Who wants 96 teams for March Madness?

GiveMeaBJ · 02-25-10, 05:06 PM

march madness is perfect. You don't **** with perfection.

gonnakillit · 02-25-10, 05:07 PM

I will never be against something that provides more athletic events to watch and more games to bet on

suckerforparlays · 02-25-10, 05:07 PM

Everyone thought it was perfect when there was 32 teams also look what happened to that

coloradobuff · 02-25-10, 05:15 PM

64/65 is ideal.

Chi_archie · 02-25-10, 05:15 PM

don't want it

BiffTFinancial · 02-25-10, 05:15 PM

i'm ardently against 66, much less 96. agree with gonnakillit's point about more games = more action = more opportunity, but that's what the NIT and that 3rd rate tournament are for. expanding tourney means less monday, tuesday, wednesday games between the tourney days.

GiveMeaBJ · 02-25-10, 05:21 PM

Ok, so you expand it to 96 and we watch more shitty teams play. The only reason this is being talked about is because some big conference bubble teams get a tough break. We get more bad teams, more games to bet on, and more games with large spreads so we can flip a coin. Personally I like MM starting with a few good match ups and upset potential. I don't want to see bad teams, if I did I would tune into the NIT.

However, there is one idea I AM open too. If before the tournament you want to take out the play in game and have a 16 team tournament with the winner getting in then I am down for that. Take all the bubble teams seed them and we have a play in tournament. With teams from bigger conferences in this tournament it would be just like the NIT and the team would still have potential to be something other then a doormat in the tournament.

coloradobuff · 02-25-10, 06:22 PM

95% of teams 66-96 all going to be out in 1st round..