Reinventing History: 96-Team 2010 Tourney

[damnhoya]

What the Hoyas' bracket might have looked like with 96 teams:

www.eztheblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2010-96-Team-NCAA-Tournament.pdf

[GUJook97]

But, see, this is what I dont understand, and I am sure the details havent been hammered out. Shouldnt two 16 seeds (under the current system) just play each other for the right to play Kansas, and so on?

If Kansas ended up playing Kent State in the first round, while UNLV could end up getting Winthrop, that is just silly.

Watch for the first time in forever, Gtown will get a 1 seed next year and we'll end up playing some mid-major in the first round. So....angry.

[NorthCarolinaHOYA]

DHOYA and anyone else based on what i read this morning on websites about the 96 team format can someone explain in detail on what days these games would be played. The way i read it you would have games on Tuesday and Wednesday now. Will they still have NIT and other basketball tournaments?

E

[kchoya]

Apr 2, 2010 10:54:07 GMT -5 NorthCarolinaHOYA said:

DHOYA and anyone else based on what i read this morning on websites about the 96 team format can someone explain in detail on what days these games would be played. The way i read it you would have games on Tuesday and Wednesday now. Will they still have NIT and other basketball tournaments?

E

No. Apparently the games will still start on Thursday/Friday. Then Saturday/Sunday. That stays the same.

The extras set of games gets plugged in the following Tuesday/Wednesday. Then the games continue just like now.

For example, if Georgetown didn't get a bye this year, and there were 96 teams, they would play as follows:

Thursday - Round of 96
Saturday - Round of 64
Tuesday - Round of 32
Thursday - Sweet Sixteen
Saturday - Elite Eight

At least that's how I read it:

sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800

"The first-round games for the 64 non-bye teams would take place on Thursday and Friday, with the winners playing the top eight seeds in each region on Saturday and Sunday. Winners on Saturday would likely play again on Tuesday, and the Sunday winners on Wednesday.

"Those winners would then move on to the regionals, playing alternate days starting on Thursday. Shaheen said the NCAA hasn't decided on whether to keep the same sites for second and first-round games or to make the midweek sites the same as the regionals."

[rustyshackleford]

Would JT3 have missed the tourney any year during his tenure here if we'd have had a 96 team field?

[damnhoya]

Apr 2, 2010 11:15:02 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Apr 2, 2010 10:54:07 GMT -5 NorthCarolinaHOYA said:

DHOYA and anyone else based on what i read this morning on websites about the 96 team format can someone explain in detail on what days these games would be played. The way i read it you would have games on Tuesday and Wednesday now. Will they still have NIT and other basketball tournaments?

E

No. Apparently the games will still start on Thursday/Friday. Then Saturday/Sunday. That stays the same.

The extras set of games gets plugged in the following Tuesday/Wednesday. Then the games continue just like now.

For example, if Georgetown didn't get a bye this year, and there were 96 teams, they would play as follows:

Thursday - Round of 96
Saturday - Round of 64
Tuesday - Round of 32
Thursday - Sweet Sixteen
Saturday - Elite Eight

At least that's how I read it:

sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800

"The first-round games for the 64 non-bye teams would take place on Thursday and Friday, with the winners playing the top eight seeds in each region on Saturday and Sunday. Winners on Saturday would likely play again on Tuesday, and the Sunday winners on Wednesday.

"Those winners would then move on to the regionals, playing alternate days starting on Thursday. Shaheen said the NCAA hasn't decided on whether to keep the same sites for second and first-round games or to make the midweek sites the same as the regionals."

KC is right. This q&a gives some answers. If a team starts with the bottom 64 teams on Thursday or Friday, they will have to be in tremendous shape to stay in the tourney. (I'm reminded of how the Hoyas looked a little winded against WVU in the Big East finals this year).

www.sbnation.com/2010/4/1/1401187/ncaa-tournament-96-team-bracket-greg-shaheen

The Big East would be looking at 11 to 13 teams in the dance every year now. This year, Rutgers, Depaul and Providence would have probably been the only ones out.

As for JTIII's teams at Gtown, the only team where I think you could debate whether they get in is the 2008-2009 team. I don't have the numbers in front of me so it's possible they would have gotten in as well (but I guess if they got in the NIT, there is a very good chance they would be in the field of 96).

