The NCAA is meeting this week -- and on agenda item is a proposal to increase the number of teams invited to the Big Dance from 65 to 128.

It would mean just one more game per team and that nearly 40% of the D-1 programs would qualify. (Compared to football where 47% get a post-season bowl game). The biggest winners would be the mid-major conferences where a team with a good record would probably still make it in despite not getting the conference's auto bid.

Hopefully in the big conferences a team would still have to at least have a above .500 conference record. and the others can go elsewhere. You can't spell Minnesota without NIT!


Marquette's Crean and Wisconsin's Ryan both back the expansion.

Why fix something that isn't broken. I really think that now that the NCAA is in control of the NIT, they really won't even consider expanding the NCAA tournament. This way some of the big name bubble teams that won't get in will become the big names in the NIT tourney. I wondered this past year if some of those big name bubble teams purposely didn't get into add more marquee value to the NIT.

And the arguement about football doesn't hold water for me. A lot of those bowl games seem boring to me. It seems like too many team are invited to bowl games these days. That and they change damn names so much.

to many teams..to many games..i like the current format!!

I could live with the field going up to say...80 teams. The size of the field has not changed(changed a little) since they went to 64 in 1985 and the amount of D1 clubs has increased significantly since then and therefore I think the field should adjust with that....it had 267 total D1 clubs twenty years ago and now the total is up to 334.

With 80 you could make that opening round "play in" game into another full day of 16 games like Thursday and Friday normally are.

The down side is that most of the mid majors and low majors would get stuck playing each other on that day. In a perfect world I'd like to see half of those opening round games pitting two average clubs in power conferences.

But it's all wishful thinking isn't it.

On another note, the NCAA has awarded another subregional to Buffalo for 2010. that'll be the fourth one in the decade.....they must really love us here.

How many of these Division 1 teams are D1 in name only -- in reality, while they may technically meet the requirements for being D1, they really don't cut it? Do we really want a tournament with a lot more no-name teams?

Leave it as it is.

I sense eventually they will increase it to something. By and large playoff systems increase as years go by.

The next couple of seasons will be critical, if more mid major clubs(George Mason i.e.) show that they belong at the elite college level then the NCAA may create a bigger field to bring some more of the mid-majors in as at large clubs. Obviously the power conferences will not allow their amount of club in the field to decrease and with that the field could go up in size.

Lets just hope that when it happens they don't overdo it and go to 128 or something....

I would like to see them expand it to 68 teams, and have 4 play in games instead of 1. 128 teams would be way too many, but there are good teams that are left on the bubble, and it would take the spotlight off those crappy teams that were able to string together a late season streak just to get demolished by Duke.

btw -- an update: the NCAA rejected the move to 128 teams -- and also a much more modest proposal to add 8 more teams for Dayton-type play-in games.

Thank Gawd! Really, this made no sense at all. 128 teams? Please. However, I can live with the 8 play-in games.

I also don't like the automatic berth if you win your conference tournament rule. If you play an entire season and you win the conference title, you should get the automatic bid. I was not happy when the Pac-10 went to a conference tournament. Even when Oregon went to the title game last year, had they won the game, they should not have been in the tournament. But it's all about the $$$$.

I just don't want it to become like a desperate situation if universities don't make the NCAA Tournament. People just need to set up their schedules that will allow them to make a case to be invited to the BIG DANCE..

not always easy, especially if you are one of those mid major clubs.

They only get a crack or two at a big time school per year and it is usually on the road.

Lose, and it kills their hopes of an at large bid.

Schedule a powerhouse road game and beat them, well they won't play you again, and still you probably have to win your conference tourney. Even if you win the regular season by a large margin.

Let's hope that the presence of Gonzaga(elite 8-'99), Kent State(Elite 8-2002), and George Mason(final 4-'06) finally starts to sway the committee into getting more of such schools into the big dance at the expense of the mid to lower rated power conference school.

Now I can put down the crack pipe....

I'm all for a 72-80 team field.

I like the Bracket Buster weekend (or whatever ESPN calls it) scheduling midmajors like UW-Milwaukee, Missouri State, George Masons of the world in match-ups against each other in February. These teams then don't have to rely on early season games against lg conference opponents for publicity.

btw -- I meant to mention that another good decision that the NCAA made during the off-season was to outlaw the calling timeout while falling out of bounds rule. I always hated when a team did that -- and it usually meant the waste of a TO down the stretch. Now it will just mean a turnover, like it should.

Expanding would only mean really bad early round games - #128 v #1?

And you'd see some mind blowing first round upsets......

This could be a reality... did anyone see that the NIT is reducing it's field to 32 (I think) from 40?? I saw it on CSTV on Wednesday.

True but the NCAA Tournament doesn't need to become like a mini NBA series..lol..

Expanding to a number more than the current 64 ( actually 65 counting the play in game) teams would make the regular season and conference tournaments meaningless.

For instance, if SEC teams know that 80 to 90 percent of its conference mates are basically assured entry into an expanded field, what is the point expending energy on regular season games and the conference tournies? With 64 teams, teams that are on the bubble are competing at the end of the year in a dog fight with other comparable bubble teams to boast their post season resume.

This leave on the court approach brings out the best basketball in all teams from the top, middle, and bottom teams all having meaningful games at the end of the year. The college basketbal fan wins in the process. By making a more inclusive tourney based on conferences like the ACC who aren't providing their typical number of teams is a disservice to top mid major programs from mid major programs who have fought hard to gain recgonition over the middle and lower of the pack teams from the power conferences. If the ACC or any major confernece wants more teams, I suggest improving their product instead crying because they have more teams NIT bound than NCAA bound ( see ACC last year). When 17-13 teams from the major conferences who posts a losing record in their conference can play on cruise contrl throughout the regular season because they are essentially assured of making a field of 128, college basketball will suffer as a result.

