NCAA Reveals 68-Team Tournament Format

[Pistol]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5374116

By Andy Katz

ESPN.com

The final four at-large teams and final four automatic qualifiers in the newly minted 68-team NCAA men's basketball tournament field will meet for the right to enter the traditional 64-team draw, tournament selection committee chairman Dan Guerrero announced Monday.

The "First Four" will be played either the Tuesday or Wednesday after Selection Sunday. The winners of the four games will advance to what will now be called the "second round" on either Thursday or Friday. The newly named third round -- with 16 games -- will be Saturday and Sunday. The rest of the tournament -- regional semifinals (Sweet 16) and regional finals (Elite Eight) -- will remain as they have been, as will the Final Four, which is set for Houston in 2011.

The games will be televised on TruTv (formerly CourtTV), which is available in 93 million homes, said NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen, who manages the NCAA tournament. CBS, Turner, TBS and TruTV are in their first year of a $10.8 billion, 14-year television agreement. ESPN had carried the tournament's opening-round game in previous years.

Dayton, which had been the host site for the opening-round game, is the likely destination for the games but there could be other sites looked at for future First Four games beyond 2011, Guerrero said. When the winners would play in the second round is still to be determined but one aspect is certain: If teams meet on Tuesday they would feed into a Thursday format, and the Wednesday winners would play on Friday if the First Four is split into two days.

This is the first time the last four at-large teams will be revealed publicly. Traditionally, the at-large teams are scattered throughout the seeding process, rarely going past No. 12, making it relatively easy to identify them. Yet the committee now will formally announce the last at-large teams by putting them in the first round.

Guerrero and Shaheen said the last four at-large teams would be put on the seed line the committee decided they earned. So, this could mean that two could be considered No. 12 seeds playing for the right to play a No. 5 and two could be No. 11s vying to play a No. 6 in the second round.

In its news release, the NCAA listed the 10th seed as a possible destination for the last at-large teams, something that has occurred in past years. It is unlikely that the committee will have one team seeded 10th, 11th or 12th to avoid having teams seeded differently playing in a First Four game.

"The teams selected for these games will be like teams," Guerrero said. "We felt if we were going to expand the field it would create better drama for the tournament if the First Four was much more exciting. They could all be on the 10 line or the 12 line or the 11 line. We won't know until the seeding takes place and the principles and procedures are used and the teams are slotted appropriately."

Shaheen said the process will follow the same model used to select the previous 34 at-large teams, with the number now 37. Committee members go through a series of ballots, moving teams into the field and eliminating others by voting privately on a computer to determine the last at-large teams. The seeding and bracketing takes place once the teams have been selected to the field of 68.

Guerrero and Shaheen said they don't anticipate a problem in accommodating the principles and procedures of bracketing, such as repeating regular-season matchups in the second round (formerly the first round) or pitting teams from the same conference earlier than a regional semifinal.

The bracket on Selection Sunday will have both teams listed for the same seed line, just like it has for the two teams playing in the opening-round game between Nos. 64 and 65 since that game's creation in 2001.

The 10-member committee spent the last two months debating how to format the larger field. The committee decided in April to increase the field from 65 to 68 with three more additional at-large teams (going from 34 to 37) at the same time it announced it had agreed on a new television contract.

Other options discussed during the committee's meeting in Chicago the last week of June were: the last eight automatic qualifiers -- the Nos. 16 and 17 seeds -- playing against each other for the right to be the 16th seeds; and making the last eight at-large teams playing for specific seed lines. The compromise was this hybrid model which Guerrero said evolved out of many discussions with committee members and among the NCAA Division I membership.

"There was no consensus," Guerrero said. "We selected a format that will break new ground. We're excited about the concept of the First Four. We think we've added value to the tournament."

The NCAA made clear it's not interested in hearing complaints from high-profile conference teams that have to play in the First Four.

"Three of the four teams that would be in these games [the two First Four games involving at-large teams] wouldn't have been in the tournament in 2010," Shaheen said. "The fact is they weren't in the tournament before."

Shaheen said the First Four should be a natural bridge from Selection Sunday to the second round of the tournament. He said the opening-round game was the only presence of the sport in years past between Selection Sunday and Thursday's first round.

Guerrero said there would be no limit as to the number of times a conference participates in one of the First Four games. Previously, the opening-round matched the two lowest-rated automatic qualifiers. That standard will still apply for the game between the last two automatic qualifiers for two of the No. 16 seeds.

