NCAA Tourney Change?

[GMan Alum]

I've asked a number of people for their opinions, but this is probably as good a forum for this discussion as any...

Is it time for two "separate, but equal" NCAA basketball tournaments? One for the BCS conferences and one for the non-BCS conferences. I sure think the NCAA is going in that direction.

I know there would be a lot of flaws, but I (along with a bunch of you) am sick and tired of the big conferences getting such an overwhelming preference when it comes to selections, seedings and pairings. This year there are only 4 non-BCS teams that were selected at-large for the tournament, down from 12 just a few years ago, which is crazy because there is more parity in D-1 college hoops than there has ever been.

C'mon, Ohio State is an 8-seed, but they get to play in Dayton? Xavier is a 4-seed, but has to travel to Boise? That, my friends, is a microcosm of the NCAA's attitude toward BCS and non-BCS conferences.

Anybody else think it's time to revamp the whole thing?

[tenthyearsenior]

I've asked a number of people for their opinions, but this is probably as good a forum for this discussion as any...

Is it time for two "separate, but equal" NCAA basketball tournaments? One for the BCS conferences and one for the non-BCS conferences. I sure think the NCAA is going in that direction.

I know there would be a lot of flaws, but I (along with a bunch of you) am sick and tired of the big conferences getting such an overwhelming preference when it comes to selections, seedings and pairings. This year there are only 4 non-BCS teams that were selected at-large for the tournament, down from 12 just a few years ago, which is crazy because there is more parity in D-1 college hoops than there has ever been.

C'mon, Ohio State is an 8-seed, but they get to play in Dayton? Xavier is a 4-seed, but has to travel to Boise? That, my friends, is a microcosm of the NCAA's attitude toward BCS and non-BCS conferences.

Anybody else think it's time to revamp the whole thing?

All this would accomplish would be to kick all the non-bcs schools out of the big dance. How would you like it if the only let the good looking kids go to prom? I for one don't want the bills playing to go to the NIT every year. If the non-bcs schools want more teams, they need to win more games against bcs schools in the regular season and tourney.

As for the travel, that happens to everyone. MU is also going to Boise as a 3 seed.

[kshoe]

I've asked a number of people for their opinions, but this is probably as good a forum for this discussion as any...

Is it time for two "separate, but equal" NCAA basketball tournaments? One for the BCS conferences and one for the non-BCS conferences. I sure think the NCAA is going in that direction.

I know there would be a lot of flaws, but I (along with a bunch of you) am sick and tired of the big conferences getting such an overwhelming preference when it comes to selections, seedings and pairings. This year there are only 4 non-BCS teams that were selected at-large for the tournament, down from 12 just a few years ago, which is crazy because there is more parity in D-1 college hoops than there has ever been.

C'mon, Ohio State is an 8-seed, but they get to play in Dayton? Xavier is a 4-seed, but has to travel to Boise? That, my friends, is a microcosm of the NCAA's attitude toward BCS and non-BCS conferences.

Anybody else think it's time to revamp the whole thing?

I think its time to revamp the whole thing but separate but equal doesn't work. It didn't work in the Jim Crow South and it won't work here. What did work was forced integration, and since the selection committee can't be trusted to do the right thing we could force them to by allowing only X number from the BCS and X from somewhere else.

With 31 auto-qualifiers (BCS got 6) and 34 at-large bids (BCS got 30), the BCS teams got 36 of 65 bids. The historical average is more like 33 or 34. Make it real simple and go back to 64 teams total and allow 32 BCS and 32 non BCS. There are only 73 BCS schools so they are still getting a guaranteed 44% of the teams and the pie.

Bilas and co can scream all they want about how unfair it is but largely it will fall in line with historical norms.

[inthelou]

I've asked a number of people for their opinions, but this is probably as good a forum for this discussion as any...

Is it time for two "separate, but equal" NCAA basketball tournaments? One for the BCS conferences and one for the non-BCS conferences. I sure think the NCAA is going in that direction.

I know there would be a lot of flaws, but I (along with a bunch of you) am sick and tired of the big conferences getting such an overwhelming preference when it comes to selections, seedings and pairings. This year there are only 4 non-BCS teams that were selected at-large for the tournament, down from 12 just a few years ago, which is crazy because there is more parity in D-1 college hoops than there has ever been.

C'mon, Ohio State is an 8-seed, but they get to play in Dayton? Xavier is a 4-seed, but has to travel to Boise? That, my friends, is a microcosm of the NCAA's attitude toward BCS and non-BCS conferences.

Anybody else think it's time to revamp the whole thing?

You wonder sometimes if that isn't where football is headed in Division I. To me basketball is a five man game. Much easier for a smaller school to compete, even without the infrastructure and fanbase because you only need a few players to really turn things around. I would think football would go to this before basketball. And that hasn't happened. Yet.

[tenthyearsenior]

Only people on this board would want to rework the best 3 weeks in sports.

[GOSLU68]

Only people on this board would want to rework the best 3 weeks in sports.

Is that you, troll?

Bobby Knight had a good idea when asked the same question-he said invite 128 teams and let the weaker of the two opponents go to the stronger's home

court-basically what you get in NIT anyway-I take a step further and say 64 go in the consolation bracket and 64 go in the winners bracket and if you want you can have a final, final playoff between bracket A and bracket B

[billiken_roy]

48 ncaa teams and 32 nit teams. the nit is one leg of the final four thus the nit has to finish before the final four weekend.

the ncaa still takes all the auto qualifiers from the 31 conferences plus takes the best 17 at large teams.

the nit takes all the regular season conference champs that got beat in their respective conference tourney's if they arent an at large team above.

the nit is a harder road to the final four because of more parity and having to play more games in a shorter time, however the ncaa has the supposed best schools as likely of the 48 teams, at least 30 would be top 40 rpi likely.

80 schools instead of 65, but not the full explosion to 128. plus it then gives the nit more of a purpose other than the "not in the tourney" tourney.

personally, i would do away with the conference tourneys, let everyone in. truly regionalize the nation geographically until only 64 teams left then redraw the remaining brackets.

[Bay Area Billiken]

If the non-bcs schools want more teams, they need to win more games against bcs schools in the regular season and tourney.

Well, how can the non-BCS schools "win more games against bcs schools in the regular season" if those BCS schools won't play them?

Do you advocate higher non-BCS schools throwing away all pride and playing 1 game road deals at BCS schools, without any hope for home and homes?

So following that logic, the only hope for SLU to ever play Mizzou again would be if the game was a Mizzou home game in Columbia. I'm sorry, but that is simply not acceptable to SLU, period. It certainly is unacceptable to this SLU alumnus.

Even then, what if the BCS schools still won't play them?

Case in point- in California, Cal will not play St. Mary's irrespective of the venue. Why- it's very simple, there is a good chance that Cal would get beat. In fact, with a healthy Patty Mills, St. Mary's is better than Cal. Sure Cal played USF this year (of course in Berkeley), but USF was in its first year under a new Coach who was hired late. So there was little risk of Cal losing that game, even though USF played right with Cal for 75% of that game before succumbing to the inevitable at the end.

No, the BCS schools and their friends at the NCAA want their cake and to eat it too.

They would probably love to have "separate but equal" tournaments, but everyone knows that would never be the true case.

A friend out here, following up on Bernie's blog, said that he thought that this year's BCS heavy field could be due to the bad economy. As noted by Bernie, the big teams still have the highest ratings, which means they bring in the highest advertising dollars to CBS.

[stlfp775]

I think we are about to see four play in games once The Great West Conference gets its automatic big they are starting play in basketball next year.

I would move the play in game to two at larges, and have an unwritten rule that pits a Creighton against a Wisconsin or Arizona, and I would give the NIT champion an automatic bid to the next season tournament to spark interest in that tournament rather than becoming something you do to ensure that you don’t piss off the NCAA. The NIT automatic could be included in the play in game the following year if they have a bad season. You could move that seed to a nine against an eight to ensure you don’t pit a number one seed against a hot team that is liable to put them out early. I think letting everyone in or 128 teams you pick in would ruin the tournament.

Just my .02

[RUBillsFan]

I think we are about to see four play in games once The Great West Conference gets its automatic big they are starting play in basketball next year.

