Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Buffs better make march madness

I hate the idea of this tournament expanding to 96 teams. It's perfect as it is now except for that stupid play-in game they have.
 
Expansion to a 96-team tournament?

Someone check my math, but I think this equates to all the 9-16 seeds having to go through an extra round while the 1-8 seeds get a bye.

It would definitely kill the CBI tournament and probably the NIT, too. Obviously dilute the field a bit. I actually like it, though. Puts all the good teams in a single tournament and give me an extra 2 days of tourney basketball to watch. Should be fun. Hope it happens.
 
I think 64 teams is perfect, it is hard to get in, but not impossible.
 
Decided to move this thread to the Basketball forum.

***********

Something to think about on this issue is that, unlike in football, there is no D1 sub-division. There are currently 347 teams in D1. With a 96-team tournament, you're only talking about the top 27.6% of teams vs the current 65-team field having the top 18.7% of teams.

For comparison:

College Bowls = 68/120 teams (56.6%)
MLB playoffs = 8/30 teams (26.6%)
NFL playoffs = 12/32 teams (37.5%)
NBA playoffs = 16/30 teams (53.3%)
NHL playoffs = 16/30 teams (53.3%)
 
The NCAA is a joke, and if they accept this idea, it will only prove it's incompetency and ability to only think with their wallets. March Madness was made into the cash cow it currently is by the cinderallas. Even though most teams don't end up making the Final Four (GMason and Princeton the exceptions I can think of), their upsets in the first two rounds of the tournament are what provide the bulk of the drama. With an expanded 96 team field, you'll just have these smaller schools beating up on each other before reaching the "real field". The play-in game was not so much a way to get another small school in as it was a way to get another big-conference school into the tournament, and allow two smaller conference teams to oust each other. A 96 team field would be 16 more play-in games...and it's pathetic. I hate the NCAA - for an institution that is supposed to be responsible for the athletic and academic endeavors of amateur athletes, they sure do make a lot of money, retaining much of it, and their decision making is much like a corporation, as opposed to caring about the athletes. Myles Brand made 895k...for doing what???!!
 
Wouldn't be a fan of this. The tournament or 'March Madness' really starts when the conference tourneys start. Every team in the country has a shot at making the Big Dance if they win their conference tourney. The conference tourneys are also where some of the best ball is played all year imo.

Going to a 96 team field is a big money grab that will dilute the playing. Nothing more.
 
Buffnik said:
Expansion to a 96-team tournament?

Someone check my math, but I think this equates to all the 9-16 seeds having to go through an extra round while the 1-8 seeds get a bye.
Click to expand...

Correct, the top 32 teams would get a bye. After the first round, we'd be starting with a 64-team field. Assuming, of course, that's how they decide to structure it. :huh:


Buffnik said:
Decided to move this thread to the Basketball forum.

***********

Something to think about on this issue is that, unlike in football, there is no D1 sub-division. There are currently 347 teams in D1. With a 96-team tournament, you're only talking about the top 27.6% of teams vs the current 65-team field having the top 18.7% of teams.

For comparison:

College Bowls = 68/120 teams (56.6%)
MLB playoffs = 8/30 teams (26.6%)
NFL playoffs = 12/32 teams (37.5%)
NBA playoffs = 16/30 teams (53.3%)
NHL playoffs = 16/30 teams (53.3%)
Click to expand...

The problem with that logic is that roughly half those 347 schools are so small and/or play such a non-representative schedule that they can't be considered legitimate national title contenders to begin with. It's fine that leagues like the MEAC, MAAC, Patriot, etc. get an automatic bid, but you can't simply lump all their respective conference members in for a comparison such as this because it skews the numbers.
 
Last edited:
Carolina, that's a good point. Fair to say that about 1/3 of the top tier teams make it after you factor in that you've got 33 auto-bid conferences and half of them are bottom tier (65 - 17 = 48 out of 174 bids to top tier? That works out to 27.6% of the good programs are currently going to the Big Dance. Assuming that the next 31 bids would all go to programs from the top half tier, that would be 79 our of 174 (45.4%).

