ADVERTISEMENT

NCAA Tourney headed to 72 or 76 in 2026?

I'd rather see the selection pool reduced back to 64, but given all the latest money grab it'll never happen. No need for all the stigma attributed to the play-in game participants.
 
What would the bracket look like?
As long as they fix the dumb 12 seed playin then so be it.

The tournament is already watered down.
Without AQs, how many teams in any given year should be in the tournament?
16? Maybe 32 at most?
 
Greene Rice FIG said:
How long until the NCAA realizes it can make even more money by stretching past Thursday-Sunday.
Click to expand...
well they claim they cant extend but its pretty simple...i think conference tourneys will be a thing of the past with 20 school conferences and there is your extra week there...we will go to 96 and eventually to 108
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow
Give me Field of 60 and a field of 16 trying to decide the last 4.

Tuesday and Thursday field of 16 does to 4
Friday and Saturday we get down to 32
Sunday and Monday we get down to 16
Wednesday Thursday and Friday we get down to 8
Friday Saturday and Sunday we get down to 4
 
NickRU714 said:
What would the bracket look like?
As long as they fix the dumb 12 seed playin then so be it.

The tournament is already watered down.
Without AQs, how many teams in any given year should be in the tournament?
16? Maybe 32 at most?
Click to expand...
there is nothing wrong with having the 12 seeds play each other...people love it

76 schools the most likely

19 in each....imagine having to say the #19 seed.



60 schools bye

each region just gets an extra game added
 
bac2therac said:
there is nothing wrong with having the 12 seeds play each other...people love it

76 schools the most likely

19 in each....imagine having to say the #19 seed.



60 schools bye

each region just gets an extra game added
Click to expand...

"People love it" isn't a valid reason.
There is literally no other sport that gives a bye to lower seeds.

But I get it. Some people like to make rules for sports based on TV and excitement.

Similar argument could be made about the expansion you don't like.
"People love the tournament so make it bigger."
This the road you go down by making rules just because "people love it".
You lose making rules based on actual merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zebnatto
NickRU714 said:
"People love it" isn't a valid reason.
There is literally no other sport that gives a bye to lower seeds.

But I get it. Some people like to make rules for sports based on TV and excitement.

Similar argument could be made about the expansion you don't like.
"People love the tournament so make it bigger."
This the road you go down by making rules just because "people love it".
You lose making rules based on actual merit.
Click to expand...
because NO ONE is watching Bumblebee State play East Hillspatch U

people will watch Michigan play Syracuse as 12 seeds

having the last at large schools selected play actually makes tons of sense
 
Conference championship tournaments are essentially play in games for those teams who would not make the tournament unless they go deep or win the conference championship. Why not do the following:

1. Eliminate the conference tournaments and give a two-round bye to the regular season champs, rewarding consistent play throughout the season in conference. This would also encourage scheduling good teams OOC as these games would not affect the ability to get the auto bye by winning the conference. This would give the 20 conference champs the double bye.
2. Use the week designated as conference championship week to take the top 176 teams from the 20 conferences (approximately 1/2 of the remaining D1 teams) for the Thursday-Sunday games, getting the field down to 44.
3. Add the 20 conference champs to the remaining field to get to 64, and re-seed the teams. The tourney then proceeds like it does now after the play-in games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goru7
For context:

- More Division 1 teams added every year.

- In 1976 there were 232 Div 1 teams and 32 made the tourny, 200 stayed home. Final 4 Rutgers (#1 of 77 “independents” that year) won 3 games to get there.

-Today there are 352 Division 1 teams and 68 make the tournament, 284 stay home. You have to win 4 (or 5) games to make the Final Four.

- There is more parity in college basketball than ever before, and it increases every year. The 3-point shot has allowed smaller and/or slower players to contribute more scoring.

- In the last 6 years we’ve seen two 16 seeds beat 1 seeds in the tournament, most recently in 2023

- Money, money, money…
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow
Hell yeah give me more of the best sporting event there is in this country
 
If not for conference tournaments, Final Four participant NC State would not have made the tournament last year
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow
bac2therac said:
because NO ONE is watching Bumblebee State play East Hillspatch U

people will watch Michigan play Syracuse as 12 seeds

having the last at large schools selected play actually makes tons of sense
Click to expand...

If more people will watch MSU play Syracuse, why are you against expanding the field to add more MSU-Syracuse teams?

You can’t say “nobody wants to watch lower level conferences teams” while also complaining about adding more major conference teams?

Either you care about what people want to watch or not.

I don’t care rigging a tournament just to attract the eyes.
I care about the athletics.
Name another tournament that gives a 16 seed a bye while a 12 seed doesn’t?
The only justification is “but people and tv”.
 
