By now you have probably heard the rumblings that the NCAA is looking at expanding the Men's College Basketball Tournament to as many as 96 teams. Opinions have been very strong in favor or opposed to this expansion. My initial thought was in favor, but I needed to do some more work on it. I put together a 96 team bracket based on games through Sunday, using current bracket forecasts, RPI and my own style in putting the bracket together. You can click on the bracket at the right for better viewing. My observations are as follows:
1) 96 teams appeared to be a few too many this year. When selecting the final at-large teams, I was selecting between the 13th team from the Big East or Mid-Majors with fairly weak resumes. My last four in were Missouri State, North Carolina, Iona, and Wright State. I gave the last two the nod over St. John's because they are the second place teams behind strong conference winners (Siena and Butler). The fact that North Carolina made the bracket shows how deep a 96 team field goes. The best news is I don't think there is a team who could argue that they were snubbed.
2) The games should be played at the same site as the first two rounds, expanding the opening rounds to 6 days and 3 rounds. Trying to geographically match-up the first 32 games would interfere with the integrity of seeding. I have heard rumblings about using home floor of the higher seeded team for the first 32 games - the beauty of the tournament is the neutralish sites.
3) The selection committee should make sure they are careful with the distinction between an 8 and a 9 seed. In the past, the designation only determined what color jersey you would wear in the first round. Now it means a bye and fresher legs. I gave preference to conference winners such as Old Dominion, Siena and UAB over mediocre teams from major conferences who are the 4th or 5th team from their league.
4) The biggest difference you will notice, is who the 1, 2 and 3 seeds get to play in their first round game. Typically, the last 10-13 teams in are automatic bids of teams from the weakest conferences. These 10-13 teams will be weeded out in the opening round in all likelihood and if they do win, the beneficiary will be the 6,7, or 8 seed. So instead of Jacksonville, Kansas could have a date with an underachieving UConn. Duke vs Coastal Carolina - nope - Duke against a young but more dangerous Memphis. The round of 64 becomes much more competitive and the potential for upsets increases.
5) That said, the opening round is only for die-hards. Very few big name teams will be playing, but there are really good match-ups in the 16-17, 15-18, 14-19, 13-20 and even 12-21 games - very similar to the tournament first round now where the 1-16 and 2-15 games are mostly unwatchable besides the one every year that is close for 30 minutes. But the stars and name teams will not be there, so ratings expectations should not be set too high.
6) The a 12 always beats a 5 will be replaced by a 20 always beats a 13. The 12's might still conquer the 5's, but they must first defeat the 21, adding a small layer of complexity.
7) Filling out a bracket will take a little longer and may decrease entrants in your office pool.
8) In the end, I am still in favor of 96. Although the last few at large teams are more deserving of a sandwich, the potential changes to the tournament from 64 to 1 outweigh this in my mind. Here's to 96 in 2011!!!
