2013-2014 Bracketology thread

[KC MVC FAN]

The point is the NCAA first round is a joke. The NIT first round is probably more competitive.

The point is to not expand the NCAA but to make it more competitive. HOW? Cut the number of automatic bids and add the slots back as at-large bids.

The point is there were several quality teams snubbed, the six or eight I listed, maybe including Indiana State, who should be in the tournament vice the eight to twelve 12 teams from the lower ranked conferences. If a team from a lower ranked conference can earn an at-large bid, great, so be it . May even want to chop conference tournament champs from the lowest ranked 16 conferences and add back as at-large bids. NCAA D1 BB is not in the "feel good" business; Money, Money. Just don't get caught in the bottom 8, 12 or 16 conferences.

Not a difficult concept to understand. Don't understand why it has not been pushed by the big school conferences.

[KC MVC FAN]

Not sure I understand your latest! Georgetown 17 and 14 and ranked #60/61. Doubt if many of the teams from lower ranked conferences played anything nearly as competitive as the Georgetown, Big East schedule. Hard to claim GT played a soft schedule---yes they lost some, but yes the beat some. That's what happens in the power conferences.

[PantherSigEp]

Georgetown had a couple decent wins (VCU Creighton and Kansas St, also Michigan St but that was when the Spartans were hurting and depleted) but they got crushed by a number of teams. Their resume overall is hardly that impressive. Plenty of teams have good wins, heck even UNI beat VCU but while wins may define your resume, losses will damn it.

Also your idea for reducing the tournament is asinine. Why deprive ourselves of more basketball? Especially when the only games that, annually aren't all that competive, are the 1 v. 16 matchups. Sure some teams get their clocks cleaned but overall we aren't seeing ridiculous blowouts left and right that lead us to believe that Florida Gulf Coast, Lehigh, Harvard and others shouldn't have the opportunity to compete and make a name for themselves. Plus it reduces $$ and exposure for the NCAA and the schools. Overall it's just a terrible idea.

[TheAsianSensation]

In theory, you want the best 64 (or 68 teams).

In practice, if you remove autobids, Division 1 as an entirety crumbles a bit at the base. You need those conferences to play for something, or you lose them. You lose them, the power shifts more to the big boys. Now, of course, we're getting away from tournament talk and into economic talk, but that's why you can't touch those autobids.

One thought I've always had was to expand to 72 and have 8 play-in games for the bottom 16 autobids. It would be quite unfair for many of the teams, but it would vastly improve the chances of a 1 seed getting upset earlier, and would account for mid-majors getting at-large bids since that well is drying up because of conference realignment. But even that is stretching it to me.

[TheAsianSensation]

I agree with most of this. Remember SMU came over from CUSA last year, where everyone plays a garbage non-con schedule.

I also think our boy Jankovich was part of it - he kept Illinois State out of back-to-back NCAAs with garbage non-con schedules, and looks like he's still up to it. So when Larry leaves, Jankovich isn't going to fix this.

I don't understand what any of that has to do with anything, really. The bad noncon scheduling followed the Conference USA teams to the AAC. Thats still why they missed the tourney, and easily correctable. The fault for missing the tourney and being underseeded is on the AAC coaches.

Either they'll fix it or they won't, but I don't see any larger problem there. It's not the bottom half of the league that made the top half schedule weak.

If Jank hasn't figured out his problem yet, he's an idiot.

Yeah, there's no larger problem here. SMU arrived a year early, didn't plan properly, and paid a price. But I think they would've taken "first team out" going into the year.

However, you know Jank will never, ever, figure out what the problem is

[KC MVC FAN]

YEP! Read my original post on this subject. I mentioned 2 options, #1 was to add teams (no specified number).

You can keep adding teams but the higher numbered rounds with # 60 something VS #70 something are all "feel good" rounds that do not improve the competitiveness of the tournament. You just move the current #61 through #68 teams to the bottom of the list (become #69 through #76) and insert the eight poached teams from the NIT as #61 to #68. May help competitiveness a little, but not as much as replacing a lot of auto bids.

NUFF SAID

[musiccitybulldog]

This isn't to be a conspiracy theory, just my own thought, but it seems like there is an acceptable number of bids for certain conferences. Like the Big 10 getting 6 bids. They put Iowa in the play in game in Dayton. And as mentioned on here SMU, Georgetown was possibly deserving? I am not picking on Iowa, it is just a team I am familiar with and was following heading into the tourney.

[rlh04d]

Yeah, there's no larger problem here. SMU arrived a year early, didn't plan properly, and paid a price. But I think they would've taken "first team out" going into the year.

However, you know Jank will never, ever, figure out what the problem is

Good point about SMU arriving a year earlier than expected. That noncon schedule was something you put together if you think your team is a year off, bad, or your conference is strong enough to make up for it.

Poor Jank.

[rlh04d]

Ist: Takes more than a year to build schedule. Ask any of several MVC teams!

How many MVC teams have Hall of Fame coaches with their protégés coaching tons of D1 programs?

SMU chose to schedule weak. They didn't fall into a 300-ish schedule on accident.

[Snaggletooth]

Ist: Takes more than a year to build schedule. Ask any of several MVC teams!


Added: IMO, Now that the 2014 BB season is coming to a close I think there should be a change to the NCAA Tournament bid process. There are 32 D1 conferences that host conference tournaments, with all tournament champions receiving an automatic bid. The Ivy league does not have a league tournament but the league season leader get an automatic bid. That's 33 of 68 bids. There are 35 at-large bids including four pigtail play-in bids. Thirty three automatic bids are a lot, perhaps to many, automatic bids. IMO, many deserving teams are being denied entry to the NMCAA tournament due to so many "feel good" automatic bids to the lower ranked conferences.
I think there are two possible ways to improve the tournament: (1) increase the number of teams or (2) reduce the number of automatic bids by eliminating automatic bids to lowest ranked conferences. I personally think the best course is to eliminate the automatic bids to the 8th to 12 lowest ranked conferences. If 8, this year that would be #25 Northeast, #26 Big Sky, #27 Southland, #28 America East, #29 Southern, #30 Big South, #31 MEAC, #32 SWAC. If 12 add: # 21 WAC, #22 Patriot, #23 Ohio Valley, # 24 Atlantic Sun.

These eight to 12 slots could then be given to more competitive team. For example: SMU, Wisconsin Green Bay, Arkansas, Georgetown, Florida State (the six most talked about snubs) , Indiana, poaches from the NIT, maybe Indiana State, etc.

IMO, the CBI and CIT is available for the lower ranked conference tournament champions who were struck from the automatic bid list.

Not throwing this up for argument, just for discussion!

NCAA has already said they are not looking to expand the tournament