Better NCAA Tournament

by **MOST** » March 4th, 2019, 1:28 pm

It's that time again when fans, especially fans of the better mid major teams (i.e. the MVC), start cussing, discussing, gnashing of the teeth, and the "coulda should'as" on the selection to the upcoming NCAA tournament.

The NCAA is no longer the "national tournament". Thirty two D1 conferences, 353 teams. Selection is totally dominated by six conferences, scraps to two maybe three other conferences, sniffs to the other 24 conferences.

The NCAA tournament and P6 conferences are a monopoly. Unless there are major tournament structural changes it is not going to get better. Mid majors will continue to take it the shorts.

A 68 team tournament? GREAT! Automatic bids to 32 conference tournament champs--BAD! T
he tournament quality KILLER! The bottom 22 ranked conferences (about 245 teams) are gobbling 22 tournament bids, 46 bids are gobbled by the P6 +2 conferences (o/a 110 teams). Hard numbers: 31 percent of the teams (110 (P6 +2) are getting 68% of the bids. The other 69 percent of the teams (240+ teams in the 22 bottom conferences) are getting 32 percent of the bids. Is this right or wrong? Don't know? How about you?

Major question: do the bottom 22 conference tournament champs deserve an automatic bid? Do the champs from the number 31 and 32 conferences deserve the same bid considerations as the better mid major teams from the number 9 to 12 ranked conferences. Actually, do teams in the 9 to 12 ranked conferences deserve the same consideration as the lower teams in the P6 +2 conferences? Do the top 1 or 2 team(s) in the number 9 to 12 ranked conferences deserve the same consideration as the number 5, 6, 7, 8 teams in the P6 +2 conferences. Maybe, but certainly not in all cases. For example: should the number 2 MVC team (the #14 ranked conference) deserve consideration/comparison to the number 6, 7, 8 team in the B10, B12, ACC? Don't know. Beyond me.

I have my opinions on the NCAA process: the need for structural changes. Probably totally irrational to many, especially those who say the possibility of seeing major upsets by low ranked/seeded teams is what the tournament is all about. Horse pucky!　

Jaw flapping on this board on how to improve the MVC: better scheduling, more pay for coaches, incentives for better fan attendance, etc. More horse pucky.

We have two levels of D1 football: FBS and FCS. Why do we have only one level of D1 BB? Why a 68 team tournament. Why not two 48 team tournaments? For lack of better names why not D1 and D1A basketball. Why not selection strictly on objective numbers: wins and losses (at least 20 wins) and RPI or NET (top 100) in each 48 team tournament.

OH man!! I can see the comments now. Who is this nut? Crazy! Will destroy college basketball! Quick, moderator ban this dude!

I still want to see member comments on "bettering the NCAA tournament".

**Sponsor**

by **mvfcfan** » March 4th, 2019, 1:59 pm

There's three changes that I would start out with that should be common sense and agreeable.

1) Any school with 25 or more Division 1 wins gets an automatic bid no matter what.
2) Any school that does not have at least 20 D1 wins cannot be considered for an at-large bid.
3) Any school that does not have a winning conference record cannot be considered for an at-large bid.

Notes:
a) Rules 2 and 3 go out the window if they win their conference tournament.
b) If there are not enough 20 D1 win teams then they can choose from 19 win teams, but rule 3 still applies, and all 20 D1 win teams must be taken ahead of 19 win teams.
c) Conference tournament games do not count for or against your conference record. Non conference games against conference opponents also do not count for or against your conference record.

by **hot nuts** » March 4th, 2019, 1:59 pm

Gotta say, once I saw how long this post is I just skipped to the bottom...can we ban this dude?

by **BEARZ77** » March 4th, 2019, 2:23 pm

hot nuts wrote:Gotta say, once I saw how long this post is I just skipped to the bottom...can we ban this dude?

Yeah he's gone by a number of names in the past and been banned on the Bear Nation board a few times. He is what he is.

