Coaches split on NCAA Tournament ExpansionIzzo is against it: "I just think it's going to get watered down."
Self, Pearl, Larranga, and others are for it.
Shrewsberry (recently of PSU) is in favor: "I do think it's time for us to just expand."
There is talk in the article about a 96 team field. Pearl's comment didn't favor that, he said he would be in favor of adding "a handful" of teams.
My thoughts:
I think that 96 is too many. That would add 28 mostly sub .500 teams which I think is unnecessary. Also, a 96 team tournament format doesn't make much sense to me. I *THINK* what would make the most sense would be a massive opening weekend then two weekends much like they are now:
First weekend:
Thursday/Friday:
- 4 games per site (eight sites)
- 16 games per day
- 32 games total
- gets down to 64
Saturday/Sunday:
- 4 games per site (eight sites)
- 16 games per day
- 32 games total
- gets down to 32
Monday/Tuesday:
- 2 games per site (eight sites)
- 8 games per day
- 16 games total
- gets down to 16
Second weekend:
Saturday:
- 2 games per site (four sites)
- 8 games total
- gets down to 8
Monday:
- 1 game per site (four sites)
- 4 games total
- gets down to 4
Third weekend:
Saturday:
- 2 games total (one site)
- gets down to 2
Monday:
That first Thursday/Friday you'd have a ton of games (16 per day) which means that most of them would necessarily have to be played during working hours. You'd have 24 seeds with the top-8 getting byes so only seeds #9-#24 would be playing. That doesn't create a lot of big ratings draws because the big names are mostly going to be top-8 seeds. Thus, I think you'd end up with a whole lot of games that nobody outside of fans of the individual teams actually cared enough to watch especially for the day games where watching would require either taking time off work or shirking work to watch.
My longtime proposal is that we add 12 teams. IMHO, that is about what Bruce Pearl called "a handful". I think the format would be great for fans:
First weekend:
Thursday/Friday:
- 2 games per site (8 sites)
- 8 games per day
- 16 games total
- gets down to 64
Saturday/Sunday:
- 4 games per site (8 sites)
- 16 games per day
- 32 games total
- gets down to 32
Monday/Tuesday:
- 2 games per site (8 sites)
- 8 games per day
- 16 games total
- gets down to 16
Second weekend:
Saturday/Sunday:
- 2 games per site (4 sites)
- 4 games per day
- 8 games total
- gets down to 8
Monday/Tuesday:
- 1 game per site (4 sites)
- 2 games per day
- 4 games total
- gets down to 4
Third weekend:
Saturday:
- 2 games per site (1 site)
- 2 games total
- gets down to 2
Monday:
In my 80 team model there would be 20 teams per region and the top-4 would get a bye. That would give two big advantages for the Thursday/Friday games (vs 96):
- Seeds #5-#20 would be playing which would bring in a lot more big names (the #5-#8 seeds that would have byes in a 96 team format).
- Since you only have 16 games in this first round, there are only 8 per day so the vast majority could be aired after 5pm at least on the east coast.
Then the busiest days, the days with 16 games would be Saturday/Sunday of the first weekend instead of Friday/Saturday as it is now. Consequently, your ratings would be better because most people would be off work and able to watch.
Then the last two days of the opening weekend would be a Monday/Tuesday but you'd be back to just eight games per day so again, the vast majority could be aired after 5pm EST.
Other reasons to expand:
I think when I suggest expanding to 80 a lot of people think that would be a HUMONGOUS change but I really don't think that it would. We are already at 68 (not 64 as some people seem to still think) so it is an expansion of 12 not 16.
An expansion to 80 would add:
- The first four out,
- the next four out, and
- four more teams.
These would not be great teams, I get that, but they wouldn't be awful. They'd be teams that had at least some chance of making at least the S16. These teams are flawed to be sure and they usually have a bad loss or two but they also frequently have a very good win or two. They can play with the big dogs on a given night.
One of my big reasons to favor expansion is that the #13-#16 seeds are flat awful. Yes, I know that a #16 took out #1 Purdue this year. Yes, I know that Ohio State recently lost as a #2 to a #15. The thing is that those upsets are RARE. They fall into the category of broken clocks being right twice a day:
- #16's are 2-150 against #1 and 0-2 against #9 in the second round.
- #15's are 11-141 against #2, 4-7 against 7/10, 1-3 against 3/6/11/14, and 0-fer in the E8.
- #14's are 22-130 against #3, 2-20 against 6/11, and 0-fer in the S16.
- #13's are 32-120 against #4, 6-26 against 5/12, and 0-fer in the S16.
- There have been 608 #13 and below seeds and they have a grand combined total of just one second weekend win.
By comparison, #12 seeds alone have twice that many second weekend wins despite almost always (84% of the time) having to play a #1 in the S16. Every seed above #12 has not only won at least five S16 games, they have each won at least one E8 game.
Why are #13 and below seeds so bad?
It is due to the "every champion goes" format which inherently rewards tall midgets from crap conferences. In 2023 there were 13 leagues whose best team was outside of the top-68 in the NCAA's "NET Rankings" and that is actually better than normal. Seven leagues haven't had a team in the top-68 of the NET Rankings in the last four years for which we had Tournaments:
- Horizon's best was #71 in 2021
- Southland's best was #74 in 2021
- Sunbelt's best was #83 in 2023
- Big Sky's best was #103 in 2023
- NEC's best was #127 in 2023
- MEAC's best was #167 in 2022
- SWAC's best was #180 in 2023.
Number of leagues without a team in the top-68 of the NET:
- 13 in 2023
- 17 in 2022
- 15 in 2021 (not counting the Ivy which didn't participate)
- 16 in 2019
These teams are so bad that they *SHOULD* have to win what would effectively be a play-in game to get to the 64 team field. That would drastically improve the quality of the games once we got to 64 teams because you would see a lot less punching bags.
Another advantage, I think, would be that every team would get a game that they actually might win. Instead of taking a tallest midget and putting them up against one of the best teams in the nation where they have almost no chance (see above, #15's and #16's are a combined 13-291 in the first round), you'd put them up against a #5 or #6 seed where they'd probably win around one out of three.
R64 games would be MUCH better because the 16/17, 15/18, 14/19, and 13/20 winners would be MUCH better teams than the current #13-#16 seeds so they would take out the top-4 much more frequently.
In my view, the cut-line for upset potential to get much attention is roughly 1/3. Ie, #12 seeds take out #5 seeds just over once every three tries and that is the upset that everyone talks about and tries to forecast and watches for. #13's only win about once in five tries while #14's wins about once in seven and the bottom two hardly ever win (once in 14 for #15's and once in 76 for #16's). I believe that in an 80-team format as outlined above, every seed would be at least close to 1/3 in the R64.