I would move the play in game to two at larges, and have an unwritten rule that pits a Creighton against a Wisconsin or Arizona, and I would give the NIT champion an automatic bid to the next season tournament to spark interest in that tournament rather than becoming something you do to ensure that you don’t piss off the NCAA. The NIT automatic could be included in the play in game the following year if they have a bad season. You could move that seed to a nine against an eight to ensure you don’t pit a number one seed against a hot team that is liable to put them out early. I think letting everyone in or 128 teams you pick in would ruin the tournament.

Just my .02

I think 4 opening round "play-in" games is for sure the way to go, but I would not move the play-ins. I would keep it to just the play-ins being 16 seeds. That way it does not mess with filling out brackets at all b/c no one is going to pick a 16 over a 1 anyways.

I think IF you want to expand the tournament 4 play-ins is the 1st step. After that you could expand to 8 play ins with those teams facing 1's and 2's. Then expand it do play-ins to decided who plays 1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds. Finally, just make it a 128 team tournament. The jump from 65 to 128 would be too sudden.

[bg]

Add one more weekend to the process. Divide the country into four geographic regions. Select 32 teams from each region, then seed the teams within each region. After the weekend games, seed the final 32 (NOT by region this time), and finish the tourney.

This gives everyone a geographic rooting interest. It ensures that the very best from each region advances (assuming they really are the very best), and it includes every team in the country that realistically has any hope at all of winning a post-season game.

Travel costs would be significantly reduced for the first weekend, and fans would have a great chance to follow their teams to first and second round sites. Officials would also come from each region, advancing based on the quality of their work.

The entire country gets representation in a regional, every legitimate team has a chance to play, and the revenue generated would be significant.

[MusicCityBilliken]

Add one more weekend to the process. Divide the country into four geographic regions. Select 32 teams from each region, then seed the teams within each region. After the weekend games, seed the final 32 (NOT by region this time), and finish the tourney.

This gives everyone a geographic rooting interest. It ensures that the very best from each region advances (assuming they really are the very best), and it includes every team in the country that realistically has any hope at all of winning a post-season game.

Travel costs would be significantly reduced for the first weekend, and fans would have a great chance to follow their teams to first and second round sites. Officials would also come from each region, advancing based on the quality of their work.

The entire country gets representation in a regional, every legitimate team has a chance to play, and the revenue generated would be significant.

Talk about attendance, did any one notice the NIT attendance at the ND vs UAB game at Notre Dame's Joyce Center and the So Carolina game with Davidson at So Carolina's Colonial Life Center? Both places seemed empty.

[tenthyearsenior]

Add one more weekend to the process. Divide the country into four geographic regions. Select 32 teams from each region, then seed the teams within each region. After the weekend games, seed the final 32 (NOT by region this time), and finish the tourney.

This gives everyone a geographic rooting interest. It ensures that the very best from each region advances (assuming they really are the very best), and it includes every team in the country that realistically has any hope at all of winning a post-season game.

Travel costs would be significantly reduced for the first weekend, and fans would have a great chance to follow their teams to first and second round sites. Officials would also come from each region, advancing based on the quality of their work.

The entire country gets representation in a regional, every legitimate team has a chance to play, and the revenue generated would be significant.

I would play the play in game with 8 foot rims and the winner gets to send a member of the losing team to exile island.

[cheeseman]

I've asked a number of people for their opinions, but this is probably as good a forum for this discussion as any...

Is it time for two "separate, but equal" NCAA basketball tournaments? One for the BCS conferences and one for the non-BCS conferences. I sure think the NCAA is going in that direction.

I know there would be a lot of flaws, but I (along with a bunch of you) am sick and tired of the big conferences getting such an overwhelming preference when it comes to selections, seedings and pairings. This year there are only 4 non-BCS teams that were selected at-large for the tournament, down from 12 just a few years ago, which is crazy because there is more parity in D-1 college hoops than there has ever been.

C'mon, Ohio State is an 8-seed, but they get to play in Dayton? Xavier is a 4-seed, but has to travel to Boise? That, my friends, is a microcosm of the NCAA's attitude toward BCS and non-BCS conferences.