[strummer8526]

Apr 2, 2010 11:15:44 GMT -5 rustyshackleford said:

Would JT3 have missed the tourney any year during his tenure here if we'd have had a 96 team field?

Absolutely not.

And this 96 team field would be a great change in my opinion. I mean, who's not clamoring to see the 12-21 game between New Mexico State and Stonybrook. Or the 10-23 showdown between Missouri v. Morgan State. How about the instant classic of St. Mary's v. Arkansas Pine-Bluff? That's the stuff dreams are made of, right there.

[swhoya]

I haven't been following the discussion around this much, but I'm kind of surprised that there doesn't seem to be much opposition to it. Am I alone in thinking this is a bad idea?

First, maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon, but it's already the best tournament in all of sports. Why mess with that? Second, the real question is: will you get a better basketball tournament? I don't see how you will simply by adding some more average teams. Frankly, it makes it seem less likely that you'll have Cinderellas because the teams that have to play in the first round will have tired legs, and they won't have had time to prepare for their next opponent (and let's face it, good prep is how average teams manage to beat good teams).

I'm sure it's all about money. And some of the mid-majors will be happy to get an additional team in to the tournament every season. But I just hate to say it: more college basketball isn't always a good thing. The NIT provides that just fine, thank you.

[daytonahoya31]

They did a poll and 89 percent of america thought it was a bad idea....there's been plenty of opposition to it

[PDRHoya99]

Maybe it's just because the bum was teeing off on the NCAA rep yesterday, but I kinda think this will be a good thing for the smaller teams. How many times does a higher seed come out against a nervous underdog, get to a quick double digit lead by the first or second TV timeout, and then the game is over. Yes, a ton of upsets happened this year, but don't you think a underdog stands a better chance of winning a game if they just played a competitive game a couple days earlier on the same court?

Many of these lower tier schools haven't played in a 20k seat arena all year, so you wouldn't think a little extra familiarity with their surroundings would hurt their first (now second) round chances. The best example I can think of was the BET this year. Did all the lower seed teams look terrible against the double bye teams because they were too tired? I think far too often the announcers overplay the impact of playing games on short rest. Yes, Billy Raf and Dukie V. would have a hard time playing games on a days rest, but the average 18-21 year old who already probably practices multiple hours/day should be in good enough aerobic shape to manage at essentially the same skill level.

While there are there real concerns about essentially wiping out 1.5-2 whole weeks of classes for the underdog that moves to the sweet 16, realistically the NCAA gave up on caring whether these kids were hitting the books in March a long time ago, so it's a rather silly reason to start objecting to a larger tournament now.

[hoyaboya]

The NCAA is messing with perfection. I for one am not at all happy about it. Only reason they're doing it is for money.

I hope this blows up in their faces and that regular season ticket revenue and, in particular, conference tournament revenue declines significantly. I know I wouldn't pay a penny to go see a conference tournament game now, what's the point?

[NorthCarolinaHOYA]

PDR I agree with you about the fatigue comment and does it play a roll maybe just a little. I remember reading and seeing a few interviews for other conference tournaments where they asked players about the fatigue factor. Everyone one of them said in AAU during the summer they play a string of games pretty much all day long and if you think about it, most of those games are not very structured so they are probably doing a lot of running and gunning.

[thornski]

Guess I didn't realize how much the very top seeds get screwed if they keep the format that's in the above bracket. Duke goes from having to play Arkansas Pine Bluff to UConn in their first game; Cuse goes from Vermont to potentially UNC...

Those teams obviously had very very disappointing years, but man would it suck to see one of them lined up against you for your first game.

I suppose this in theory means that you get some more exciting matchups in the Round of 64. But at the same time, you lose a good load of the miraculous upset possibilities, and unless your team was in it, would anyone watch any of those early round games? Man, can't wait for that Minnesota vs. Oakland game.

If this fake bracket has teams like UNC and UConn in the field this year, I think we very very likely would've made the field last year.

