What Would a 112-Team Tournament Actually Look Like?

So on ESPN Radio's show Greeny!, producer and co-host Paul Hembekides ... aka "Hembo" ... wanted to expand the NCAA Tournament to 112 teams. His plan was to have the top 16 teams get a first round bye with the other 96 teams beginning the tournament on Tuesday and Wednesday ... basically having a massive expansion of the First Four days. 

That would mean there would be 24 games each held on Tuesday and Wednesday, and you would have to presume those games would be held at the sites already being used for the rest of the weekend (what is considered the Round of 64 and Round of 32). I assume that just because having a massive travel day to ship 48 schools all around the country to sites would be a logistical nightmare. This isn't the same as flying four teams from Dayton to their new destination. 

I'm not a fan of tournament expansion ... and certainly not at that level. I can hear a proposal of eight more teams for a 76 team tournament where all 16 seeds battle in what is now known as the First Four and those "last four in" turns into a "last eight in" with four games with bubble teams battling it out. That gives a full day for Tuesday and Wednesday for games in Dayton (with those 16-seeds playing during the afternoon, if possible) and just a small amount more teams needing to travel. But really nothing more than that ... and I'm not really into it.

But to humor what Hembo put out there, let's go ahead and map out what a 112 team tournament would actually look like. And I will use Joe Lunardi's most recent Bracketology (February 27th) for the 68 teams he has in and his "First Four Out" and "Next Four Out" to get to 76 teams (ya know, my expansion). From there, I will add the next 36 teams ranked in the NET to fill out the brackets.  So here we go:

MIDWEST
1-Purdue
2-Marquette
3-Alabama
4-Baylor
5-Dayton vs 28-Norfolk State
6-Saint Mary's vs 27-Merrimack
7-Washington State vs 26-Morehead State
8-Oklahoma vs 25-High Point
9-New Mexico vs 24-UC Irvine
10-Northwestern vs 23-Indiana State
11-Wake Forest vs 22-Miami*
12-Colorado vs 21-UNLV*
13-Ole Miss vs 20-Memphis*
14-Pitt* vs 19-St. Bonaventure*
15-James Madison* vs 18-Washington*
16-Seton Hall* vs 17-Butler*

EAST
1-UConn
2-North Carolina
3-Iowa State
4-San Diego State
5-Texas Tech vs 28-Eastern Kentucky
6-Kentucky vs 27-Colgate
7-South Carolina vs 26-Oakland
8-FAU vs 25-Yale
9-TCU vs 24-Samford
10-Nevada vs 23-Grand Canyon
11-Butler vs 22-George Mason*
12-Villanova vs 21-Louisiana Tech*
13-Utah vs 20-Minnesota*
14-St. John's* vs 19-Richmond*
15-McNeese vs 18-UCF*
16-Iowa* vs 17-Oregon*

SOUTH
1-Houston
2-Tennessee
3-Duke
4-Illinois
5-Clemson vs 28-Sam Houston
6-Colorado State vs 27-Quinnipiac
7-Michigan State vs 26-Vermont
8-Utah State vs 25-Akron
9-Mississippi State vs 24-Florida State*
10-Virginia vs 23-LSU*
11-South Florida vs 22-Boston College*
12-Providence vs 21-Syracuse*
13-Texas A&M vs 20-NC State*
14-SMU* vs 19-Kansas State*
15-Virginia Tech* vs 18-Maryland*
16-Texas A&M* vs 17-Xavier*

WEST
1-Arizona
2-Kansas
3-Creighton
4-Auburn
5-Wisconsin vs 28-Grambling State
6-BYU vs 27-South Dakota State
7-Florida vs 26-Eastern Washington
8-Texas vs 25-Charleston
9-Boise State vs 24-Appalachian State
10-Nebraska vs 23-Loyola (Ill)*
11-Seton Hall vs 22-UMass*
12-Gonzaga vs 21-North Texas*
13-Drake vs 20-VCU*
14-Cincinnati vs 19-Ole Miss*
15-Princeton* vs 18-Ohio State*
16-San Francisco* vs 17-Bradley*

While this isn't a perfectly seeded bracket, this is just to make a point. The final at-large team to get in was Florida State, who is 14-13 on the season.  Yes, 14-13. For some reason we feel that a 14-13 team in the ACC deserves to have a chance to play in a tournament that crowns the sport's national champion. And if you look at these additions, do any of them really move the needle? Sure, put NCAA tournament games on at any time and people will watch ... but will they care? Will they really? I mean, people complain about all those bowl games but they want Pitt-St. Bonaventure? 

