Better NCAA Tournament

[Ricardo del Rio]

Short answer. Those in power are happy with the current status.

[purple&orange]

The NCAA Tournament is a must see event because of the drama and the inclusion of every single league. Sadly football has driven the insanity of the super conferences, which in turn has taken some of the best elements from college basketball, including a round-robin schedule, a shorter conference slate to allow for interesting matchups in the non-conference, as well as a system where the bottom of a successful P5 league such as the Big Ten is still considered quality so a loss to Rutgers, etc isn't seen as bad. In fact it's forgivable and forgotten because of all of the quality opportunities they automatically receive.

The tournament is in a good spot however if I were in charge I'd make a couple of changes.
- No 16 seeds in the First Four.....make the First Four play-in games for at large spots only. All the bubble is weak talk can be decided on the floor plus any team that wins their league tournament should be playing Thursday/Friday.
- Instead of a record qualifier such as .500 or better, cap the number of teams any conference can get into the tournament at a percentage. Mine would be 60%. This would account for unbalanced schedules in bigger leagues to be taken into effect and hopefully encourage schools from a larger league to play somebody out of the league.
- Put an emphasis on the +/- of the quadrant system. Going 4-12 in Q1 games we often hear about the 4 wins while ignoring the 12 losses. By seeing it as -8 (4-12) it should enforce that losing in fact does matter. Just getting chances and winning a couple shouldn't be enough.


I am not of the opinion that the tournament needs a major overhaul by expansion or by limiting D-I status and creating two tiers within Division I. When a historic upset like UMBC last year happens there is something magical about the fact they are only 5 wins away from a national title, just like the blue bloods are.

[TheAsianSensation]

The tournament is fine, outside of not giving all 4 play-in games to conference champs. This is a significant financial windfall for the winners of those games, and I'd rather the small conferences pocket that money instead of power conferences.

The .500 conference rule just won't work, it's not practical in today's age of unbalanced conference schedules. I'm not completely against a rule of minus 2 as I call it: No one worse than 7-9 or 8-10 or 9-11 in conference play can make the tourney. Once you get 4 games under .500, you're probably too far gone. At 2 games under, not quite ready to throw those teams away yet.

They need to publicize NET. But then again, it just moved both Buffalo and Wofford into the Top 15, so I have no idea what to do there.

[RacerJoeD]

If a conference adds for football and it screws up their basketball, that’s their own fault. .500 or bust in conference.

[TheAsianSensation]

I always call to attention the law of unintended consequences.

Ok, institute the .500 rule. That kicks out Oklahoma, TCU, Minnesota, and Ohio St.

Great! So we have room for Furman, UNC Greensboro, Murray St, and Liberty, right?

Nope. They'll put in Oregon St, Memphis, UCLA, and South Carolina instead.

Once you set firm qualification guidelines, the committee will search to take ALL qualified teams from power conferences before quality mid-major teams. See the college football bowl selection process, where bowls fight like hell to get the rights to select a 6-6 P5 school instead of a 9-3 G5 school.

[RacerJoeD]

I don’t disagree. But the argument gets more tenuous the further they go. It also gets less logical, and more inherently wrong. The NCAA rarely changes, but when they do it’s because of media outcry.

[MOST]

An added comment if I may. Any increase in the number of slots (ie. to 80, to 96, to ??) will be eaten up by the P6+ 2 conferences/teams. Look at the increase of the 64 team format to 68 teams. Those 4 added slots are play in games for teams from the P6 +2 conference who missed the the 64 selection. Increasing the number of slots has not helped or increased the number of bids for the mid majors and below. The current NCAA tournament in any form of additional slots and qualifiers will not solve its problems. It will remain a closed monopoly for the biggies.

[MOST]

Note: Hot Nuts. You do not have read this!

Several very good comments. I want to pick a few for further discussion. But, I Don't want to PO anyone. Up front, Yes--I have been banned several times on the Bear Nation Board (SMS65, Bear65, Travis, ???). Age 78, opinionated, 70 year BEAR fan of the 50s, 60s and 70s. If it was not for those years the BEARs would not have a BB history. Can say about the same for many current MVC teams.

HOT NUTZ. Probably a BEAR Nation member. Reading and understanding a two sentence or more comment puts him into brain freeze-or brain farts.

BEARZ77. Good comment but continues to focus on one big do everything tourney. Overloads the tourney with poor quality/low ranked conferences/teams. Expansion to 80 slots does nothing: the additional 12 slots will mostly be gobbled up by teams in the P6+2 conferences. Does nothing for the MMs. Insignificant multiple bid increases to top MM conferences (#9 through #12--15 RPI ranked confs). Auto bids to all regular season conference champs (32) plus auto ?? bids to conf tourney champs who were not regular seasoon champs. Say 36 to 38 auto bids in the top 48 seeds. Loud bitching by the biggie conf number 2s, 3s, 4s, who were not in the top seeded 48. Disjointed. First round play in games excessively regionalized. No cross country assignments, numerous possible play in games between conf members. Confusing travel, how do fans plan and purchase their tourney tickets. Sorry, but I just do not see the value in BEAR77's tourney scheme.

Tom Servo. A very cogent/critical/essential comment: "I would be in favor of capping the amount of bids from one particular conference." I agree!

BCPanther comment. Shrink D1: ACC--Big East--Big Ten--Big 12--Pac 12--SEC--American--A10--MAC--MVC--CUSA--Sun Belt--Mountain West--WCC. 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 (hell, I can barely spell 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. I don't like the FBS requirement. I do like that he has broken up the D!. Not sure his bottom 6 belong in his top 16---a very big spread, supposedly only because the bottom 6 are mostly FBS. A 96 team tournament. Everybody, almost, invited. Probably not a touney by definition. Why confuse D2 by sending 18 D1 conf teams (o/a 200 teams) to D2. That's to much reorganization! Why not just a D! and D1A?

most added comment. To many hangups on the "big upsets". Yes Wichita State, Bucknell, Loyola, Mercer, UMBC was fun to watch. But those were extraordinary events. Do not get caught up in thinking it will be a common occurrence.

NUFF said for now.

[BearsCountry]

Lets take the idea of the poster who thinks the Bears should go back to the MIAA and only recruit Kansas City.

[Kyle@MOState]

Lets take the idea of the poster who thinks the Bears should go back to the MIAA and only recruit Kansas City.

Ha ha ha! That was a great one. I believe he was using Clayton Custer for that argument last year. I haven't seen him bring it up again this year... I will give him one thing. I work for a septuagenarian, and he can type better than most of them.