Given the above, the next 31 would likely be teams ranked somewhere between 35 and 85 in the RPI. Here are those teams as of today:

(Wins / Losses / Schedule Strength / Schedule Rank / RPI)

35. Cornell 16 3 .5107 148 .6030
36. St. Mary's 18 3 .5328 113 .6022
37. San Diego St. 13 6 .5695 61 .6015
38. Clemson 16 6 .5760 47 .6009
39. Texas Tech 14 7 .6110 15 .6008
40. Richmond 16 6 .5657 63 .6007
41. Dayton 15 6 .5772 45 .6001
42. UNLV 16 4 .5339 111 .5994
43. Charlotte 16 5 .5269 121 .5980
44. Siena 19 4 .5036 158 .5964
45. Connecticut 13 8 .6521 3 .5960
46. Old Dominion 17 6 .5383 103 .5943
47. Louisville 13 8 .6442 5 .5941
48. Wichita St. 18 4 .4999 163 .5915
49. Cincinnati 14 7 .5829 40 .5907
50. Maryland 13 6 .5887 31 .5851
51. William & Mary 14 6 .5412 98 .5836
52. Florida 15 6 .5633 65 .5833
53. Arizona 12 9 .6263 8 .5822
54. South Florida 14 7 .5736 49 .5804
55. Utah St. 15 6 .5352 109 .5799
56. Northeastern 14 8 .5806 43 .5784
57. Minnesota 13 8 .6077 18 .5775
58. Marquette 13 8 .5932 27 .5772
59. Seton Hall 12 7 .6085 16 .5764
60. Va. Commonwealth 15 5 .5037 157 .5751
61. South Carolina 13 8 .5932 26 .5750
62. Tulsa 16 4 .4948 176 .5747
63. Northwestern 14 7 .5749 48 .5747
64. Washington 14 7 .5712 55 .5726
65. Mississippi St. 16 5 .4964 174 .5720
66. Nevada 12 8 .5841 37 .5703
67. Harvard 13 4 .4591 245 .5702
68. Oakland 14 8 .5306 115 .5687
69. Kent St. 13 7 .5455 93 .5686
70. Virginia Tech 16 4 .4616 239 .5685
71. Notre Dame 15 7 .5575 72 .5677
72. St. John's 12 8 .5810 42 .5671
73. Western Carolina 14 5 .4708 219 .5670
74. Louisiana Tech 18 4 .4522 260 .5663
75. UTEP 15 5 .5150 143 .5661
76. North Carolina 13 8 .5959 25 .5643
77. Sam Houston St. 10 5 .5178 137 .5617
78. Georgia 9 10 .6405 6 .5591
79. Memphis 15 6 .5206 133 .5590
80. Illinois 14 8 .5542 79 .5586
81. Marshall 13 6 .5244 126 .5581
82. New Mexico St. 12 8 .5488 85 .5563
83. Oklahoma 12 9 .5725 52 .5559
84. Missouri St. 15 7 .5119 147 .5557
85. Iona 16 6 .4961 175 .5548

These are not bad teams. I understand the point you guys are making and I really appreciate the sentiment that if it ain't broke you don't fix it. But as a basketball fan, I have no problem with any of the teams on that list being part of the tournament (Edit: Except Georgia. No teams with losing records unless they win their conference tourney). Every one of them would be a threat to win 1 or 2 games against most teams in the field of 65.
 
Last edited:
Wow! I too disagree with the 96-team field, it's just to much.

You now can dilute the field, giving many a chance of what is considered a very prestigious event. You run the risk of damaging the excitement.

Plus, there's already so many good things surrounding the current event like championship week for example, you may now hurt the overall competition and the excitement of that week. How bout the bubble watch, and seeing teams really scrap to get one of those handful of remaining spots and all the controversy that surrounds that. This "Brooks" guy has a point when he mentions concerns about "March Madness" being embraced like it always has with the added 31 teams.

I also like his quick piece on the justification of football not having a tournament after what the NCAA is about to put basketball (and it's players) through.
 
Last edited:
Buffnik said:
Decided to move this thread to the Basketball forum.

***********

Something to think about on this issue is that, unlike in football, there is no D1 sub-division. There are currently 347 teams in D1. With a 96-team tournament, you're only talking about the top 27.6% of teams vs the current 65-team field having the top 18.7% of teams.

For comparison:

College Bowls = 68/120 teams (56.6%)
MLB playoffs = 8/30 teams (26.6%)
NFL playoffs = 12/32 teams (37.5%)
NBA playoffs = 16/30 teams (53.3%)
NHL playoffs = 16/30 teams (53.3%)
Click to expand...

Good point, and I've actually always thought that MLB should expand their playoffs some. Besides the Yankees, Red Sox, and some of the other top teams, you don't know about the others. I mean it could 50 years before some of these teams get back into the playoffs. Who knows.

But 96 still seems like a load.

So will they go to 97, and add a play-in game there too after a couple of years?
 
coereg said:
I mean it could 50 years before some of these teams get back into the playoffs. Who knows.
Click to expand...

kind of a false positive. making means less. used to be, win the pennant or else out of 2 divisions in the NL and AL. it's *already* expanded.

OP, i'm not for more than 64/65. but, more the commercials we see, the better for the people really driving the train. i'm really losing interest in televised sports, to be honest.

start going to more HS games. anything.
 
I don't have a problem with this. It's the only way CU is ever going to make the tourney, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top