So that's how the teams look ... but let's look at the logistics. Keeping the current pod format, you would have to have six games in each site on Tuesday and Wednesday.  Again, that's impossible. You can schedule four games at these arenas, but not six. To keep this moving, let's just say there's an overflow arena near each site to have these games. 

A place like Indianapolis could have two venues host games. The other seven pod sites really can't. There would need to be somewhere close for the overflow. Charlotte could have ... Raleigh? Winston-Salem? Greenville, SC? Memphis could have Nashville? Salt Lake City has ... Boise? This would be something to consider. Like I said earlier, if your answer is to have another set of sites hosting the Tuesday and Wednesday games then the NCAA has quite a logistical feat to navigate through. That is 48 games to play in a two day time frame that also needs to seamlessly plug back into the main bracket.

How do I mean this?  Well using the projected field, Houston (No. 1 seed in the South region) and Alabama (No. 3 seed in the Midwest region) will used Memphis, Tennessee as their pod site. That means that the winners of these games: Texas A&M-Xavier, Utah State-Akron and Mississippi State-Florida State will be in Memphis for the Round of 64 alongside Houston, while the winners of Pitt-St. Bonaventure, Saint Mary's-Merrimack and Wake Forest-Miami would also be in Memphis to join Alabama. Those games would be played on Friday, meaning the six games feeding into that would be played on Wednesday.

Where would they be played?

If Memphis, then how do you play six games in one day at one site? You can't. So what's the plan? Will the NCAA add another round of sites and ask 48 teams to travel twice in one week with all of that happening in a day between games? Imagine Saint Mary's-Merrimack being played at noon on Wednesday (by the way, these two schools are on opposite ends of the country) then have to get to a new site (Memphis, in this case) in one day. So play a game, travel, play another game. When are they supposed to prepare for their next opponent? And in Saint Mary's-Merrimack's case they'd be playing the winner of Wake Forest-Miami ... so they won't know their next opponent until hours later. 

There are solutions. Playing these first round games on campuses isn't one of them (again, imagine Merrimack having to travel to Saint Mary's). Maybe the NCAA has sub sites near the pod sites to feed into the main pod site. So for Memphis, maybe Nashville and Birmingham are their sub-sites. So the South Region Memphis teams can play in Birmingham while the Midwest Region Memphis teams play in Nashville ... all on Wednesday. Honestly, you really only need one sub-site since Memphis could be also used. So let's just match each region with a partner for two of the six games. Some of the sites could use another local arena ... albeit smaller to accommodate the games. 

Charlotte, for example, could play games at the Spectrum Center as planned with two games at UNC-Charlotte's Halton Arena. Pittsburgh can use PPG Paints Arena as planned with two games at the University of Pittsburgh's arena. If that's not an option, there are nearby cities that are appropriate. 

The only other option would to have Dayton-style formats of a group of cities being used to house two days of tournament action. Indianapolis, of course, would be a great place to have that. With several options to house games, Indiana's capital could be a great option to have 24 of those 48 games over two days. So Lucas Oil Stadium, Gainbridge Fieldhouse and Hinkle Fieldhouse could each have four games on Tuesday and four more on Wednesday. A place like Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Miami, etc could also make that happen.

Either way, this is a lot and a lot to put these players through in a week. And for games nobody wants.

The "We Should've Won That Super Bowl" Teams

Every team that loses a Super Bowl feels they left something on the field. They feel they had the better team but just made a few wrong plays that led to their demise. While that may be true for several of the teams, most were just beaten by a better team on that day. It's sports. It happens.

But these seven teams truly should feel that they should have a Vince Lombardi trophy at their headquarters had it not been for them getting in their own way.  Seven teams who I honestly feel stole defeat from the jaws of victory. Teams who really did waste a golden opportunity to win a Super Bowl championship.

Here are those seven: 


7 - 1970 DALLAS COWBOYS

In what has since become known as the Blunder Bowl, miscues cost the Dallas Cowboys their first Super Bowl championship. Dallas held the lead for most of the Super Bowl with the Baltimore Colts' only lead coming with five second left in the game, giving them the 16-13 victory. The Colts turned the ball over seven times in the game, yet the Cowboys couldn't figure out a way to win. Cowboys quarterback Craig Morton threw three interceptions in the fourth quarter alone, with one leading to the Colts game-tying touchdown and another leading to the game-winning field goal. 

6 - 2007 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS

The Patriots were thiiiiiiiiiiiiis close to becoming the first 19-0 team. While known for blowing that opportunity, the Pats really had their chances to reach that goal. It wasn't like the New York Giants' offense was good, and the Patriots finally broke through with a Tom Brady TD pass to Randy Moss with 2:42 remaining. While the Giants' game winning drive is forever known from David Tyree's amazing catch (and Eli Manning somehow escaping a sack) and Plaxico Burress' touchdown, it should also be known for New England's inability to get the defense off the field. They failed to stop Brandon Jacobs on a 4th and 1; Asante Samuel missed a sure interception; Rodney Harrison was unable to knock away Tyree's catch; and the Patriots allowed Steve Smith to pick up a key 3rd-and-11. 

5 - 2023 SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS

This is a bit more about circumstances. Just the second overtime game in Super Bowl history, the 49ers actually had a lead in overtime (22-19) before the Kansas City Chiefs took the next drive the length of the field and beat them. The Niners also had a 19-16 lead with under two minutes remaining in regulation before the Chiefs drove down and kicked a tying field goal. There were also some mismanagement by the Niners during the game, with the team electing to take the ball first in overtime possibly being the most egregious. 

4 - 2008 ARIZONA CARDINALS

One of the greatest Super Bowls ever is defined by two plays that doomed the Cardinals. The first happened at the end of the first half as Arizona was primed to score a touchdown to give the Cards a 14-10 lead heading into the break. Of course Kurt Warner's pass was intercepted by James Harrison who made, to me, the greatest play in Super Bowl history (David Tyree's play was great, but had some luck to it -- Harrison's play was just insane). So the Steelers took a 20-7 lead into halftime instead. Despite this, Arizona took a 23-20 lead with 2:37 left in the game on a Larry Fitzgerald 64-yard TD catch and run. As we all know, Ben Roethlisberger threw an absolutely perfect pass to Santonio Holmes, who made one of the greatest grabs in Super Bowl history, to give the Steelers a 27-23 lead with :35 remaining.

3 - 2014 SEATTLE SEAHAWKS

Give Lynch the ball. I know there's been discussions over the years about that play call and if running Lynch for that final yard was as simple as it seems ... but give Lynch the ball. It was second down -- give him the ball. Okay, if you don't want to run the ball ... don't throw an interception at that moment. Either way, the Seahawks blew a great chance at winning their second straight Super Bowl. Even after Malcolm Butler intercepted Russell Wilson's pass, the Seahawks screwed up by jumping offsides as the Patriots were snapping the ball from their own 1-yard line. The penalty moved the ball to the six and Tom Brady was able to kneel down for the win. 

2 - 2016 ATLANTA FALCONS

You had a 28-3 lead. 

It isn't just Atlanta had a 28-3 lead -- they had that lead with 8:00 left in the third quarter. They allowed 31 consecutive points to the New England Patriots. They gave up two must-have two-point conversions to the Patriots. And they let the Pats drive down in overtime and score a touchdown to end the game. The Patriots never had a lead during regulation. The events of Super Bowl LI will never not be ridiculous. 

1 - 1990 BUFFALO BILLS

There is no team on this list that deserves this spot more than the 1990 Buffalo Bills. Why? Because they are the only team in Super Bowl history to miss a game winning field goal in the final seconds and the only time the Super Bowl was decided by a single point. If Scott Norwood's 47-yard kick is true, the Buffalo Bills would have had a 22-20 lead with just four seconds remaining. 

Just Stop Court Storming

I've always felt that court storming was weird. And that field storming was even weirder. I don't understand why either still exists in college athletics.

The professional ranks got rid of it. If you go back 40 years or so, you can find rare times when fans would rush the court in an NBA game, or ran onto a field in baseball or football. But we've all come together as a sports society and realized that that's inappropriate and unsafe. Yet it still exists in college athletics because the relationship between fans and athletes and their "teams" are a bit different.

See, the student section of the fans are the peers of the athletes on the field. You go to school with those guys. You have classes with them and may see them on campus. While their status is certainly different, you have a bond unlike most fan-player relationships. So when an extraordinary win happens on your floor, you want to celebrate with your fellow students. 

Let's just keep it off the floor.

It can be done. No one rushes the floor during the NCAA tournament, right? Not anymore. We don't have court storming when you solidify a trip to the Final Four or once you win the national championship. Michigan fans didn't get to storm the court after beating Washington for the College Football Playoff title. Don't tell me that "well, that's not on a home court" because there's plenty of people there who would love to celebrate that level of win, no matter where it is. 

Some conferences have fines for storming the field or court. Some ... like the ACC ... don't. 