[hifigator]

I'll play Devils Advocate for a minute: Compare directly what we have now against what we would have with the 96 team field:

1. Tuesday and Wednesday: 1st round NIT games vs. The new 1st round NCAA games
so this year, instead of UNC palying Fodham we might have had Northern Iowa playing Fordham, except in the tourney that actually counts

2. Thursday and Friday 1st round games that we now have vs. 1st round games that pit the top 8 seeds in each bracket ("favored teams" under current format) vs. the survivors from the first round -- so we would likely have more Mississippi States, Daytons and Ole Miss teams and less Vermonts, Liberties and Hofstras.

3, Everything else basically wouldn't change, except for the potential impact of a Miss. St. team still being alive the second half of the weekend or beyond.

Even though I am inclined to be "against" the idea, purely from the standpoint of the games themselves, I don't see much disadvantage at all, and there are some clear positives.

[thornski]

hifi - I agree - from a fan viewing standpoint it might not be bad because of the potential for some more interesting matchups in the round of 64 games.

I think the main problem I have with it as everyone has pointed out is this just rewards mediocrity. No team that had a year like UNC had this year should be even close to getting in the main postseason tournament - here, not only are they in, but they're not even one of the lowest seeds. And if you're a top team, by having a great regular season and a great conf tournament, you get a top seed and are "rewarded" by having to play in all likelihood a MUCH better team for your first game. Just makes the reg season and conf tournaments more irrelevant.

[hifigator]

thornski, the only reason that is true is because the teams the top seeds play right now "shouldn't" be there to begin with. I quote that, because obviously, if they won their conference, then they actually "should" be there. But the only real difference is that the teams that the top 32 will play are more likely to be closer to the 33rd through 64th best teams. While I agree that will result in a tougher foe for the Kansas and Kentuckys of the world, since they aren't as likely to be playing teams rated 147th that won a podunk conference. But I don't think you can point to that as a negative overall. Again, that podunk conference Champion will still be playing, and actually standing a much better chance to actually win a game to begin with. Think if Robert Morris was playing UNC or Ole Miss instead of Villanova. Or suppose a Siena played Dayton instead of Purdue. I would find that an intriguing matchup. And the fact remains that those top seeds could still be playing the same teams they would have otherwise, but if they don't then is that a bad thing? One of two things would have happened. Either the "lower" rated team that was being benefitted by being in a small/weak conference lost to a higher ranked foe -- in which case the "right" team advanced, or the "lower" rated team actually beat the bigger name school, which not only sets up the matchup they would have had to begin with, but they also get an NCAA win along the way.

Again, even though I am inclined to be against the idea, I really don't know why.

[GUJook97]

Apr 2, 2010 14:05:52 GMT -5 thornski said:

Guess I didn't realize how much the very top seeds get screwed if they keep the format that's in the above bracket. Duke goes from having to play Arkansas Pine Bluff to UConn in their first game; Cuse goes from Vermont to potentially UNC...

Those teams obviously had very very disappointing years, but man would it suck to see one of them lined up against you for your first game.

I suppose this in theory means that you get some more exciting matchups in the Round of 64. But at the same time, you lose a good load of the miraculous upset possibilities, and unless your team was in it, would anyone watch any of those early round games? Man, can't wait for that Minnesota vs. Oakland game.

If this fake bracket has teams like UNC and UConn in the field this year, I think we very very likely would've made the field last year.

As I mentioned above, to me that is the biggest thing. I hope that point isnt lost on the drafters. How do you justify a 1 seed having to play a team like South Florida in its round of 64 game? 96 teams is one thing, but under no circumstances should an 8 seed get to play the worst team in the tourney, and that very well could happen. A 9 seed could definitely lose to a 24 seed, so the 8 seed could play a 24 seed and a 1 seed would have to play a 16 or 17. I really hope they dont do it that way.

I suppose people will get their wish though - a 1 seed could definitely lose its first game.

A first round bye means jack when you still have to win 6 games!

[GUJook97]

You can talk all you want about whether it is good for the tourney and the sport, etc, but i think it is more fundamental than that. As a Georgetown fan, I care that you are making our chances to win the whole thing that much more of a crap shoot.

[Deleted]

Apr 2, 2010 14:48:04 GMT -5 GUJook97 said:

Apr 2, 2010 14:05:52 GMT -5 thornski said:

Guess I didn't realize how much the very top seeds get screwed if they keep the format that's in the above bracket. Duke goes from having to play Arkansas Pine Bluff to UConn in their first game; Cuse goes from Vermont to potentially UNC...

