 68 (as there was in the move to 65). Yes, that means that 8 teams/conferences will be in PIGs instead of 2, but it also means that 4 conferences will get win shares for winning the PIG instead of 1. Counter-intuitively, it will send more money to the bottom-tier conferences, since it is incredibly rare for a 15/16 to bring back any more money than the appearance fee otherwise.

I suppose that's possible but highly unlikely. The point of expanding the tournament is to get a higher percentage of big name, big conference teams in the tournament.

I dont think the NCAA has even decided if the 4 play in games will be for the 16 seed spot or will they be the bubble teams playing for a 12/13 spot.

Do you really believe that would happen? I'd be shocked if they didn't have the playin at the bottom (which is how they do it now).

KeithK

phillysportsfan

ugarte

KeithK
How about we go to a 33 team tournament. After all there are 33 DI conferences by my count.

The traditionalist rises again!

While I don't like the jump to 68 either, MidMajority.com points out that there is a hidden advantage in the move to 68 (as there was in the move to 65). Yes, that means that 8 teams/conferences will be in PIGs instead of 2, but it also means that 4 conferences will get win shares for winning the PIG instead of 1. Counter-intuitively, it will send more money to the bottom-tier conferences, since it is incredibly rare for a 15/16 to bring back any more money than the appearance fee otherwise.

I suppose that's possible but highly unlikely. The point of expanding the tournament is to get a higher percentage of big name, big conference teams in the tournament.

I dont think the NCAA has even decided if the 4 play in games will be for the 16 seed spot or will they be the bubble teams playing for a 12/13 spot.

Do you really believe that would happen? I'd be shocked if they didn't have the playin at the bottom (which is how they do it now).

I dont think it would happen because the NCAA loves to screw the mid majors but I am still shocked they went to 68 instead of 96. The bubble teams playing each other would be better for tv ratings since they would be more name teams

I suspect the 68 was so all number one seeds get to play a team that had to play during the week.

Jim Hyla
I suspect the 68 was so all number one seeds get to play a team that had to play during the week.

because it's so unfair for Duke or Kansas to have to play a 16 seed that hasn't played the day before. They might have to break a sweat to win!

You're probably right though. 68 does have that (minimal) symmetry.

KeithK

Jim Hyla
I suspect the 68 was so all number one seeds get to play a team that had to play during the week.

because it's so unfair for Duke or Kansas to have to play a 16 seed that hasn't played the day before. They might have to break a sweat to win!

You're probably right though. 68 does have that (minimal) symmetry.

Nah, that's overthinking it. It squeezes in three more 12/13 seeds from the big conferences (and possibly mid-majors). In exchange for giving an extra win share to three small conferences, three appearance shares (probably) go to the big boys.

Does this make the possibility for a 16 to upset a 1 more or less likely? I could see both sides:

More - #1 seeds will now be playing the equivalent of a 15 seed in today's tournament since 15 plays 16 in the PIGtails. They will all face teams that have had their first tourney appearance jitters out of the way

Less - They will all face teams who have played two days before with more injuries/fatigue.

Luke 05
Does this make the possibility for a 16 to upset a 1 more or less likely? I could see both sides:

More - #1 seeds will now be playing the equivalent of a 15 seed in today's tournament since 15 plays 16 in the PIGtails. They will all face teams that have had their first tourney appearance jitters out of the way

Less - They will all face teams who have played two days before with more injuries/fatigue.

They're still playing the equivalent of a 16 seed, possibly even a 17.

why not just let the D2 and D3 tournaments play into the big dance as well? ... that way everyone knows who's the best team in the land.

it would make more money for the NC$$ and we know that's all they really care about these days.

They won't play a 17 seed because Kansas/Duke/Syracuse/etc will still play Winthrop/MTSU/Morgan St/etc. They will not be adding the 2nd place team from the Socon to the dance so in essence the field is getting stronger at the bottom because the 15/16 seeds will be playing each other for the right to play the 1 seed.