Anybody else think it's time to revamp the whole thing?

There can never be "separate but equal" did we not learn that in 1954? The non BCS tourney would make a lot less money then the BCS one would.

[cheeseman]

I think we are about to see four play in games once The Great West Conference gets its automatic big they are starting play in basketball next year.

I would move the play in game to two at larges, and have an unwritten rule that pits a Creighton against a Wisconsin or Arizona, and I would give the NIT champion an automatic bid to the next season tournament to spark interest in that tournament rather than becoming something you do to ensure that you don’t piss off the NCAA. The NIT automatic could be included in the play in game the following year if they have a bad season. You could move that seed to a nine against an eight to ensure you don’t pit a number one seed against a hot team that is liable to put them out early. I think letting everyone in or 128 teams you pick in would ruin the tournament.

Just my .02

What if the NIT winner is made up of all seniors and they have poor team the next year - you would still want to give them an auto berth the following year.

[lefty]

The non BCS tourney would make a lot less money then the BCS one would.

I don't think the majority on here want to here that.

[kshoe]

I don't think the majority on here want to here that.

Not true at all. Its well known that a BCS only tourney would make more money than a non-BCS only tourney. What most of us are saying is that a tournament of BCS AND non BCS teams makes the MOST money. The casual fan does not watch the first couple days so they can see an 8-9 game of Tenn vs. OK State. They watch so they can see VCU upset UCLA or Cleveland St. beat Wake Forest. The NCAA is making it harder and harder for the mid-major schools to get into the dance and slowly but surely it is hurting the quality and popularity of the tournament, especially the first few days of it.

If you don't believe me, go to a bar tell me who people are calling for in the Ohio-St. / Sienna game. Unless you show up at an OSU alumni bar I guarantee you the average fan is rooting for Sienna. Its what makes the tourney great those first few days.

[billiken_roy]

this is a no win solution. no one would win as kshoe is correct the mystique of the "david" beating the "goliath" is the ingredient that makes the ncaa tourney a success. but that said, the ncaa knows that the bcs schools have the most alumni, the casual fan will pick the likes of duke or north carolina as their "favorite team" simply because they have no alliance and always hop on the winning bandwagon. so the bcs indeed does drive the advertising dollars.

if everyone wanted to watch the little guy, why arent the d-2, d-3, naia, and juco national tourney's playing prime time in late march?

the solution has to be to appease both the davids and the goliaths. the answer is expansion of some sort, and not the demeaning "we'll add three more play in games". that is b.s. all that will add is three more bcs schools and they will shift three more low major winners to the play in games.

for those that insist it waters down the regular season or makes the tourney unremarkable or less valuable of some sort, then why does every state high school tourney that all allow every team in the state to compete generate excitement galore each march? everyone in hasnt hurt that one bit.

the bcs knows this. the only reason the bcs clings to keep it at 65 teams is pure greed. they do not want to split the profits of the tv revenue.

[lefty]

Not true at all. Its well known that a BCS only tourney would make more money than a non-BCS only tourney. What most of us are saying is that a tournament of BCS AND non BCS teams makes the MOST money. The casual fan does not watch the first couple days so they can see an 8-9 game of Tenn vs. OK State. They watch so they can see VCU upset UCLA or Cleveland St. beat Wake Forest. The NCAA is making it harder and harder for the mid-major schools to get into the dance and slowly but surely it is hurting the quality and popularity of the tournament, especially the first few days of it.

If you don't believe me, go to a bar tell me who people are calling for in the Ohio-St. / Sienna game. Unless you show up at an OSU alumni bar I guarantee you the average fan is rooting for Sienna. Its what makes the tourney great those first few days.

Well, as usual, you're seeing the everything through your mid-major eyes. Actually,the first few rounds could be totally eliminated and the tournament would still be great. Fill up the first few days with Valparaiso-SLU or Saint Marys-North Dakota State and all those fans you're talking about will be watching the World Series of Poker re-runs. You had better have plenty of BCS qualifiers or the tournament won't be worth watching and the advertisers and CBS know that.

[tenthyearsenior]

I don't think the majority on here want to here that.

The majority on here never want to hear the truth.

[billiken_roy]

Well, as usual, you're seeing the everything through your mid-major eyes. Actually,the first few rounds could be totally eliminated and the tournament would still be great. Fill up the first few days with Valparaiso-SLU or Saint Marys-North Dakota State and all those fans you're talking about will be watching the World Series of Poker re-runs. You had better have plenty of BCS qualifiers or the tournament won't be worth watching and the advertisers and CBS know that.

i bet if the sweet 16 had 8 bcs teams and 8 non bcs teams the ratings would go through the roof and continue to climb if that ratio played out until the end.

every tv in the country would tune in to witness a modern day college version of "hoosiers". and everyone knows that. the only reason they dont make that happen by evening up the bids has to be pure greed. they know that they still will get outstanding ratings with the current formula and the payout to the programs in charge are still through the roof. they just dont want to split the money.

[tenthyearsenior]

this is a no win solution. no one would win as kshoe is correct the mystique of the "david" beating the "goliath" is the ingredient that makes the ncaa tourney a success. but that said, the ncaa knows that the bcs schools have the most alumni, the casual fan will pick the likes of duke or north carolina as their "favorite team" simply because they have no alliance and always hop on the winning bandwagon. so the bcs indeed does drive the advertising dollars.

if everyone wanted to watch the little guy, why arent the d-2, d-3, naia, and juco national tourney's playing prime time in late march?

the solution has to be to appease both the davids and the goliaths. the answer is expansion of some sort, and not the demeaning "we'll add three more play in games". that is b.s. all that will add is three more bcs schools and they will shift three more low major winners to the play in games.

for those that insist it waters down the regular season or makes the tourney unremarkable or less valuable of some sort, then why does every state high school tourney that all allow every team in the state to compete generate excitement galore each march? everyone in hasnt hurt that one bit.

the bcs knows this. the only reason the bcs clings to keep it at 65 teams is pure greed. they do not want to split the profits of the tv revenue.

No winners? We all win as long as guys like you don't start tinkering with the tourney.

[tenthyearsenior]

i bet if the sweet 16 had 8 bcs teams and 8 non bcs teams the ratings would go through the roof and continue to climb if that ratio played out until the end.

every tv in the country would tune in to witness a modern day college version of "hoosiers". and everyone knows that. the only reason they dont make that happen by evening up the bids has to be pure greed. they know that they still will get outstanding ratings with the current formula and the payout to the programs in charge are still through the roof. they just dont want to split the money.

Only if the non-bsc teams earn their way in by beating BCS schools. If you just hand them 8 spots people will still look down on them.

[kshoe]

Well, as usual, you're seeing the everything through your mid-major eyes. Actually,the first few rounds could be totally eliminated and the tournament would still be great. Fill up the first few days with Valparaiso-SLU or Saint Marys-North Dakota State and all those fans you're talking about will be watching the World Series of Poker re-runs. You had better have plenty of BCS qualifiers or the tournament won't be worth watching and the advertisers and CBS know that.

As usual, you aren't listening. I want more BCS vs. non-BCS match-ups in the tourney. Its the 8-9 BCS only match-ups that the casual fan finds boring, and CBS should know it, even if Differ Phelps doesn't.

Davidson was the story of the tournament last year and I guarantee the Kansas/Davison match-up got higher ratings then the Kansas/Wisconsin match-up that could have been would have.

[lefty]

As usual, you aren't listening. I want more BCS vs. non-BCS match-ups in the tourney. Its the 8-9 BCS only match-ups that the casual fan finds boring, and CBS should know it, even if Differ Phelps doesn't.

Davidson was the story of the tournament last year and I guarantee the Kansas/Davison match-up got higher ratings then the Kansas/Wisconsin match-up that could have been would have.

Actually, you're correct for a change. I'm not listening - I'm reading. And, as usual, you're replacing fact with your opinion. The story of the tournament was Memphis giving the championship away to Kansas and, yes I know, Memphis is not a BCS school. They spend, recruit and play like a BCS school and guess what, they're in the tournament evey year on merit. You need to get out of your parochial bent where you think NCAA basketball revolves around your wishes. It's big business.