Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Source: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketb ... tournament

Some of the considerations include:

1) Moving it from broadcast to cable. A very bad idea.
2) Expanding it to 80 or 96 teams. John Wooden even mentioned putting all of them in.
3) Doing a Final Four into a series of 3 or 5 games. The CBT did this with Bradley and Tulsa a couple of years ago.

What do you think about it?

Don't worry this proposed change should not happen for quite awhile.

Could you move this to college hoops, I was not playing attention when I was posting this.

No cable
Expansion would be good. 96 might be too many
I like the single game title

No cable
no expansion
Best of three if anything other than one game...but I like the one game.

To me, the only way to pull off a title series would be to eliminate all of this neutral court stuff and put everything on higher seed's home court like the NIT. Then the final series would alternate home-and-home, with home-court advantage going to the higher seed (or if equal seed, then the higher ranked school). The logistics of maintaining a best-of-three or best-of-five at a neutral site would be enormous.

clenz wrote:No cable
no expansion
Best of three if anything other than one game...but I like the one game.

Agreed

AppStateAlumQC wrote:

clenz wrote:No cable
no expansion
Best of three if anything other than one game...but I like the one game.

Agreed

ditto.....better yet, move it back to 64...why a 65th team?

65th team was needed to keep number of at-larges equal or greater than auto-biz as required by NCAA rules

Why do people have to tinker with freakin' everything? Let well enough alone!

dbackjon wrote:65th team was needed to keep number of at-larges equal or greater than auto-biz as required by NCAA rules

It wasn't NEEDED, as there are only 31 autobids, so they could still have 33 at-large bids with a 64-team field. But when that 31st autobid (for the Mountain West) was added for the 2001 tournament, they elected to add the playoff game instead of reducing the at-large bids from 34 to 33.

if they same amout of bball teams got in as teh number of FBS teams in bowl games the big dance would have 200 teams in.

so just like in FBS the rule would be if u dont make it to the post season ur team is a complete joke.

I'm all for expansion, if it means more "mid-majors" get in. Now that the NCAA also owns the NIT, they could work together, the first round losers just become the NIT field.

Keep on broadcast (what $6billion not enough for the STUDENT focused NCAA).
Do not expand.
One game (otherwise there'd be more than "one shining moment")

Also, with the Final Four, have a consolation game. These teams fly out and the losers are one and one. Let those teams play for "Third"!

putter wrote:Also, with the Final Four, have a consolation game. These teams fly out and the losers are one and one. Let those teams play for "Third"!

I really like the idea of a consolation game.

putter wrote:Also, with the Final Four, have a consolation game. These teams fly out and the losers are one and one. Let those teams play for "Third"!

Yeah! Also a game for fifth, seventh, ninth....

putter wrote:Also, with the Final Four, have a consolation game. These teams fly out and the losers are one and one. Let those teams play for "Third"!

They used to play a consy game, it was dropped because nobody wanted to play in it or watch it.

Keep the tourney as is. I wouldn't change a thing. I'd be okay with expanding to 68 teams so that there is more than 1 game on Tuesday.

BlueHen86 wrote:Keep the tourney as is. I wouldn't change a thing. I'd be okay with expanding to 68 teams so that there is more than 1 game on Tuesday.

A voice of reason!

BlueHen86 wrote:Keep the tourney as is. I wouldn't change a thing. I'd be okay with expanding to 68 teams so that there is more than 1 game on Tuesday.

Pros: 3 more games, each #1 would play the winner of the opening round

Con: Most likely, 3 more power teams in, pushing the seeding of all the lower autobids down, lessening the chances of upsets by low-major teams

dbackjon wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Keep the tourney as is. I wouldn't change a thing. I'd be okay with expanding to 68 teams so that there is more than 1 game on Tuesday.

Pros: 3 more games, each #1 would play the winner of the opening round

Con: Most likely, 3 more power teams in, pushing the seeding of all the lower autobids down, lessening the chances of upsets by low-major teams

If it were up to me, they'd go back to 64 teams, but I know that will never happen. I'd rather see 68 teams, make the "bubble" teams play on Tuesday night, no conference champion should have to play their way in. The winners would then be seeded 11th or so.

Done deal?

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/source-ma ... deal-27742

I like 68. Give the Great West an autobid when all the newbies are done with the provisional membership.

Tues/Wed double header for the play ins.

Also if it goes to 96. Let all the regular season conf. champs in. Still have all the conf tourney winners get a bid too. I felt bad for UT-Martin winning the reg. season but not getting in. Also I think Lipscomb did the same. I love to see NCAA virgins get their cherry popped. At 96 Northwestern would finally get in. seeds 9-16 would have a play in

Other than putting it on cable, the whole thing is garbage. Keep it like it is. Teams with double-digit losses don't belong.

NO,
NO,
and
NO.

My worth

Here's a sample bracket...

http://bracketproject.50webs.com/PDFS/T ... 0Teams.pdf

The Ivy League got two in! Breakdown of conferences...

The breakdown of teams by conference:
13 - Big East
11 - ACC
8 - SEC, Big 12
7 - Big 10
6 - Atlantic 10
5 - CUSA
4 - Colonial, Mountain West, Pac-10
3 - WAC
2 - Missouri Valley, Ivy, West Coast

http://bracketproject.blogspot.com/

No play-in games. Everyone to the NCAAs...

You can say what you want about going to Dayton, but that's not the true tournament experience and why I think it's a sham that low-majors have to play there. Should be the two teams trying to fight for one last at-large....