So Long, NCAA Tournament of 64. Welcome, 96 team NCAA Tournament?

The NCAA extended its annual basketball tournament to a field of 64 teams in 1995. Since that time, no changes have been made to what many believe is the greatest event in all of sports (excluding the expansion to 65 teams which is simply not worthy of mention).

NCAA executives are meeting this week to discuss the possibility likelihood of expansion.

The proposed format for the new mega-tournament is 96 teams, an increase of 31 teams. Seeds 1-8 in each region would receive first-round byes. The remaining teams would form the opening round of competition, seeded 1-16, with familiar seeding matchups being played (it’s easier to think of the bottom 16 beeing seeded 1-16 than 9-24). Winners from the opening round would advance to play the waiting seeds of 1-8. Essentially, NCAA execs want to combine the NIT with the NCAA tournament, to form the new mega-tournament.

[Flash Forward to selection Sunday 2011]
“In the East bracket, Southern division, Atlanta region, the boys from Jackson State will receive the 24th seed”.

And many teams felt it was demeaning to be named the 16th seed.

Initial feedback to expansion ideas are hugely negative from the general public, with nearly 90% of fans opposed to expansion. NCAA coaches appear to be somewhat split on the concept.

Why mess with a good thing? Well, the NCAA did feel it was necessary to change One Shining Moment this year, another decision that did not go over well.
Initially, my own thoughts on the subject were extremely negative, borderline violent. March is the greatest month of the year for a basketball fan, and recently it seems to be the only month of the year for College Basketball to get any significant attention from the general public. I set out determined to prove to myself how ridiculous expansion would be…what I found however was mixed results.

DISCLAIMER: I am an avid basketball fan, and will watch most anything the NCAA throws in front of me come March (NIT or NCAA). The casual fan who watches only the opening days of the NCAA tournament to see how their brackets are doing may see things differently.

I’ve taken the liberty of manually compiling a mock bracket for a 96 team NCAA tournament. You can also find a mock bracket with team logos here: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13165827?tag=coverlist_active;coverlist_footer. Unfortunately there are so many teams, it seems half of the logos are not recognizable to even a familiar eye.

In seeding these brackets, I used seeds 1-12 from the traditional bracket (the last at-large bids were seeded 12). Then seeds 13-16 were thrown in depending on how close teams were to earning at large bids.

{SEE TRADITIONAL BRACKET ONLINE}

{SEE MOCK BRACKET OF 96 TEAMS} - If you are having trouble viewing this bracket, email me at thesaltpalace@gmail.com or bsutefan@hotmail.com and I can email you the brackets with team names written out.

Initial thoughts based when comparing to traditional 64 team bracket:
- Seeds 1-4: More difficult to advance due to higher quality first round opponents
- Seeds 5-8: Easier to advance. What was normally an even matchup (7 vs 10, 6 vs 11, 8 vs 9, or even 5 vs 12), now has a higher seeded team with fresh legs playing against a team that played 2 days prior. The difference between an 8 and a 9 seed becomes ENORMOUSLY important.
- Seeds 9-12: Harder to advance beyond 64. Playing on tired legs may prove to be too much to ask from a team that must exert all energy to overcome an NCAA regular. Underdogs would also lose preparation time in putting together the perfect game plan for a first round upset.
- Seeds 13-16: Actually proves to be much better for these teams. Historically, you 1 out of 16 games featuring these teams may advance per year. 2010 was the exception to the rule. These teams would now be playing an NIT team for the right to move on to the round of 64…a feat seemingly much more possible than Arkansas Pine-Bluff knocking off Kentucky.

Having seen what the 2010 NCAA tournament would have looked like, suspicion and uncertainty may be creeping into your mind. In fairness to the NCAA, let us offer some pros and cons to both sides of the discussion.

Pro: A 96 team tournament theoretically would provide additional financial benefit in a difficult economy.
Con: An entire industry of bracketology and NCAA tournament challenges would diminish and potentially disappear. Filling out a 96 team bracket would be more of a task than most people are willing to tackle.

Pro: A 96 team tournament would be more inclusive to bubble teams.
Con: A “diluted” pool of teams would lose the interest of the common casual basketball fan.

Pro: By including more teams in a 96 team field, less coaches would be fired as a result of missing the NCAA tournament 2 out of 3 years.
Con: If a coach cannot get his team into a 96 team field, maybe he deserves to be fired…or at least this is what schools and fans may use as logic when termination of coaches shoots through the roof.

Pro: A 96 team field may provide better matchups in the round of 64
Con: A 96 team tournament may eliminate the small dog vs big dog contests, which is essentially at the heart of current NCAA tournament success.

Pro: More games = more viewers = more money
Con: Tougher matchups for higher seeded teams (1-4) means more early exits. Historically, when higher seeded teams don’t advance, viewership and TV ratings for late round games suffer.

Pro: All Conferences send their regular season championship to the Big Big Dance, even if they lose in their Conference Tournament (2 teams might get in)
Con: Conference Tournaments may lose interest, which is why Athletics Directors and Conference Commissioners are opposing the expansion idea.
Another Con: Some conferences don’t have a conference tournament simply to ensure the best team from their conference gets their lone bid. Will these conferences now add a conference tournament simply to get a chance at a second team in the field? Multiple small conferences with 2 bids each may further dilute the 96 team field…a concern that is already widely shared.

Pro: Big Conference teams that face hugely difficult competition week in, week out, will no longer be punished for being in a big conference (when they are likely better than many of the 15 and 16 seeds). These bubble teams from big conferences will also get into the tournament.
Con: A 96 team tournament will further promote big conference dominance (when college basketball was recently trending towards parity). Sure, more top seeded teams will lose in the rounds of 64 and 32, but teams seeded 9 or below will struggle much much more to reach the round formerly known as the Sweet 16.

Pro: All matchups will be between more evenly matched teams. Examples: Arkansas Pine-Bluff vs Louisville for the right to play 8 seeded Cal, and North Carolina vs William & Mary (both in NIT) for the right to play top seeded Duke. Duke vs UNC in the round of 64 would be a much better game to watch than Duke vs Ark P-B.
Con: All school and coaching records would become greatly contaminated. Take Dave Rose (Head Coach at BYU) for example. Dave Rose has an NCAA coaching record of 1-4, losing some tough first round matchups as an 8 seed, 9 seed, and losing a second round matchup vs #2 seeded Kansas State in 2010. Compare Dave Rose’s coaching resume to that of George Ivory of Arkansas Pine-Bluff (I don’t mean to keep picking on Ark PB, it is just happening). Ivory won the worthless play-in game in 2010 between the #64 and #65 ranked teams only to be annihilated by Duke in the round of 64. Ivory’s coaching record is 1-1. Each of these play-in games would count toward the record books for NCAA tournament victories/losses. The record books would either be thrown away or fully marked with asterisks.

I’m sure there are many more pros and cons that I am missing. But the bottom line is this. The NCAA tournament of 64 teams is the greatest event in all of sports. Expansion to 96 teams is not a good idea. The impact will be negative, and will be felt more in 10 years when the tournament is fighting for relevancy, than in 2012 when fans are interested to see how the tournament will shake down.

Prior to doing this research I was 100% against expansion. Now, I’m 60-40 against it…and I’m an avid basketball fan. Reality is the NCAA will probably keep my interest. But as for bracket challenges, and viewership from the casual observer, the NCAA shouldn’t count on much support.