Dissolve the leagues. Let a computer schedule a season-long tournament that determines the best team. It would resolve ongoing issues with strength of schedules. And a revolving door schedule for teams goes well with the revolving door rosters. And everyone would know a team’s year end rank from 1-to-whatever.
 
bac2therac said:
I hate it. Watering it down with bloated major conference schools and rendering late season bracketology basically useless.

www.espn.com

NCAA talks expanding hoops tourney to 72 or 76

NCAA president Charlie Baker says talks are ongoing to expand the basketball tournament to 72 or 76 teams.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...
At first, I thought 72-76 sounded like a huge amount. Then I remembered we're already at 68, lol.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: cshelley, wheezer and rubigtimenow
72 makes the most sense, but 76 isn't much difference. There are 31 conferences, about 20 of them contribute 1 team every year, at least 8-12 AQs fall in the Q3-Q4 neutral court type teams anyways. Anything more would be bad

Whether it is...
4/4, Bottom8 conf AQs,(20) 8 16s(4), 4 15s, 4 14s, 4 13s, (8)play-in, 8 12s(4), (44)
20+8+44 (72)

6/6, Bottom12 conf AQs,(20) 8 16s(4), 6 15s(2), 4 14s, 2 13s, (12)play-in 4 13s(2), 8 12s(4), (44)
20+12+44 (76)

I think it will result in a minor shift in the overall tournament maybe one or two more upsets. The 12s-14s become more competitive, rare 15 or 16 seed upset instead of just 12s and 13s competitive, occasional 14, and rare 15 or 16 seed upset.

8 conf
31 SWAC(12) avg NET 309.75
30 MEAC(8) avg NET 301.50
29 NEC(9) avg NET 292.11, 3 not eligible
28 OVC(11) avg NET 284.18, 2 not eligible
27 Patriot(10) avg NET 263.8
26 MAAC(13) avg NET 260.85
25 AEC(9) avg NET 251.89
24 Southland(12) avg NET 235.25, 1 not eligible

12 conf
23 ASun(12) avg NET 234.5, 2 not eligible
22 Horizon(11) avg NET 230.09
21 Summit(9) avg NET 226.89, 1 not eligible
20 Sun Belt(14) avg NET 223.57

Top 2, Lipscomb 94, McNeese St 98, next 3, 105, 106, 113
It might even make a 15 seed game or 2 more competitive, which honestly isn't a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
Yes please expand it! As a Power school you have to be in the top 40/45 to make the field of 68. By expanding to 76, that gives a little more flexibility and those in the top 45/50 will now get in. Makes 100% sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G- RUnit and BillyC80
It ultimately hurts the sport when you have this much parity and talent spread out across a lot of rosters and trying to micromanage 5 to 7 variables on how to justify keeping 3 to 5 teams out of the field, who are no different than the supposed last 3 to 4 teams in the field.

We are trending in a direction that will wind up hurting the sport, when there's no valid reason that the last 10 games of a season used to matter 10 years ago and now it doesn't, as if teams don't improve through a season. Let those last 12 teams battle it out and then get to the 76 to 64 and go from there.

This is a BILLION dollar industry, and the more talented teams will still win out, but as teams like RU and BYU in the last 2 recruting classes, land the Top kid in all of CBB, it makes no sense to not include those kids in the equation of the NCAA tournament, instead of funneling every kid to Duke, Kansas etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeapinLou and BillyC80
I am actually perfectly fine.
The Original 64 +32 And scrap the NIT =96.
More Parody than ever.
More schools than ever.
We are playing Tuesday, Weds, games anyway.
The more the merrier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow
Greene Rice FIG said:
Give me Field of 60 and a field of 16 trying to decide the last 4.

Tuesday and Thursday field of 16 does to 4
Friday and Saturday we get down to 32
Sunday and Monday we get down to 16
Wednesday Thursday and Friday we get down to 8
Friday Saturday and Sunday we get down to 4
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I agree with your games by days breakdown, but if there is to be expansion, I like the idea of 16 teams playing for the last four spots in the bracket. But I doubt they'll do that. Instead, if they go to 76, I think it will end up being eight more "first four" games. 52 teams get in with byes, 24 teams play for the last 12 spots in the round of 64.

I also don't like making any conference champion that earned an AQ bid having to play their way into the round of 64. Let the bubble teams play their way in/out of the bracket IMO.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Greene Rice FIG
RUtrumpet92 said:
I also don't like making any conference champion that earned an AQ bid having to play their way into the round of 64. Let the bubble teams play their way in/out of the bracket IMO.
Click to expand...

That's a seeding issue.

If you want to give byes to certain teams (AQs for example) then you have to seed them higher.

The problem is people keep acting like the "bracket" starts at 64. It doesn't.
It starts at 68.
 
NickRU714 said:
That's a seeding issue.

If you want to give byes to certain teams (AQs for example) then you have to seed them higher.
Click to expand...
Who says I "HAVE TO" do that? If it's my tournament, I can organize it however I wish. There is precedent in place right now for Dayton to be played by 11 and 12 seed line teams.

I would say: there are 64 spots in the main tournament. 32 of those are reserved for the conference automatic qualifiers. Conferences can either give their AQ spot to the regular season champ OR to a postseason conference tournament champ.

Next up, my committee can award 28 invites to at-large teams that will be seeded in the round of 64.

Finally, we couldn't really say which teams deserve those last four bids. So we are inviting the next 64 teams to play their way into the round of 64. Call it what it is, those are play-in games. Four pods of four teams each. Win your pod and congrats, you are in the field of 64.

Now we can seed those 64 teams who made it in, and off we go.

In this scenario, I'd prefer to see it seeded after the field is set - but that's not feasible from the calendar/travel angle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac, Greene Rice FIG and NickRU714
RUtrumpet92 said:
Who says I "HAVE TO" do that? If it's my tournament, I can organize it however I wish. There is precedent in place right now for Dayton to be played by 11 and 12 seed line teams.

I would say: there are 64 spots in the main tournament. 32 of those are reserved for the conference automatic qualifiers. Conferences can either give their AQ spot to the regular season champ OR to a postseason conference tournament champ.

Next up, my committee can award 28 invites to at-large teams that will be seeded in the round of 64.

Finally, we couldn't really say which teams deserve those last four bids. So we are inviting the next 64 teams to play their way into the round of 64. Call it what it is, those are play-in games. Four pods of four teams each. Win your pod and congrats, you are in the field of 64.

Now we can seed those 64 teams who made it in, and off we go.

In this scenario, I'd prefer to see it seeded after the field is set - but that's not feasible from the calendar/travel angle.
Click to expand...
I think you meant to say, “the next 16 teams” and while I like the idea, once you lock in the first 60 the way you did, it seems the committee could find the next 8 teams to vie for the last 4 spots.

IMO, that would have been a better scenario for 68 teams up until now. But if they go to 76, then your idea fits the bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUtrumpet92
Terrible !

This idea will dilute the greatest tournament we all know - The NIT !😂

BTW - whatever happened to that Fox Sponsored Tourney ?
 
NickRU714 said:
"People love it" isn't a valid reason.
There is literally no other sport that gives a bye to lower seeds.

But I get it. Some people like to make rules for sports based on TV and excitement.

Similar argument could be made about the expansion you don't like.
"People love the tournament so make it bigger."
This the road you go down by making rules just because "people love it".
You lose making rules based on actual merit.
Click to expand...

Umm, College Football Playoff?
 
saw a podcast with Gavitt today and its either 72, 76 or no expansion. Also talk of possibly trying to do a 40 game schedule..wow or maybe a more modest addition of maybe 2 games.

expansion would be horrible right now..imagine the drek that would get in this season

also stressing the importance of non conference schedule strength and having those data points

definitely have to be a college hoops junkie to watch this

 
WhichReligionIsRight said:
Umm, College Football Playoff?
Click to expand...

Nope.
The top 4 seeds get a bye.
Seeds 5-12 play in the 1st round.
Just like it should be.

Do lower ranked teams get higher seeds?
Yes. But that's a seeding issue.
Similar to the NFL - division championship is valued above all else and garner a higher seed.
That's why 10-7 Rams hosted the 11-5 Vikinfs. Rams were the higher seed.

The format of the CFP makes complete sense. The top seeds get a bye like they are supposed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bac2therac

BACATOLOGY 3/3: NCAA TOURNAMENT ANALYSIS

Replies
75
Views
2K
Men's Basketball
bac2therac
bac2therac
bac2therac

BACATOLOGY 2/24: NCAA TOURNAMENT ANALYSIS

Replies
182
Views
5K
Men's Basketball
bac2therac
bac2therac
bac2therac

BACATOLOGY 2/17: 1st 2025 NCAA Tournament Analysis

Replies
91
Views
3K
Men's Basketball
bac2therac
bac2therac
bac2therac

GAME 18 NEBRASKA: Step by step, one by one

Replies
50
Views
2K
Men's Basketball
fluoxetine
F
bac2therac

GAME 17 UCLA: Team Win

Replies
61
Views
3K
Men's Basketball
ScarletLongIsland
S
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back