ADVERTISEMENT

Baylor's Scott Drew would like 128 teams in NCAA tournament

Halldan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 1, 2003
186,869
101,083
113

Myron Medcalf
ESPN Staff Writer

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- As conversations about potentially expanding the NCAA tournament persist, Baylor's Scott Drew said Wednesday the sport should do it big if it decides to make the move.

"I would like to see it go to 128 [teams]," Drew told ESPN at Big 12 media day at T-Mobile Center. "I know that sounds like a lot. But everybody [would have] to win seven games, so it's just one additional game. But really, this is why: I think there is great parity and you look in football: about half the teams get to go to the postseason."

Drew said 128 teams, a field that would add another full round to the current format, would give a significant portion of the Division I landscape a chance to compete for a national title-- 35% of the sport's 363 teams in men's and women's basketball would make the NCAA tournament.

Drew's comments at Big 12 media day extended an ongoing dialogue about the future of the NCAA tournament. Last week, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips told ESPN's Jeff Borzello that "it's time to look at" expanding the field, and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said in August that he would support "a fresh look" at the NCAA tournament.

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark told ESPN on Wednesday that the conversation about possible expansion has to include the men's and women's tournaments.

"I'm a huge fan of the [NCAA tournament]," Yormark said. "I always have been. I think it captures the imagination of everyone in this country, whether you're a hardcore fan or a casual fan. There is nothing like March. It's unbelievable. That being said, I know there have been a lot of reports about further expansion of the tournament and I'm open to it -- for both men's and women's [basketball], not just men's. It has to go both ways. You're talking about [College Football Playoff] expansion. Why not expansion in March for the basketball tournaments?"

Months after winning his second national championship at Kansas, Bill Self said he doesn't have a strong opinion about the future of the NCAA tournament yet. But he also added that he believes the current version of the NCAA tournament is a great product.

"They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it," Self said. "But, in all honesty, we need to always be looking to tweak and improve, but [the NCAA tournament] feels pretty good to me right now."

Last year, West Virginia's Bob Huggins said the Power 5 schools should consider branching off and creating their own tournament. On Wednesday, Huggins told ESPN that Division I schools should be having conversations about revenue, not expansion, related to the NCAA tournament.

Huggins said the NCAA, which recently signed an eight-year extension with CBS/Turner Sports worth $8.8 billion for the rights to the NCAA tournament through 2032, should not keep the majority of the revenue. The NCAA pays teams and leagues in the NCAA tournament field, according to their respective success, in win shares. Last year, each team in the NCAA tournament made nearly $337,000 -- a fee worth nearly $2 million total because it's paid to the team's conference each year over a six-year period -- for every win.

"I think we should be more concerned with the money distribution," Huggins told ESPN. "I think colleges should get their fair share. I think, at the very least, the teams that make the tournament [should make the money]. And obviously, you scale it. But they deserve it. ... I don't think you remove the NCAA totally out of the equation, but I don't think they should keep all the money."

Drew said he understands the opportunity afforded to teams that earn a spot in the NCAA tournament field each year. He was an assistant at Valparaiso on his father Homer Drew's staff when his brother, Bryce Drew, hit the buzzer-beater to beat Ole Miss in the opening round of the 1998 NCAA tournament. Then, 23 years later, Drew led Baylor to its first national championship.

"Players, they work all their life to be a part of the NCAA tournament," Drew said. "If you go to 128 [teams], you get about one-third who get to experience that. ... If more teams get a chance to make it, I think [there will be] great games."
 
Dumb. Completely devalues regular season. Bad enough baseball has added so many teams to its playoffs.
Yeah, bowl eligible...bad idea.

Every team ihas there chance for the NCAAs. All they need to do is to win their conference tourney.
 
What’s really dumb is that the idea was even floated and it probably will draw more support from the coaches and ad’s then we think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHUisNJsTeam
Dying to watch that special first round matchup between Kentucky and Utah Valley. Kenpom's preseason #1 and #128 teams.

Over/under 160 points with 100 of the points coming from the Wildcats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHUisNJsTeam
If it was to expand, I would like to see 2 automatic qualifiers from each conference.

Regular season champs
Tournament champs

If the same, then regular season runner up.

I’d rather see #2 from the NEC than #13 from the Big Ten.
 
Even though it would benefit us, 128 teams is just insane.
How the hell would it benefit us!? We should never be in a position where we can’t make it on our record and because we deserve it! If you aren’t one of the top 64 teams you shouldn’t be going! Reward hard work and a great season not participation trophies for losing records, college football has that covered and it’s pathetic!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbraue
He compares it with the college football bowl season, but he is being intellectually dishonest, as the college bowl season has become diluted in quality because of all mediocre to downright poor programs who get to participate now. Yeah, it's more $$$, but it creates a disproportional amount of garbage football. That's exactly what would happen to the NCAA Tournament if there is an expansion of that size.

"Every team will have to win seven games". Bull, Drew. It's not about fairness. Don't hide behind that pile. Just be honest, it's all about the money. We'd like you more if you were at least honest.
 
Just be honest, it's all about the money. We'd like you more if you were at least honest.
I think it's more about college basketball coaches not wanting to be held accountable and possibly losing their jobs if they don't make the NCAA's. Collectively, college basketball coaches are the biggest whiners and bull crap artists.

So refreshing to hear and read Shaheen's quotes. Don't ever change!!!!
 
Thats alot of .500 and sub .500 teams in the tournament. If u are sub .500 u just arent good
The easiest criteria to put in is that every team -- other than an automatic qualifier -- has to have at least a .500 record. That criteria already exists and there's no reason to change it. Just like in football six wins (out of 12 games) is the minimum for making a bowl.

If it was to expand, I would like to see 2 automatic qualifiers from each conference.

Regular season champs
Tournament champs

If the same, then regular season runner up.

I’d rather see #2 from the NEC than #13 from the Big Ten.
I'm not crazy about Scott Drew's proposal but I've heard worse thoughts. If, for the sake of discussion, we're going to expand to 128, then they should implement Sami's idea as well.

Two teams from every conference makes 64 teams and that leaves 64 at-large bids.

BTW, keep in mind this would likely eliminate the NIT and, if common sense prevails, the CIT and the Basketball Classic. Last year, those four post-season tournaments combined to have 180 teams participate. While nobody cares about those latter two and most barely care about the NIT, let's not pretend this world Scott Drew is proposing doesn't already exist.
 
I think it's more about college basketball coaches not wanting to be held accountable and possibly losing their jobs if they don't make the NCAA's. Collectively, college basketball coaches are the biggest whiners and bull crap artists.

So refreshing to hear and read Shaheen's quotes. Don't ever change!!!!

This is a good point but I still feel the primary reason is money. More games = more money. That said, coaches are judged on NCAA appearances and success in the tournament. More appearances = less job pressure.
 
every team wants to show they can make a run every once in a while. its never been about just making it (cough kw cough).

coaches get canned for not making it to the 2nd weekend. failing to make it at all is a part of that.
 
My Dad used to advocate this, only adds just 1 week in addition to some play in games.
 
Absolutely no. I even think they should go back to 64 teams, and just one play in game. The amount of play ins are kind of insulting to those who made it in and deserve a solid seed.

As an Army Brat, I only follow Army football and find the football finals not cool because only teams in a big conference can make it. So all there is for us is Air Force and Navy, the rest is just filler.
 
There are 41 Bowl games not counting the Nation Championship game with both teams playing their second game. That's 82 teams out of 131 FBS teams making a bowl. 62% make a bowl. This would like 225 teams making the tournament in hoops. There's nothing worth watching before New Year's day in football. You have bad sub .500 teams playing in a bowl game. Typically pissing away so much money to showcase how much they suck.
 
There are 41 Bowl games not counting the Nation Championship game with both teams playing their second game. That's 82 teams out of 131 FBS teams making a bowl. 62% make a bowl. This would like 225 teams making the tournament in hoops. There's nothing worth watching before New Year's day in football. You have bad sub .500 teams playing in a bowl game. Typically pissing away so much money to showcase how much they suck.
The number of bowl games needs to be drastically cut. It’s embarrassing and a total waste of money!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bluebeard
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT