Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NCAA to expand March Madness from 65 to 68 teams
WORLD ^ | 4/22/10 | MICHAEL MAROT

Posted on 04/22/2010 12:15:48 PM PDT by rhema

The NCAA plans to expand the men's basketball tournament from 65 to 68 teams beginning next year and announced a new, $10.8 billion broadcasting deal with CBS and Turner Broadcasting on Thursday that will allow every game to be shown live for the first time.

The three-team expansion is much more modest than 80- and 96-team proposals the NCAA outlined just a few weeks ago at the Final Four. The move coincides with the new, 14-year broadcasting arrangement that interim NCAA president Jim Isch said will provide an average of $740 million to its conferences and schools each year.

The NCAA badly wanted every tourney game broadcast live.

"It was a goal from the very, very beginning and I believe it's what our memberships want and it's want our fans want across the country," Isch said. "I think without question, it was one of the driving factors in our position and why CBS and Turner make such great partners."

The men's tournament last expanded in 2001, adding one team to the 64-team field that was set in 1985. Talk of tweaking March Madness again generated a lot of chatter from fans worried the competition would be watered down and those who feared the additional bracket guesswork needed to predict a winner.

Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim, who favored expansion, said the proposal was "better than nothing."

"As a coach I'd like to see more people get in but 68 is a good step and the easiest way, to have the least amount of turmoil," Boeheim said. "There's really no way to do a little bit bigger expansion. You can't expand by eight, 10. There's no way to figure that out. This is the easiest way and hopefully down the road there will be a bigger expansion."

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: basketball; cbs; chat; collegebasketball; marchmadness; ncaa; sports

1 posted on 04/22/2010 12:15:48 PM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MikeD; OKIEDOC; Zuben Elgenubi; GOP_Raider; dfwgator; Man50D; Mr. Jeeves; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA

2 posted on 04/22/2010 12:17:29 PM PDT by Perdogg (Nancy Pelosi did more damage to America on 03/21 than Al Qaeda did on 09/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Greed knows no bounds.


3 posted on 04/22/2010 12:18:19 PM PDT by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

Only tards watch that nonsense. More money for the networks to make us into serfs so they can spew their propaganda. Sadly people who are conservative who watch sports cannot connect the dots.


4 posted on 04/22/2010 12:19:40 PM PDT by Frantzie (McCain=Obama's friend. McCain & Graham = La Raza's favorite Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

It’s OK to relax once in a while. If someone wants to watch sports now and again I can hardly begrudge them that. It isn’t like you can always see your favorite team live.


5 posted on 04/22/2010 12:22:59 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Lighten up. If people can’t find moments of meaningless joy in sports, or fishing, or hunting, or whatever trivial entertainment suits them ... what’s the point?

Conservative or not — one cannot live for politics.

SnakeDoc


6 posted on 04/22/2010 12:30:05 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhema

More “Bread and circuses” for the proles.


7 posted on 04/22/2010 12:30:40 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
68 is really stupid. I love the tournament, but I pay no attention to the play-in game now. I'm not sure why I would pay attention to four play-in games. While I'm not in favor of the expansion to 96 teams, such an expansion would involve some teams that actually have a chance to win a second round game, and so I think a lot more people, including myself, would pay attention to at least some of the games. (Basically, if the games don't wind up being part of everyone's office pool, few will care about them.)

ML/NJ

8 posted on 04/22/2010 12:39:15 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I agree. I have not really supported any expansion, but I’d rather see a larger expansion than this stupid play-in game option. I does not good for the smaller schools to play when no one else is watching and get knocked out before the first full day of games. I would have preferred either a 16 or 32 game expansion to this.


9 posted on 04/22/2010 12:42:45 PM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I guess if you are going to have that silly two team play-in game in Dayton, Ohio every year then you might as well round out the number and go with an even 68


10 posted on 04/22/2010 1:05:11 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
They should already call it March/April Madness. This is only going to extend more of the tourney into April. Maybe they should just get it over with and call it Spring Madness.
11 posted on 04/22/2010 1:17:45 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

And God said, “Let there be an NIT?”


12 posted on 04/22/2010 1:28:15 PM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, democrats believe every day is April 15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

That is PRECISELY why I oppose such a small expansion.

This move will serve one purpose, and one purpose ONLY: to eliminate four automatic bids (small conferences) from the field of 64.

That’s ALL this is about: creating four more bids for big conferences in the real part of the tournament (64 team field). Now even automatic bids won’t get small conference champions into the field anymore; meanwhile the NCAA can now freely give the ACC a 9th team in the tournament, the Big East a 10th team, the Big ten a 9th team, and so on......

Utter crap is what this is. Without a guarantee WRITTEN INTO THE RULES that “no winner of an automatic bid shall have to play a play-in game,” this is just College Basketball trying their best to be the new BCS System.

If you are a small conefernce school (and there are many) you just got ROYALLY SCREWED by the NCAA.


13 posted on 04/22/2010 1:53:43 PM PDT by TitansAFC (The Left does not devote so much effort into attacking Sarah Palin because she's a weak candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
Only tards watch that nonsense. More money for the networks to make us into serfs so they can spew their propaganda. Sadly people who are conservative who watch sports cannot connect the dots.

What's wrong? Were you picked last in gym class?

14 posted on 04/22/2010 2:01:30 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (I don't look for leaders. I follow my own path, my way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Great. Three more B-list teams that will never, ever have a chance of making it to the finals.

Could have been worse. Could have been 31 teams, I suppose.

15 posted on 04/22/2010 2:04:20 PM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

With apologies to the movie “Stripes”...Lighten up, Frantzie! (Any of YOU retards make ME watch NCAA basketball....and I’ll kill ya.)


16 posted on 04/22/2010 2:09:53 PM PDT by safeasthebanks ("The most rewarding part, was when he gave me my money!" - Dr. Nick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

“This move will serve one purpose, and one purpose ONLY: to eliminate four automatic bids (small conferences) from the field of 64.”

It’s also about making it so that the top 4 get buys...Can’t have the proles making the Bamster look bad, no?


17 posted on 04/22/2010 2:23:41 PM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson