If the Tournament had been 96 teams…

With a full five days between the last Regional Final and the National Semifinals, I did what any decent college basketball fan with too much spare time would do: I crafted a new bracket showing what this year’s Tournament would have looked like had it contained 96 teams. I used the approach most people are pushing for expansion, which is to include all regular-season champions of every conference in addition to postseason tournament champions.* I basically took seeding from the NIT for the added teams although I had to decide where to fit in teams that won their conference titles but would have earned an at-large NIT berth if necessary (namely Siena, Cornell, Murray State).

*Of course, using this method retroactively on this season avoids the huge, “How hard does a regular-season champion try in a postseason conference tournament if it already has its ticket punched?” question. This, to me, is one of the biggest issues with expansion: Do teams that won the regular season in a conference such as the SWAC, which has virtually no hope of an at-large berth, even compete in the conference tournament? What do they have to gain? And isn’t it better for the conference if they lose in the tournament and a second team earns a bid? And does this force the Ivy to have a conference tournament?

MIDWEST EAST SOUTH WEST
1 Kansas Kentucky Duke Syracuse
2 Ohio State West Virginia Villanova Kansas State
3 Georgetown New Mexico Baylor Pittsburgh
4 Maryland Wisconsin Purdue Vanderbilt
5 Michigan State Temple Texas A&M Butler
6 Tennessee Marquette Notre Dame Xavier
7 Oklahoma State Clemson Richmond BYU
8 UNLV Texas California Gonzaga
9 Northern Iowa Wake Forest Louisville Florida State
10 Georgia Tech Missouri Saint Mary’s Florida
11 San Diego State Washington Old Dominion Minnesota
12 Mississippi State Virginia Tech Utah State UTEP
13 Arizona State Mississippi Cornell Illinois
14 Dayton Siena Rhode Island UAB
15 Cincinnati Murray State Memphis New Mexico State
16 Connecticut Kent State South Florida Wichita State
17 North Carolina Seton Hall William & Mary Northeastern
18 NC State Nevada Texas Tech Tulsa
19 Illinois State Saint John’s Houston Wofford
20 Ohio Weber State Sam Houston State Oakland
21 Montana Coastal Carolina Troy Morgan State
22 Lehigh Lipscomb* Jackson State UC-Santa Barbara
23 Quinnipiac Stony Brook Robert Morris North Texas
24 Arkansas-Pine Bluff Winthrop East Tennessee State Vermont

*Lipscomb and Jacksonville tied for the regular-season title in the Atlantic Sun. Lipscomb had the tiebreaker and thus earned the No. 1 seed in the conference tournament, but since Jacksonville advanced further in said tournament before losing, the Dolphins earned the conference’s berth in the NIT. I give that honor back to Lipscomb in my system. Sorry, Artis Gilmore.

Every team in bold gets a first-round bye, and the first-round matchups are: 9-24, 10-23, 11-22, 12-21, 13-20, 14-19, 15-18, 16-17. I tried to avoid early conference matchups as much as possible. I don’t think there’s any spot where teams from the same conference can play in either the first or second round.

The clear early storyline in this Tournament would be the first-round matchup of Final Four teams from last year in UConn and North Carolina. It would be great to see two traditional programs whose teams quit on the season a few weeks ago battle it out for the chance to play Kansas. There’s no doubt Nantz and Kellogg would be calling that pod.

So what does everyone think? Would an Ohio win over Arizona State excite the public? Would making Kentucky play Kent State in its first game heighten early-round enthusiasm? And maybe the biggest questions: Would Bobby Gonzalez and Norm Roberts still have jobs?


About these ads

2 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by John S on March 31, 2010 at 2:30 PM

    The estimable Doug Gottlieb made an interesting point about expansion on ESPN today: He actually thinks expansion will hurt coaches’ job security more than helping it. After all, if the Tournament is 96 teams, then missing the cut becomes a much more fireable offense than it is now, and making it will buy a coach much less security than it currently does. So, basically, expansion isn’t even a good idea for the one group who supports it.

    Reply

  2. Posted by Absurdist on April 1, 2010 at 2:12 AM

    Interesting in principle, but the expanded field is harder to field, and the reasons you cite are just the beginning…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 109 other followers

%d bloggers like this: