Proposal to Fix the Tournament

[VUGrad1314]

I think this would be a great way to give the mids a fair shake. There are always 4-8 mids on the bubble each year but they are far more likely to be left out than the 7th or 8th or more team from one of the privileged conferences. Fans always gripe and debate as to whether they would have been better than them on a neutral floor. I think we should have a way to settle it: I propose a mini tournament before the tournament, basically taking the first four and expanding it. Here's how it works: We open up the Last 4 Byes\Last 4 in etc. by opening up the final 8 spots of the tournament. 16 bubble teams gather at a neutral site. They are paired off so that eight games are played. The math is simple: You win, you get in. You lose, you're out and off to the NIT as one of the top 2 seeds (so you still get to host at least two NIT games). Imagine past mid major bubble teams (or in 2018 Loyola's case would be bubble teams like Murray State Belmont UNCG Furman UNI Loyola Illinois St et al. playing the likes of Rutgers Indiana Oklahoma Syracuse etc. in a one off for a shot at the dance? It would be incredible TV and would settle every argument and gripe mid major fans might have. Because they can at least say they had a fair shot to get in and a spot in the at large pool was legitimately open to them. I think this would be an amazing thing for the tournament to do if we could get the NCAA to agree. I bet the networks would pick this up too and pay money just for the mini tournament as well. It's a total win win. How could more March Madness (and a legitimately fair shot for the little guy) be a bad thing?

[BEARZ77]

I've proposed an 80 team tourney numerous times, similar to what you're saying. In my tourney all conference champions get in along with tourney champions . The top 48 teams get a bye and the other 32 play just like the first 4 do now all on one day, 16 games though. You have room for both the lower level p-5 dregs that get in now plus the conference champions and a few other at large mm in this format. After the first day you add the 16 winners to the existing 48 , and you have your original 64 team tourney bracket. It takes no more time to play since you get down to 64 after just one day, just like the first 4. In mine though you set certain parameters so that any team [ which would be all p-5 teams or surprise tourney winners] below certain cutoff standards [ ie below .500 in conference, less than 20 wins etc] have to be in the playin games matched against low seeded mids and low majors.Lets see who's better. Right now one of the biggest disadvantages for low and mids is that even if they get in, they always start the tourney against a top 1-3 seed. This would give many of them a winnable game in that playin round. Lets see on a neutral court who's better the regular season champion of the OVC or the 9th place team from the BIG. Then they go play cannon fodder with a little momentum at least.

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

1. Expanding to an 80 or 96 team tournament would be better than the proposal. 2. According to the NCAA you cant fix what isn't broken. They have to see it as broken to have motivation to change it and they don't.

[BEARZ77]

1. Expanding to an 80 or 96 team tournament would be better than the proposal. 2. According to the NCAA you cant fix what isn't broken. They have to see it as broken to have motivation to change it and they don't.

Yeah it's fun to conjecture and there are certainly options they could consider, but the only way they will expand is if enough p-5 team start complaining about not getting in, so any expansion isn't likely to help mids and low majors. The only recourse for mid/low is schedule as tough as you can but know in most cases it's your conference tourney that's the ticket. In some ways you have to have the mind set that the NCAA tourney starts with your conference tourney and you play till you lose.

[tribecalledquest]

1. Expanding to an 80 or 96 team tournament would be better than the proposal. 2. According to the NCAA you cant fix what isn't broken. They have to see it as broken to have motivation to change it and they don't.

Yeah it's fun to conjecture and there are certainly options they could consider, but the only way they will expand is if enough p-5 team start complaining about not getting in, so any expansion isn't likely to help mids and low majors. The only recourse for mid/low is schedule as tough as you can but know in most cases it's your conference tourney that's the ticket. In some ways you have to have the mind set that the NCAA tourney starts with your conference tourney and you play till you lose.

Right.

[musiccitybulldog]

The best fix is to have a really good team. Beat everyone no matter what schedule and your team will be noticed. Can't loose to any lower conference teams and better almost run the table. Take care of business at St. Louis and the problems solved.

[Drakey]

The best fix is to have a really good team. Beat everyone no matter what schedule and your team will be noticed. Can't loose to any lower conference teams and better almost run the table. Take care of business at St. Louis and the problems solved.

I guess that works if you can put together the best team in the country. That shouldn't be too hard. Why should you have to do that if you are a Valley member and not a Big Ten member. They certainly don't have to win every game or even half of their conference games.

[TheDrake]

The best fix is to have a really good team. Beat everyone no matter what schedule and your team will be noticed. Can't loose to any lower conference teams and better almost run the table. Take care of business at St. Louis and the problems solved.

A good/great mid-major team having zero room for error over the course of an entire season isn't really a solution. Loyola was good enough to make it to the final four and they would have been left out if they hadn't won Arch Madness.