72 teams.

[PhilSimms11]

If they're going to have 68 in the Tournament why not make it 72? It wouldn't be the 1st round until there are 64 teams remaining (it's stupid to call the round of 64 the 2nd round). There would be 2 play-in games for each region. I thought about 8 v 8 and 9 v 9 for each region. That way, both winners would face each other the 1st round. You could also go all "bubble teams" if you will. 12 v 12 and 13 v 13 with the winners playing the #5 and #4 respectively. In 1983 (52 teams) they had 4 play-in games. In 1984 they expanded by one and had 5 play-in games. Since 1939, when the first tournament was held, they've expanded the field 10 times, 2011 the most recent.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Pardon my French,

Because fuck adding more teams. That's why. The tournament is already a bloated mess. The more teams you add the more of a crapshoot it becomes. I'd like a tournament where the best team usually wins, not the luckiest.

 

[Bend_The_Rim]

Money, money money. Soon it will be the NBA playoffs where the regular season barely seems to matter as half the teams get into the postseason. Every major sport has sadly been moving towards that end goal in mind: more revenue.

Of course, they will use fair play as a reason why it is happening, yet, the lowest seed to ever win a title was #8 Villanova. I believe the lowest seed in the final four was an #11th. There's just no need to expand the tournament. Those teams that barely get in will never advance far.

So it comes back to money. Whenever the mighty dollar is involved, there's not much wiggle room when arguing the facts to those that want more of it.

That said, it is exciting when a Cinderella type squad makes waves. I still fondly remember the George Mason run from 2006.

 

[SJ76]

Because fuck adding more teams. That's why. The tournament is already a
bloated mess. The more teams you add the more of a crapshoot it becomes. I'd
like a tournament where the best team usually wins, not the luckiest

Yep. Do you want to turn in into the college bowl season where 6-6 teams get in? Sorry NIT for you. And who watches the play-in games? Plus it fucks up my bracket even more!!

 

[uncfan103]

There are already way to many undeserving teams in the tournament. If you can't even finish in the top half of your conference you shouldn't be in the field of 68. Adding 4 teams wouldn't benefit the tournament at all, in my opinion. I'd rather them eliminate a lot of the at larges.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

It would be another pointless increase.


I like 64 because it gets 6 rounds in. I love college bball so seeing 2 rounds for 3 straight weekends is great.


But addition anymore is overkill even going to 68 was. The tourney doesn't truly start until that Thursday.


Having all these play in games is blahhh

 

[HammerDown]

I love the Cinderella aspect and am counting the minutes to March Madness but leave it alone or even take a few teams out. But like BendTheRim said, it's all about $$$

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Perhaps some of the knowledgeable folks around here can confirm this but I once heard that the NCAA (the organization itself, not its member institutions) doesn't really get any significant money from football. All of that cash cow goes back to the conferences and schools. Allegedly the NCAA get's all of its revenue from March Madness. (and selling Manziel jerseys of course)

Any truth to it?

It would certainly explain the difference in treatment of "prestigious" football schools compared to basketball schools. Hay many big time football programs have been penalized and put on probation in the last 20 years? How many big time basketball programs have been punished in that same time?

<\conspiracy theory>

 

[tducey]

Yeah, they should have kept it at 64, good even #, no need to go to 72.

 

[PhilSimms11]

I heard a few years ago there was talk of moving it to 96. That would be way too many. I never quite understood the move from 64 to 65 and then from 65 to 68. Those are just weird numbers. If they went back to 64 I would not complain. Going to 96 would be 24 teams in each region. Seeds 1-8 would have a 1st round bye and the way I'd do it is have 8 play-in games--9/9 (8), 10/10 (7), 11/11 (6), 12/12 (5), 13/13 (4), 14/14 (3), 15/15 (2), and 16/16 (1). The team in ( ) represents the 1st round opponent. Good luck winning the BILLION on that bracket (LOL).

 

[uncfan103]

I heard a few years ago there was talk of moving it to 96. That would be way too many. I never quite understood the move from 64 to 65 and then from 65 to 68. Those are just weird numbers. If they went back to 64 I would not complain. Going to 96 would be 24 teams in each region. Seeds 1-8 would have a 1st round bye and the way I'd do it is have 8 play-in games--9/9 (8), 10/10 (7), 11/11 (6), 12/12 (5), 13/13 (4), 14/14 (3), 15/15 (2), and 16/16 (1). The team in ( ) represents the 1st round opponent. Good luck winning the BILLION on that bracket (LOL).

If they do that they might as well just cancel the regular season, have a month of exhibition games, a conference tournament for seedings, and then let everyone in the tournament. Then, because of the shortened schedule they can afford to play best out of three up until the final four and have that best out of 5 and then have the championship game a best of seven series. We wouldn't have to worry at all about teams getting left out and everyone that played basketball would get to say they had the experience of a lifetime competing in the NCAA tournament! It's a win-win