Maybe you think I'm just some older guy that has grown out of touch from the excitement of the moment. Sure. Being older also means I remember a time when we didn't have to worry about some of the security issues that we have now. When I was in college, it was pre-9/11. Hell, it was pre-internet, really. There wasn't the connection regular folk had to famous folk like there is now. A player couldn't chit-chat with their fans on X or Instagram or whatever back then. And the vitriol of fans to opposing players is at a high level. I grew up with Morgana The Kissing Bandit running on the field and smooching players. That's all gone in the world we live in now. 

So it is weird that court/field storming still exists. It's weird that's it is still allowed.

And this old guy has always felt like this. I used to have a soft spot in my heart and felt that, yeah, these are kids and this is their school and no matter how much tradition and status a school has that this is their moment in time and who are we to stop this completely. Well, with fans body-checking players and player safety seemingly on edge (that doesn't even mention the safety of anyone who is on the court), this is probably the best time to reevaluate this.

Again, I'd love it if they just ended it completely. Anyone who isn't supposed to be on the court should be punished for doing so. If I went to an NBA game and got on the court, I would be soundly removed. We all seem to be able to follow that line of thinking in professional games so it can be done at the collegiate level. Some places have a sort of designated place on campus, outside the arena/stadium or wherever for students and fans to celebrate together. When North Carolina beats Duke, they rush Franklin Street in Chapel Hill to celebrate. Several NBA teams have a certain area outside the arena for fan gatherings (think the Toronto Raptors' "Jurassic Park", for example). Get out of the area of play and have fun there. Sure, there are new challenges to deal with there, but it sets up a sort of reverse tail-gaiting situation and not an influx of people in an area that wasn't designed for them to be there. 

And if my soft spot still lives, then let's at least do this about court/field storming: let's wait before doing it. 

As I said, we are able as a society to understand rules and norms. So why not just make it where you allow court storming once the game is over, players (especially opposing ones) and officials or whatever are off the court before you allow fans to get on the court. This seems to be a reasonable compromise for everyone. 

Obviously the incident between Duke at Wake Forest is the catalyst for this discussion today. First off, why are Wake's students rushing the court to begin with? I mean, this is the second straight time the Demon Deacons have beaten Duke at home. And this is a matchup between the "Big Four" schools -- the four North Carolina schools in the ACC. No one should rush the court after beating one of the others. It's tacky. 

Having said that, what if the game ended and security, the arena and the university made clear that fans could rush the court once they were given the okay to do so. That okay comes after the handshakes are made and the opposing team and officials are off the court and heading back to their locker rooms. Can't that be something we can accomplish? Fans wait to get inside the arena for the game. Fans spend the entire game not running on the court. Fans don't mingle on the court during halftime. We can do this! Make an announcement that no fans are allowed on the court until after the opposing team and officials are removed from the court and have the event staff make sure that's the case. If the fans don't follow these directions, then the school (or league) can then ban that arena from allowing court storming any further.

Or just dump it all together. 

Why Do People Think The New Playoff Format Forces Notre Dame To a Conference???

So the new College Football Playoff format has been agreed on (for now). It is now a 12 team event with the top five conference champions getting a berth with the remaining seven berths coming from the CFP rankings -- aka "at large" bids. The top four conference champions will receive byes in the first round of the playoff. 

So eyes looked at Notre Dame, easily the most prominent Independent school, and speculation began about how they are getting screwed. Why? Why do you think that?

First off, Notre Dame knew exactly what they were getting into with this deal. In fact, the format that has ultimately been agreed on is even better than the one Notre Dame signed off on less than a year ago. Before the Pac-12 imploded, the CFP was planning to be a 6+6 format where six conference champions get automatic bids and there were only six at-large slots. Notre Dame was fine with that, so why do you think they'd be upset that now there's an extra slot that the Irish could earn?

So you understand what Notre Dame has agreed to: Notre Dame is not in a conference, so Notre Dame has no way to get into the College Football Playoff aside from earning one of the top seven at-large bids. Notre Dame also has no access to a first round bye since those are for conference champions ... which Notre Dame can't be. 

Sure, on the surface that seems like Notre Dame is at a disadvantage ... and they are. But this is a disadvantage they are fully prepared for and one they are willing to deal with as a price for their freedom of not being bound to a conference. This is what they want. They get better access than they have over the last decade and what they initially agreed to less than a year ago. 

This will not force Notre Dame to the ACC. Or the Big Ten. Or any conference. In fact, it likely strengthens their ability to stay an Independent. Their main goals to stay an Independent is access to a national championship (which I've already explained is there ... and has gotten better), ability to schedule (their deal with the ACC accomplishes that) and a lucrative television contract (which they've signed with NBC). 

Notre Dame won't be joining a conference for football. Not anytime soon and not unless football actually breaks off from the NCAA and forms its own league.