The field will get stronger in the middle. They'll add one more team from each of the big money conferences, more likely than they'll add a mid-major. All it will do is move the bubble down to more average big-confernce teams.

Other than Alumni and relatives, nobody cares about the 64 vs. 65 game, and I can't believe the ratings are high.

TV spent big bucks, and TV wants ratings. I would not be at all surprised to see Tuesday/Wednesday doubleheaders for the 12 seeds. This way, people will actually watch the play-in games to see which bubble teams survive.

nshapiro
Other than Alumni and relatives, nobody cares about the 64 vs. 65 game, and I can't believe the ratings are high.

TV spent big bucks, and TV wants ratings. I would not be at all surprised to see Tuesday/Wednesday doubleheaders for the 12 seeds. This way, people will actually watch the play-in games to see which bubble teams survive.

I'm not sure anybody other than alumni and relatives will watch eight majors that went sub-.500 in conference.

Trotsky

nshapiro
Other than Alumni and relatives, nobody cares about the 64 vs. 65 game, and I can't believe the ratings are high.

TV spent big bucks, and TV wants ratings. I would not be at all surprised to see Tuesday/Wednesday doubleheaders for the 12 seeds. This way, people will actually watch the play-in games to see which bubble teams survive.

I'm not sure anybody other than alumni and relatives will watch eight majors that went sub-.500 in conference.

Most years I don't understand why anyone watches most of the first round games. But they do.

KeithK

Trotsky

nshapiro
Other than Alumni and relatives, nobody cares about the 64 vs. 65 game, and I can't believe the ratings are high.

TV spent big bucks, and TV wants ratings. I would not be at all surprised to see Tuesday/Wednesday doubleheaders for the 12 seeds. This way, people will actually watch the play-in games to see which bubble teams survive.

I'm not sure anybody other than alumni and relatives will watch eight majors that went sub-.500 in conference.

Most years I don't understand why anyone watches most of the first round games. But they do.

I dont know how you can think that, sure the 1-16 games are bad but the rest of them are usually competitive, the first round was great this year with Georgetown losing, Nova getting pushed to OT, etc

phillysportsfan

KeithK

Trotsky

nshapiro
Other than Alumni and relatives, nobody cares about the 64 vs. 65 game, and I can't believe the ratings are high.

TV spent big bucks, and TV wants ratings. I would not be at all surprised to see Tuesday/Wednesday doubleheaders for the 12 seeds. This way, people will actually watch the play-in games to see which bubble teams survive.

I'm not sure anybody other than alumni and relatives will watch eight majors that went sub-.500 in conference.

Most years I don't understand why anyone watches most of the first round games. But they do.

I dont know how you can think that, sure the 1-16 games are bad but the rest of them are usually competitive, the first round was great this year with Georgetown losing, Nova getting pushed to OT, etc

It seems to me that 1-16 is never competitive and a number of the others (2-15, 3-14) are rarely in competitive, at least in most years. Maybe I'm wrong or are just using the final scores as a proxy for competitive, which may be misleading.

(And admittedly I'm not a basketball fan.)

KeithK

phillysportsfan

KeithK

Trotsky

nshapiro
Other than Alumni and relatives, nobody cares about the 64 vs. 65 game, and I can't believe the ratings are high.

TV spent big bucks, and TV wants ratings. I would not be at all surprised to see Tuesday/Wednesday doubleheaders for the 12 seeds. This way, people will actually watch the play-in games to see which bubble teams survive.

I'm not sure anybody other than alumni and relatives will watch eight majors that went sub-.500 in conference.

Most years I don't understand why anyone watches most of the first round games. But they do.

I dont know how you can think that, sure the 1-16 games are bad but the rest of them are usually competitive, the first round was great this year with Georgetown losing, Nova getting pushed to OT, etc

It seems to me that 1-16 is never competitive and a number of the others (2-15, 3-14) are rarely in competitive, at least in most years. Maybe I'm wrong or are just using the final scores as a proxy for competitive, which may be misleading.