But , simple answer to his question:
*80 team tourney, with 48 seeded teams , 32 teams playing a playin game to get to traditional 64 team bracket
*Adds no additional time as the 16 first round games are the same as the 4 play-in now
* Auto bids to all conference champs and conference tourney champs
*No conference champ could be in the 32 team playin round
* No team under .500 in their conference allowed a bid
* All expenses paid for participating schools, but additional generated revenue distributed equally among all D-1 programs. [ Rationale here is that there is no mechanism for attempting to keep a level field as there is in pro sports via a draft and other revenue sharing. Everything about college basketball is the rich get richer; at least the $$ in the tourney could be shared.]

by **Adunk33** » March 4th, 2019, 3:18 pm

I've been a proponent of allowing two autobids per conference. One for the regular season champion and one for the tournament champion. If those team's are the same, then hat spot becomes an "at large.'

The way the tournament is currently set up, I don't think any tournament champions should ever been lower than 12 seed or have to play in. What the ONLY way to get an auto bid to the tournament? Win your conference tournament. The way it is now, the lower conference teams are punished by having to play a 1 seed or play in to the 1 seed. I say all 16 seeds should be the "last 4 in."

by **BEARZ77** » March 4th, 2019, 3:28 pm

Adunk33 wrote:I've been a proponent of allowing two autobids per conference. One for the regular season champion and one for the tournament champion. If those team's are the same, then hat spot becomes an "at large.'

The way the tournament is currently set up, I don't think any tournament champions should ever been lower than 12 seed or have to play in. What the ONLY way to get an auto bid to the tournament? Win your conference tournament. The way it is now, the lower conference teams are punished by having to play a 1 seed or play in to the 1 seed. I say all 16 seeds should be the "last 4 in."

Similar to what I have above. By going to 80 teams, you can accommodate both the regular and tourney winners w/o giving up too many at large bids and you don't have to add additional days as you just increase the number of play-in games. That satisfies two issues, the mids/lows get their best teams in even if they lose in the conference tourney, and the at large can be dominated by the also rans from the majors, but they have to play their way up the ladder.

by **Tom Servo** » March 4th, 2019, 3:36 pm

I think there is one rule that fix a lot of the problem we are seeing (mega conferences, etc). That rule is this:
If you are under .500 in your conference you are automatically disqualified from any postseason tourney (that includes the NIT). I'm sick of the whiners in the big conferences complaining about how tough it is to win in their league. Bottom line is, if you can't recruit to win in it, you shouldn't be in it in the first place.

I would also be in favor of capping the amount of bids from one particular conference.

*walks back to the corner*

by **Tom Servo** » March 4th, 2019, 3:38 pm

Adunk33 wrote:I've been a proponent of allowing two autobids per conference. One for the regular season champion and one for the tournament champion. If those team's are the same, then hat spot becomes an "at large.'

The way the tournament is currently set up, I don't think any tournament champions should ever been lower than 12 seed or have to play in. What the ONLY way to get an auto bid to the tournament? Win your conference tournament. The way it is now, the lower conference teams are punished by having to play a 1 seed or play in to the 1 seed. I say all 16 seeds should be the "last 4 in."

I like this too, there needs to be more emphasis on regular season performance, especially within your conference. I think that rule change would also increase attendance around the country, especially in conferences like the MVC.

by **BCPanther** » March 4th, 2019, 4:12 pm

Shrink Division 1 down:

ACC
Big East
Big Ten
Big 12
Pac 12
SEC
American
A10
MAC
Missouri Valley
CUSA
Sun Belt
Mountain West
WCC

That's it. Basically all FBS leagues plus leagues that spend basically $3M per school. 168 Teams. 96 Team Tournament, no auto bids, no committee, all done with NET, geography and strict S Curve. No conference games in first round, fair game after that.

Remaining 72 to the NIT. Everybody gets post season regardless of record.

Remaining 18 leagues become new Division 2 with regional tournaments that lead into an Elite 8 at a neutral site.

by **redrocks** » March 4th, 2019, 6:17 pm

I wish billy packer would drop dead. Again.