What will a 76-team NCAA tournament look like logistically? | The Boneyard

What will a 76-team NCAA tournament look like logistically?

shizzle787

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
12,507
Reaction Score
20,954
I expect news in the next 30 hours of the NCAA announcing expansion of the tournament to 76 teams.

I assume there will be one play-in round consisting of 24 teams playing 12 games for the final 12 spots.

What do we think the auto-bid/at-large splits will be?

What will be the second site for the First Dozen?

Which league will ultimately be the biggest benefactor?

Will the tournament credit money be skewed toward the major five conferences?

Which mid-major league (other than the Pac-12) will be the biggest benefactor?
 
shizzle787 said:
Lunardi's ideas are not happening. They are not pitting at-large teams against auto bids.
Expand ...
Oh they will. That's a big reason expansion is being discussed in the first place. The heavy hitters don't like that mid-majors get a free pass to the round of 64 and they like it even less when a Cinderella breaks through to the second weekend. These changes will make that almost impossible.
 
Make all 16s play in-games.

Hell, make all 15s play-in games.

That accounts for 6 new teams.

Then add two more “First Four” games so there are four such games between at-larges.

Idk like everyone else I hate this and am just trying to put lipstick on a pig
 
I want to know what the B1G argument is here for this expansion. They are all in favor of designated spots for B1G spots (regardless of merit) in the football playoff, but I suspect suddenly the argument for "best teams" sounds like a winner in basketball.
 
shizzle787 said:
I expect news in the next 30 hours of the NCAA announcing expansion of the tournament to 76 teams.

I assume there will be one play-in round consisting of 24 teams playing 12 games for the final 12 spots.

What do we think the auto-bid/at-large splits will be?

What will be the second site for the First Dozen?

Which league will ultimately be the biggest benefactor?

Will the tournament credit money be skewed toward the major five conferences?

Which mid-major league (other than the Pac-12) will be the biggest benefactor?
Expand ...

Dog crap.
 
shizzle787 said:
I expect news in the next 30 hours of the NCAA announcing expansion of the tournament to 76 teams.

I assume there will be one play-in round consisting of 24 teams playing 12 games for the final 12 spots.

What do we think the auto-bid/at-large splits will be?

What will be the second site for the First Dozen?

Which league will ultimately be the biggest benefactor?

Will the tournament credit money be skewed toward the major five conferences?

Which mid-major league (other than the Pac-12) will be the biggest benefactor?
Expand ...

The Dirty Dozen
 
The 76-team tourney will look like this.

Shot copy.jpg
 
They'll still be the same crap caliber teams that wouldn't have made the tourney in the first place.
Come on in and "get knocked out like your father used to"
 
UConNick said:
Make all 16s play in-games.

Hell, make all 15s play-in games.

That accounts for 6 new teams.

Then add two more “First Four” games so there are four such games between at-larges.

Idk like everyone else I hate this and am just trying to put lipstick on a pig
Expand ...
They'd have to slide teams down a seed line to make the math work. You'd need 8 16-seeds and 8 15-seeds. That means 1-seeds and 2-seeds would be playing against effectively 15 seeds (if you have to move all 15 seeds to 16 seeds so you have 8 16-seeds) and 13 seeds (14 seeds and 13 seeds would get bumped to 15-seed line so you have 8 15-seeds playing each other). 13-seeds can be sneaky good teams. Does the P2 want to risk their best teams potentially playing a true 13 seed in the first round? Seems like every year a 13 seed knocks off a 4 seed. Now that 13 seed would be playing a 2 seed...

Does that make sense? It made sense in my head
 
They might as well go like Indiana HS hoop... Invite everyone who wants to play, then take a full week rather than a day or two to set up seedings.
 
aburks41 said:
They'd have to slide teams down a seed line to make the math work. You'd need 8 16-seeds and 8 15-seeds. That means 1-seeds and 2-seeds would be playing against effectively 15 seeds (if you have to move all 15 seeds to 16 seeds so you have 8 16-seeds) and 13 seeds (14 seeds and 13 seeds would get bumped to 15-seed line so you have 8 15-seeds playing each other). 13-seeds can be sneaky good teams. Does the P2 want to risk their best teams potentially playing a true 13 seed in the first round? Seems like every year a 13 seed knocks off a 4 seed. Now that 13 seed would be playing a 2 seed...

Does that make sense? It made sense in my head
Expand ...
One of the issues is that there's no market for play-in games between AQs. The only real reason they exist at all is because we have too many conferences (and really, too many D-1 teams) and they needed to trim some fat off the field before the real tournament starts Thursday and Friday.

This is why I think the end game is 96. They want to take those Cinderella stories we typically see in the round of 64 and push them back to Tuesday and Wednesday. And they want the Cinderella story to be 24-seed UMBC beating 9-seed Kansas State rather than 1-seed Virginia.

I hate it, but honestly, it makes a lot more sense than going to 72 or 76. Match-ups between the top AQs and the worst at-large would be legitimately compelling and fetch much better ratings. Nobody wants to watch two 11-seeds play each other. That was a good idea in theory, but it's time to toss it.
 
It’s very simple if cbs and partners pay enough for insignificant games to cover the share reductions it will happen… and to those who say just make it completely open ( like Indiana H S ) it really is because if you win your conference tournament you are in with only a few scenarios where that doesn’t happen
 
80shusky said:
I'm guessing it would look like four more games with half empty arenas at the beginning of the tournament.
Expand ...

If they do this, make only at-large teams play in those games. Those little schools who get the once-in-a-lifetime memory of making the ncaa tourney should get to play their 1 or 2 seed and likely get spanked.
 
ec33 said:
I want to know what the B1G argument is here for this expansion. They are all in favor of designated spots for B1G spots (regardless of merit) in the football playoff, but I suspect suddenly the argument for "best teams" sounds like a winner in basketball.
Expand ...
That is exactly it.
 
Ports21 said:
If they do this, make only at-large teams play in those games. Those little schools who get the once-in-a-lifetime memory of making the ncaa tourney should get to play their 1 or 2 seed and likely get spanked.
Expand ...
That is my opinion too. It has always been my view that if you win your league’s bid you get to play in the round of 64 for exactly the reason you laid out. I’ve still not heard a good reason why they needed to go to 68. I mean there are 31 autobids. 33 at-large seems plenty. You finish as #34, sucks for you. Play better or play a better non-conference schedule or something similar. I’d also add some qualification requirements for at large bids such as:
1. Winning record
2. Finish in top half of your league in the regular season
3. Winning record against non-conference opponents in your quad and lower quads.

These would not apply to the automatic qualifiers but the 16th place Big really ought not be in the ncaa tournament.
 
I think the issue is that only 13 SEC teams made it this past year and that can't be allowed to happen again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
32
Guests online
1,457
Total visitors
1,489
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,960
Messages
4,376,757
Members
10,168
Latest member
CTFan142


.
..
Top Bottom