Hell, if the field becomes 128, why not just invite every Division 1 program and the RPI can determine which teams play each other in March. That would make a lot more sense than 128 teams.



Lets just stick to 64 and the complainers can order a high chair and bottle if they want to continue crying during March Madness. I'll still to watching quality basketball as the best teams face off regardless of conference affiliation. wink

[ August 14, 2006, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

FINALLY SOMEONE THAT MAKES SENSE..LOL..

Ummm.....let's not give anyone in Indianapolis any ideas here. This is the same organization that can't even get the football playoff to more than 0 teams....they just might do that.

In all reality though, the NCAA already has virtually all D1 teams in the postseason virtue of the conference tournaments.

If memory serves, all conferences have one save for the Ivy and most others include all teams in their events. Save for I believe the Big Sky, Pac-10 and Big West. I thinks there are a couple others but not sure which ones.....

Still think a slight increase of an additional 8-16 clubs wouldn't dilute the product....you're looking at basically nothing more than one more club from each power conference at most and a few more spots for mid majors at large/little conference reg season titlist who didn't win their tournament.

Expanding 8-16 teams would create an extra round of play with the winners of those first round games advancing to 64. The teams that would be playing in this "new" round would seeds 15 and 16 ( if tourney expands by 8) against seeds 17 and 18. If the tourney expands by 16 teams, seeds 13,14,15,and 16 would play seeds 17,18,19, and 20 to see who advances to the final 64 teams.

That is just ridiculous to penalize teams/conference champs from mid major conferences with a "play in" game right before they take on a higer seeded ( seeds 1,2,3,4) from a power conference.


Lets keep it at 64. If you want to assist in the cause of crying, send tissue papers and a pacifier to the ACC headquarters.

Yet this is already done now with the 64/65 matchup.

Increasing the field would still leave the bottom 10/12 conferences champions where they are. With a 72 team field, what goes on now with 65 doesn't change really. With an 80 team field though, many of the matchups would pit these lower level champions against middle of the pack clubs in major conferences.

Maybe the extra game would hurt the early round teams, maybe they wouldn't. But a game involving two clubs with different amount of days between games is common during the regular season so why not in the postseason?

I like the idea of an increased field since there aren't enough deserving mid majors making it to the field and the fact that D1 membership has risen by some 20% since the field went to 64 back in 1985. The field should increase accordingly.

[ August 14, 2006, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: blueraider ]

The one game is ok. I'm not a huge fan of it. However, by adding 8 teams , it actually penalizes 16 teams.

What you fail to probably realize is teams from major conference ( at large bids and the ones bitching about not making the field currently) will take over the 11,12,13,and 14 seeds, thus knocking conference champs of mid major programs from respective 12th or 13th seeds ( games in which they have chance to win) into no mans land of winning in the first rounds of 14,15,and 16 seeds against very high ranked teams in the 1st round ASSUMING they win their play in game.


If the FSU's, Maryland's, GT's, and company want to make the tounrey, I suggest they start winning games in their conference. Just because they are part of a "dressed" up fraternity, doesn't mean the rest of the functioning basketball world should reward average basketball and very good mid major programs that win their conference and its tournaments should be bounced to play in "play in games" because a 7-9 ACC team cant get their act together in key games down the stretch of the regular season.

Here's an old school thought. Try being over .500 in your conference, then maybe you will be rewarded with a NCAA bid. Otherwise, Madison Square Garden should be your destination in the NIT.

[ August 14, 2006, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

I'm a mid-major alum and I have to say that even though my conference received a teeny slight (Missouri State should've been in), I think that 64/65 is good. The gap between programs really is closing. My favorite team since childhood lost in the first round but I got over it quickly because it wasn't like the match-up was unfair, especially not in my team's favor. Damn, Hawkeyes! (I still love you though.)

The current format is just fine. Sure the selection committee needs to adapt to the times as mid-majors get more competitive, but there doesn't need to be another round of games so that the 8th place Big East or Big 12 team with a sub .500 conference record doesn't feel snubbed.

I fully agree with keeping the format the way it is. Watching the evolution of the game to 65 teams has been interesting but I think the field is as competitive as it can get. I've never really understood the 64/65 game yet tolerate it since it really doesn't matter much except to the schools playing in it.

I think the NCAA realizes they have the magic mix and don't plan to tinker with it any more. The tourney has evolved into one of the most popular sporting events in the world. Messing with it might dilute it to the point that people don't care about the first and second rounds.

Good lord - your obvious ACC envy is one thing on a football board, but here?

Give me a break.

Sorry we didn't consider WVU to join us - but why would we?

The feeling is mutual. WVU isn't or wouldn't be interested in the ACC. WVU is an Eastern School and playing in college basketball's best conference. The Big East and WVU are perfect together.

[ September 20, 2006, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

The logical expansion that should immediately be done is to expand the tournament to 68 teams where the final eight teams play and each #1 seed would get a "play-in" opponent.

If there must be another change, I concur with PCC.

Whats even more logical to me is to do away with the "play-in" games all together and go with a sensible 64 team field.

Hear hear. The play-in is an artifact of conference realignment. It's time to eliminate it completely. However, if we must keep it let's have one per region and not this stupid single game that singles out two schools as bottom of the heap. It's never televised. No one even pays attention to it other than the two schools involved. It just doesn't make sense.