Andy Katz is a senior writer at ESPN.com.

[Hawk]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5374116

By Andy Katz

ESPN.com

The final four at-large teams and final four automatic qualifiers in the newly minted 68-team NCAA men's basketball tournament field will meet for the right to enter the traditional 64-team draw, tournament selection committee chairman Dan Guerrero announced Monday.

The "First Four" will be played either the Tuesday or Wednesday after Selection Sunday. The winners of the four games will advance to what will now be called the "second round" on either Thursday or Friday. The newly named third round -- with 16 games -- will be Saturday and Sunday. The rest of the tournament -- regional semifinals (Sweet 16) and regional finals (Elite Eight) -- will remain as they have been, as will the Final Four, which is set for Houston in 2011.

The games will be televised on TruTv (formerly CourtTV), which is available in 93 million homes, said NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen, who manages the NCAA tournament. CBS, Turner, TBS and TruTV are in their first year of a $10.8 billion, 14-year television agreement. ESPN had carried the tournament's opening-round game in previous years.

Dayton, which had been the host site for the opening-round game, is the likely destination for the games but there could be other sites looked at for future First Four games beyond 2011, Guerrero said. When the winners would play in the second round is still to be determined but one aspect is certain: If teams meet on Tuesday they would feed into a Thursday format, and the Wednesday winners would play on Friday if the First Four is split into two days.

This is the first time the last four at-large teams will be revealed publicly. Traditionally, the at-large teams are scattered throughout the seeding process, rarely going past No. 12, making it relatively easy to identify them. Yet the committee now will formally announce the last at-large teams by putting them in the first round.

Guerrero and Shaheen said the last four at-large teams would be put on the seed line the committee decided they earned. So, this could mean that two could be considered No. 12 seeds playing for the right to play a No. 5 and two could be No. 11s vying to play a No. 6 in the second round.

In its news release, the NCAA listed the 10th seed as a possible destination for the last at-large teams, something that has occurred in past years. It is unlikely that the committee will have one team seeded 10th, 11th or 12th to avoid having teams seeded differently playing in a First Four game.

"The teams selected for these games will be like teams," Guerrero said. "We felt if we were going to expand the field it would create better drama for the tournament if the First Four was much more exciting. They could all be on the 10 line or the 12 line or the 11 line. We won't know until the seeding takes place and the principles and procedures are used and the teams are slotted appropriately."

Shaheen said the process will follow the same model used to select the previous 34 at-large teams, with the number now 37. Committee members go through a series of ballots, moving teams into the field and eliminating others by voting privately on a computer to determine the last at-large teams. The seeding and bracketing takes place once the teams have been selected to the field of 68.

Guerrero and Shaheen said they don't anticipate a problem in accommodating the principles and procedures of bracketing, such as repeating regular-season matchups in the second round (formerly the first round) or pitting teams from the same conference earlier than a regional semifinal.

The bracket on Selection Sunday will have both teams listed for the same seed line, just like it has for the two teams playing in the opening-round game between Nos. 64 and 65 since that game's creation in 2001.

The 10-member committee spent the last two months debating how to format the larger field. The committee decided in April to increase the field from 65 to 68 with three more additional at-large teams (going from 34 to 37) at the same time it announced it had agreed on a new television contract.

Other options discussed during the committee's meeting in Chicago the last week of June were: the last eight automatic qualifiers -- the Nos. 16 and 17 seeds -- playing against each other for the right to be the 16th seeds; and making the last eight at-large teams playing for specific seed lines. The compromise was this hybrid model which Guerrero said evolved out of many discussions with committee members and among the NCAA Division I membership.

"There was no consensus," Guerrero said. "We selected a format that will break new ground. We're excited about the concept of the First Four. We think we've added value to the tournament."

The NCAA made clear it's not interested in hearing complaints from high-profile conference teams that have to play in the First Four.

"Three of the four teams that would be in these games [the two First Four games involving at-large teams] wouldn't have been in the tournament in 2010," Shaheen said. "The fact is they weren't in the tournament before."

Shaheen said the First Four should be a natural bridge from Selection Sunday to the second round of the tournament. He said the opening-round game was the only presence of the sport in years past between Selection Sunday and Thursday's first round.

Guerrero said there would be no limit as to the number of times a conference participates in one of the First Four games. Previously, the opening-round matched the two lowest-rated automatic qualifiers. That standard will still apply for the game between the last two automatic qualifiers for two of the No. 16 seeds.

