here are two articles talking about expainson one for and one against:
http://www.sportingnews.com/college-bas ... ps-tourney


http://www.sportingnews.com/college-bas ... gh-already

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team

Most practical way for the NCAA to make the most money:

128 teams.

1st Round Thur-Fri (16 sites instead of 8) 32 games per day.
2nd Round Sat-Sun (16 sites instead of 8) 16 games per day

3rd Round Thur-Fri (eight sites instead of 4) eight games per day
Sweet 16 Sat Sun (eight sites instead of 4) four games per day

Elite Eight Friday (one site)
Final Four Sun (one site)
NC Final Wed (one site)

Adding a few more play in games for the bottom 16 teams to play their way into the 64-four bracket would be financial disaster.

It works in Dayton Ohio for one game at highly discounted prices. You can't put 2 Opening Round games into four sites featuring 16 vs 17 and 15 vs 18.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

I haven't seen it written anywhere, but one assumption we can make would be if the NCAA expanded to 96 and the top 32 teams got byes, you'd likely see that 1st round played ON CAMPUS for the higher seed. The winners then move on to play the Top 32 seed team on neutral court. The NIT plays it's initial games at the schools and it's in the best interest of the actual schools to host a game.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

i can see a 68 team tournament with 4 play in games for the 16th seed.( all #16 have to win the play-in game) If it does expand i would like to have a requirment that no conferance champs are in the play in game. In short the last 8 at large teams play in the play in game.

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team

Done deal?

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-march-madness-with-96-teams-done-deal-27742

I referenced that blog post and the SBJ article at http://news.collegesportsinfo.com.


I for one would prefer to see an expansion first to 80 teams...(4) play-in games in all (4) regions. That way you'll get those last 15 teams currently left out which usually have solid conference records with 5-6 losses but get left out. That way you get the teams in that should be in. There should rarely be a team in the tourney with a sub .500 conference records unless their conference is ranked in the top 6 for RPI.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Piece in today's USAToday regarding whether to expand NCAA BB tourney at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... nges_N.htm

I can see adding a few more play-in games, if necessary.

Say a minor conference has a 25-5 team that loses their conference tournament. They are probably a pretty good team.

Doe anyone want to see the #10-12 schools (as you would get if you go to 96) from the Big East or ACC ? Please... if you are intent on letting EVERYONE in, then what is the point of the regular season ? These teams would have 16-14 records (9 of their wins would be those body-bag non-conference games at the beginning of the year), so htey would be maybe 7-11 in conference.... they should be eliminated from the national championship chase.

A 3 weekend, 6 tier bracket (64 team) tourney is PLENTY. Going to 96 is just bloating a good tournament with a bunch of mediocrity, and mediocrity will kill interest...

Add some play-in games (4 or 8, instead of 1), but make those PRIOR to the tourney officially starting, and set some standards such that those additional at-large be given to teams wiht a high winning %-age.

I agree Tute.

I dont' like a total free for all at 128 or 96 teams.

It's just a way to ensure that the BCS conference schools on the bubble get in.

But there are often teams with 24-6 type of records from non-BCS conferences that get left out because they lose in the conference tourney. Those are the schools I'd like to see in. i think it won't work that way. But with 16 playin games, you get some of the schools in that deserve it. Face it, a 25-4 ASun school is not going to get the schedule they need to get an at-large bid. They HAVE to win their tournament.

But with 15 new spots only, I think you'd find 7 new mid-major bids and 8 new BCS conference bids.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

NCAA = 64
NIT = 32
Total = 96

the timelines would not be affected that much with the elimination of the play-in game and the top 32 teams having first round byes

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-march-madness-with-96-teams-done-deal-27742

My favorite quote from the comments on the SPORTSbyBROOKS article:

Sporting News article with comments from Big Ten Commish regarding possible NCAA BB tournament expansion.Link at http://www.sportingnews.com/college-bas ... ent-expans

Even if it goes to 96 teams, they'll still find a way to shut out Mississippi State.

I'm for the 128 team we already have 65 ncaa teams 32 nit teams 16 collegeinsider.com teams and 16 cbi teams that's 129 so go 128 teams. 8 regions covering 6 states. The regions north, south, northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest, mideast and midwest.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

Piece in today's USAToday with comments from Jim Delany regarding possible NCAA BB tourney expansion at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... sion_N.htm