Personally I'm not for this at all but what do you guys think? No guarantee yet but it looks like it's a pretty serious proposal: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800
I might completely ignore the new "first round" games with the 9-16 seeds vs. the 17-24 seeds. Unless there is a personal interest in those games, I don't think many people will watch them.
No kidding. The main effect of this is that it makes it less likely that you have Cinderella's making the Sweet 16 and on. The one good thing is that while a #16 never beats a #1, a #24 could beat a #9, so some of those really small schools might just have a shot at winning their first-ever tourney game. Making brackets is going to be a freaking nightmare.
I detest it... what's special about a tournament that 1/3 of all college teams get into. Makes seeding even more important and keeps kids out of school longer during the week. They are doing this for all the wrong reasons and the more people that lambaste them for it the better.
I'm with Hayesfan here. If you aren't one of the 40 best teams in college, you don't deserve a shot at the national championship. Every year decent teams get left off, and people argue that too conference champions from weak conferences get in. If you want to play in the postseason tournament, earn it in the regular season. 64 teams is MORE than enough. As someone else said, unless I had a vested interest in one of the teams, I wouldn't watch the first round, and I think that resonates with a lot of people. I don't think the NCAA will see their ratings expand quite like they would hope if they choose to follow through with this.
Oh my GOD. IDIOTS. IDIOTS! Wow... this ruins all the tournament history too. Fix football, leave the only perfect thing in college sports alone
There was a quote I read, but can't now find, of the Ohio State AD basically saying that it was about money and that was nothing to be ashamed of. Screw the fans. Screw the students. Screw the teams and end any real hope of the Cinderalla stories that make this tournament great. Take for instance Northern Iowa. The game in which they beat Kansas would have been their 3rd in 6 days under this new plan. No way they aren't exhausted and beat Kansas that way.
I'm now more committed to NEVER watch a regular season or conference tournament game, EVER. They mean absolutely nothing.
To those arguing that this is bad, why not just have 16 teams. I mean the chance is if you aren't a top 16 team you aren't making the final 4.
Tell that to #5 seed Butler or #10 seed George Mason. Besides that, a 16 team tournament wouldn't allow all the conference champions in - that's one of the best parts about the tournament. No matter what your conference affiliation, if you're the best in your conference, you get a chance to win it all.
Duke WVA Butler and michigan st were all ranked in top 16 in both ap and espn poll. I have looked through the last few years they were all top 16 teams. I would think 80-90% of teams are from top 16.
Baylor was potentially one horrific charge call from the Final Four, and they don't fit your criteria. That said, the best part of the current tournament is that it promotes the value of conference play - if you win your league, you have a chance. With 16, obviously that goes away.
Not nearly enough teams because it makes the NCAA tournament way too exclusive. 64 is the maximum that makes any sense. I could also probably go along with 32 or 48 teams. March Madness isn't just about determining who wins, but the journey of the tournament itself (including the 63 losers) is important.