Those teams obviously had very very disappointing years, but man would it suck to see one of them lined up against you for your first game.

I suppose this in theory means that you get some more exciting matchups in the Round of 64. But at the same time, you lose a good load of the miraculous upset possibilities, and unless your team was in it, would anyone watch any of those early round games? Man, can't wait for that Minnesota vs. Oakland game.

If this fake bracket has teams like UNC and UConn in the field this year, I think we very very likely would've made the field last year.

As I mentioned above, to me that is the biggest thing. I hope that point isnt lost on the drafters. How do you justify a 1 seed having to play a team like South Florida in its round of 64 game? 96 teams is one thing, but under no circumstances should an 8 seed get to play the worst team in the tourney, and that very well could happen. A 9 seed could definitely lose to a 24 seed, so the 8 seed could play a 24 seed and a 1 seed would have to play a 16 or 17. I really hope they dont do it that way.

I suppose people will get their wish though - a 1 seed could definitely lose its first game.

A first round bye means jack when you still have to win 6 games!

Maybe you go away from standard bracketing for the Opening Round:

1 Seed plays winner of a 23 v. 24 game
2 Seed plays winner of a 21 v. 22 game
3 Seed plays winner of a 19 v. 20 game
...and so on, until the 8 Seed plays winner of a 9 v. 10 game

That way, the 8 seed can't luck in to a meeting with what would now be a 16, the high seeds remain protected early on, opening round games would (in theory) be more competitive across the board, and the integrity of the 64-team bracket is (somewhat) protected.

But, since it's the NCAA, they'll probably do something stupid.

[hifigator]

Apr 2, 2010 14:48:04 GMT -5 GUJook97 said:

Apr 2, 2010 14:05:52 GMT -5 thornski said:

Guess I didn't realize how much the very top seeds get screwed if they keep the format that's in the above bracket. Duke goes from having to play Arkansas Pine Bluff to UConn in their first game; Cuse goes from Vermont to potentially UNC...

Those teams obviously had very very disappointing years, but man would it suck to see one of them lined up against you for your first game.

I suppose this in theory means that you get some more exciting matchups in the Round of 64. But at the same time, you lose a good load of the miraculous upset possibilities, and unless your team was in it, would anyone watch any of those early round games? Man, can't wait for that Minnesota vs. Oakland game.

If this fake bracket has teams like UNC and UConn in the field this year, I think we very very likely would've made the field last year.

As I mentioned above, to me that is the biggest thing. I hope that point isnt lost on the drafters. How do you justify a 1 seed having to play a team like South Florida in its round of 64 game? 96 teams is one thing, but under no circumstances should an 8 seed get to play the worst team in the tourney, and that very well could happen. A 9 seed could definitely lose to a 24 seed, so the 8 seed could play a 24 seed and a 1 seed would have to play a 16 or 17. I really hope they dont do it that way.

I suppose people will get their wish though - a 1 seed could definitely lose its first game.

A first round bye means jack when you still have to win 6 games!

So you're suggestion would be to reseed the teams after the first round. I wouldn't be opposed to that, although that would really complicate the brackets even further.

But getting back to the point, IF the seeding held up, then teams 33rd through 64th would win their games. Then theoretically, the #1 overall seed would face the 64th team. The 2nd would face the 63rd and so forth. How is that unfair? I understand your point, but I don't think it's valid. It's basically the argument against the way the NBA does their playoffs as opposed to the NFL. In the NFL, the highest seed each round will have a home game against the lowest seed playing that round. It's that simple. But in the NBA, they bracket the teams and then do a playoff. So if a #1 seed gets knocked off in the first round, then it theoretically benefits whomever was bracketed to have faced them in the second round. While I see how some think that's unfair, I just don't buy it. In any case, if I understand your complaint, then reseeding after round one would solve that. The problem of course, is that all of the games aren't at the same place. So as upset happen, teams would all of a sudden be slotted to play in an entirely different location -- theoretically the very next day as well. Again, if you don't have a problem with the tournament as it is now, then why would this change affect that? Again, the #1 overall will be paired with the 64/65 winner, which due to automatic bids might actually be between the 64th and 73rd teams. I just don't see that as much of a problem. The fact that someone else might have an easier game because of an upset, really shouldn't factor ... should it?