(And admittedly I'm not a basketball fan.)

There are always a lot of blowouts but there are always good games and there is always the chance for crazy upsets like this year Ohio U over Georgetown or Morgan St hitting that buzzer beater to beat Vandy. But college basketball is my favorite sport so I would watch it no matter what

phillysportsfan

KeithK

phillysportsfan

KeithK

Trotsky

nshapiro
Other than Alumni and relatives, nobody cares about the 64 vs. 65 game, and I can't believe the ratings are high.

TV spent big bucks, and TV wants ratings. I would not be at all surprised to see Tuesday/Wednesday doubleheaders for the 12 seeds. This way, people will actually watch the play-in games to see which bubble teams survive.

I'm not sure anybody other than alumni and relatives will watch eight majors that went sub-.500 in conference.

Most years I don't understand why anyone watches most of the first round games. But they do.

I dont know how you can think that, sure the 1-16 games are bad but the rest of them are usually competitive, the first round was great this year with Georgetown losing, Nova getting pushed to OT, etc

It seems to me that 1-16 is never competitive and a number of the others (2-15, 3-14) are rarely in competitive, at least in most years. Maybe I'm wrong or are just using the final scores as a proxy for competitive, which may be misleading.

(And admittedly I'm not a basketball fan.)

There are always a lot of blowouts but there are always good games and there is always the chance for crazy upsets like this year Ohio U over Georgetown or Morgan St hitting that buzzer beater to beat Vandy. But college basketball is my favorite sport so I would watch it no matter what

I guess my point is that they've marketed the tournament so well that there's a huge and excited audience even for the first round where there are a lot of blowouts. The diehard fans are going to watch it regardless but there are a lot of non-diehards who tune in as well. So in response to Greg's comment (Trotsky), lots of people will tune in to watch mediocre teams from the majot conferences play.

KeithK

phillysportsfan

KeithK

phillysportsfan

KeithK

Trotsky

nshapiro
Other than Alumni and relatives, nobody cares about the 64 vs. 65 game, and I can't believe the ratings are high.

TV spent big bucks, and TV wants ratings. I would not be at all surprised to see Tuesday/Wednesday doubleheaders for the 12 seeds. This way, people will actually watch the play-in games to see which bubble teams survive.

I'm not sure anybody other than alumni and relatives will watch eight majors that went sub-.500 in conference.

Most years I don't understand why anyone watches most of the first round games. But they do.

I dont know how you can think that, sure the 1-16 games are bad but the rest of them are usually competitive, the first round was great this year with Georgetown losing, Nova getting pushed to OT, etc

It seems to me that 1-16 is never competitive and a number of the others (2-15, 3-14) are rarely in competitive, at least in most years. Maybe I'm wrong or are just using the final scores as a proxy for competitive, which may be misleading.

(And admittedly I'm not a basketball fan.)

There are always a lot of blowouts but there are always good games and there is always the chance for crazy upsets like this year Ohio U over Georgetown or Morgan St hitting that buzzer beater to beat Vandy. But college basketball is my favorite sport so I would watch it no matter what

I guess my point is that they've marketed the tournament so well that there's a huge and excited audience even for the first round where there are a lot of blowouts. The diehard fans are going to watch it regardless but there are a lot of non-diehards who tune in as well. So in response to Greg's comment (Trotsky), lots of people will tune in to watch mediocre teams from the majot conferences play.

You are right people will watch because of the office pools. The play in games should be for the bubble teams because the 15/16 seeds made it in the tournament they deserve to be in the real tournament

[sports.espn.go.com]

It's only the second time in a quarter-century that the NCAA has increased the number of teams competing for the men's national championship.

From the article on the NCAA officially approving the change, I found this sentence to be an amusing way of saying "It was changed less than 10 years ago."