72 and 76 team field is propo$ed. Let’s just go to 128 teams in the tournament:
NCAA Tournament Expansion Proposed Today
- Thread starter Morrischiano2
- Start date
72 is 8 play ins, 4 16s, 4 12s
76 is 12 play ins, 4 16s, 2 15s, 2 13s, 4 12s
80 should be the max, 4 16s/15s, 4 13s/12s
Anything more would really water it down.
I don't want to see 96 or 128.
76 is 12 play ins, 4 16s, 2 15s, 2 13s, 4 12s
80 should be the max, 4 16s/15s, 4 13s/12s
Anything more would really water it down.
I don't want to see 96 or 128.
Yes. My apology. The Bracket would still be 64 so adding 8 would be 8 more games.
So the playin would be at three sites of four games each.
Dayton 4 games (68 teams currently) or move it to Indiana somewhere (Evansville is central time and has decent arena)
West Coast 4 games
East Coast 4 games
Seems fun.
Last edited:
I like the 72 model. It seems the neatest.
All the 16 seeds are play in - winning gets you the right to take a crack at a one seed. The 4 one seeds all play the play in winners.
I don’t like the idea of 15 seeds being play in games at all. Autobid play in teams should be capped at 8 teams in my opinion. I’d actually have no problem with any number of bubble play in teams they want from 10 seed and up. To me - if you don’t land in the top 36 of the S curve I’d have no issue with a requirement to play into the main bracket.
I know I’m probably in the minority but to me - I don’t see a problem with forcing 24-10 Colorado State to beat 23-4 Princeton or whatever to get locked into the main bracket. Or conversely - beat a team that came on late like Ohio State.
Last edited:
What's the difference between a 16 seed AQ being in play-in and a 15 seed not?
There is zero reason for higher seeds playing more games than lower seeds.
If there are going to be 8 playins then make them all 16 and 15.
I don’t care how many play in games there are as long as the official field is capped at 64
I disagree - but I think this one is largely a matter of opinion. To me, making 15 seeds duke it out would take away from the spirit of what the first real day of the tournament has historically been about.
The thing is - the 16 seeds are almost always awful. The 1-16 match ups are rarely close and there was only once in the entire history of the tournament been an upset. Playing one of these types of teams is a benefit of earning a 1 seed.
13-15 seeds are different. It’s often splitting hairs distinguishing them because mostly their biggest paper flaw is they haven’t been tested much. By adding 2 more play in 16s, you’d be taking the 2 weakest 15 seeds and moving them to play in. You retain about the same number of 13-15ish mid majors with a legitimate punchers chance of pulling off the upset.
To my original point - I don’t much care whether a 10-8 (7th place) MWC team (Colorado State) prevails over a 9-11 (9th place) BIG team that turned things around late. To me - these teams have similar bubblish qualities to them. I would not feel bad for Colorado State if they lost a game like that - nor would it have much impact on the 7 seed they would be playing either way (in that hypothetical example). When I say “feel bad for Colorado State” what I mean is I would not see this type of loss as rendering the regular season meaningless because to me, at the end of the day, the difference between these two teams resumes, abilities, etc. is paper thin to begin with.
What I would not want personally is a situation where earning a 3 or a 4 seed is basically the same the as earning that 7 seed I just mentioned because we’ve stuffed the worst 16 of the 32 autobids into 15/16 play ins. By doing this - you’ve now shifted the traditional bracket parity from the 6/7/8/9/10/11 slots back - and in my book that’s not only less exciting - it’s also not fair. A 3 seed shouldnt play a 15 loss Villanova team in its first game. Again - just my opinion.
Yeah that’s what 128 would be. But not something in the 70s. Probably best to do that and get rid of the NIT. NIT just doesn’t make sense to have with NIL.
This is just terrible
No valid reason to expand the field
No valid reason to expand the field
Expansion is kind of secondary to the question of who is eligible to be put in a play in game. The real issue (and concern for the appeal of the tournament on a whole) is the possibility of an increasing number of bubble teams in the round of 64.
For example - I think it would hypothetically water down the tournament significantly more to keep it at 68 but switch to 4 sixteen seed play in games than it would expand the field to 70 but change First Four to First Eight. There’s a big difference between simply adding another bubbler like Virgina to the main field in exchange for making Longwood and St Peters play in vs forcing Nevada to beat Seton Hall in order get into the main bracket. I much prefer the latter.
It’s already watered down…here’s hoping the ncaa has become irrelevant by the time this can happen
Until a 16 seed finally beat a 1 recently.
And teams in the bottom half of the bracket have been doing very well of late with 3 11-seeds making the Final 4 since 2018.
That's what makes it fine/fun as is. No need to go change and wait 20 years for a 78 seed to beat a 1 and then expand again.
Love it! The more teams the better. I’d also like to see a double elimination tournament. (I fully expected to be stoned for these heretical comments).
Latest
-
01
The Knight Report
Staff Predictions for Rutgers Football versus Michigan
-
02
The Knight Report
Join The Knight Report TODAY and get it for 60% off!
-
03
The Knight Report
Rutgers Athletics Roundup: Football, Recruiting, Women's Basketball & Wrestling - TKR Pod
-
04
The Knight Report
WAR ROOM: Latest Recruit Scoop and Team News on Rutgers Athletics
-
05
The Knight Report
Rutgers Women's Basketball 2026-27 Season Preview: The Players