Is there a need for a 96 team tournament???

killer cacti

All-Conference
What's the point?

No #16 seed has ever beaten a #1 seed, so why even have more teams? To me that's proof that it's big enough already, perfect size even. #15 will pull off an upset over a #2 team every once in a while, but I think moving it to 96 teams is just the NCAA's way of ruining a good program they currently have for more money (see the multiple meaningless bowl games that are out there). :rant

 
For the most part I agree, but keep in mind most of the teams that would be brought in would be high quality teams that are better than a 16 seed that won the big sky conference. It is a way of getting more good teams into the dance.

 
Hell no more teams don't need to be added. I think it's working pretty good as it is and don't know why it needs to be changed.

Changing it to 96 teams would be similar to the amount of bowl games there currently are. Great job at your mediocre season...here's your participation ribbon!

 
kansas husker said:
For the most part I agree, but keep in mind most of the teams that would be brought in would be high quality teams that are better than a 16 seed that won the big sky conference. It is a way of getting more good teams into the dance.
You are right. There would be teams let in that are better than the current #16 seeds, but no one who has a shot at winning the crown. It would just be a way for more revenue. The tournament is just fine, so why fix it? The Huskers could have been a "bubble" team this year if they expanded to 200 teams. :nanalama

 
Be like HS

EVERY team is in the tournament, sub-districts, districts, sub-regionals, regionals, sub-tournament, then the tournament. Start the day after BCS championship game. And everyone gets a participation ribbon!

 
No way. Joe Lunardi said if they field was expanding to 96 teams then North Carolina would be in the Tourny. Its a bad idea and there would still be bubble teams and schools getting robbed of not being in the tourny.

 
Back
Top