Andy Katz is a senior writer at ESPN.com.

Lets play well enough this season to avoid this 'First Four'....

[GMan Alum]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5374116

By Andy Katz

ESPN.com

This is good...waaay better than having a 64 play a 65. These will be true bubble teams fighting to get in. The losers should be then selected to play in the NIT.

[kshoe]

Actually, you are still going to have 2 games of 65 vs. 68 and 66 vs. 67 but you are also going to have two games of 46 vs. 49 and 47 vs. 48 (or something like that). Two games will interest me. Two likely will not.

From a picking the bracket perspective, it used to be that the 5 vs. 12 game was a classic place to pick an upset. Its certainly going to be a lot harder to justify picking the 12a or 12b seed given that its only a 50% chance they will even progress to the round of 64. I guess they can just make it so that you get the winner of the play-in games no matter what. They'll probably have to do that if they want people to have more than 1.5 days to fill in the brackets (i.e. brackets being due by Tuesday at 5 PM seems awfully early).

[STLfan]

The "First Four" will be played either the Tuesday or Wednesday after Selection Sunday. The winners of the four games will advance to what will now be called the "second round" on either Thursday or Friday. The newly named third round -- with 16 games -- will be Saturday and Sunday. The rest of the tournament -- regional semifinals (Sweet 16) and regional finals (Elite Eight) -- will remain as they have been, as will the Final Four, which is set for Houston in 2011.

This is the only part I have a problem with. Why not call the new round the opening round instead of the first round. This way the rest of the tournament stays the same. Right now most of the teams are going to start off in the second round.

Right now its

Opening Game (Field of 65)

First Round (Field of 64)

Second Round (Field of 32)

Sweet Sixteen

Elite Eight

Final Four

Championship Game

It would be easy to change the opening game to the opening round or opening games and leave the rest the same. That would keep the rounds of 64 and 32 with the same name they have had for a long time now. It doesn't make any sense to change them.

The new way they are proposing.

First Round (Field of 68)

Second Round (Field of 64)

Third Round (Field of 32)

Sweet Sixteen

Elite Eight

Final Four

Championship Game

[Pistol]

This is good...waaay better than having a 64 play a 65. These will be true bubble teams fighting to get in. The losers should be then selected to play in the NIT.

Given what many of us feared when the whole NCAA Tournament expansion buzz started, this seems like it may actually be the best case scenario. The bubble teams, mostly from big conferences, are put on the line with an extra game, not the teams that win the 8 lowest-ranked conferences every year. It definitely will add some interest to the days between the conference tournaments and the first (excuse me, second) round. It basically makes bubble teams justify their bids, which is okay with me.

The unfortunate thing is that this range of tournament seeds might be a sweet spot for, say, teams from the A10 who had a nice season but didn't win the conference regular season or tournament title.

I doubt the losers will be in the NIT. Won't it be too late by then? There also might be restrictions against it, as well, once teams accept bids to one tournament or the other.

Watching these games on TruTV will be pretty weird. Can't say I've ever tuned into that or CourtTV ever before.

[billiken_roy]

you guys are way off on this. i think this is about showing the world how substandard those last in automatic conference winner teams are so the world will see we need to have more of the bcs schools in to prove the real tourney field.

no doubt the number one seeds would all smoke those bottom four teams. now we are going to see that 12 and 11 seed at large teams will smoke them as well. so the ncaa will reason, "we really need to have those at large teams that barely didnt make it in the tourney as well."

next thing you know we got 96 teams in the tourney.

[Pistol]

you guys are way off on this. i think this is about showing the world how substandard those last in automatic conference winner teams are so the world will see we need to have more of the bcs schools in to prove the real tourney field.

no doubt the number one seeds would all smoke those bottom four teams. now we are going to see that 12 and 11 seed at large teams will smoke them as well. so the ncaa will reason, "we really need to have those at large teams that barely didnt make it in the tourney as well."

next thing you know we got 96 teams in the tourney.

I don't think I buy the slippery slope argument in this one quite yet. Maybe we're moving toward a bigger tournament in the long run, but for the time being, massive expansion has been defeated and a long-term, high-dollar TV contract is in place.

The 68-team format was final, so it was a matter of the best case from there. Would you have rather had the bottom 8 seeds duke it out and eliminate the smallest programs right out of the gate? That was probably the most likely alternative.

[kshoe]

you guys are way off on this. i think this is about showing the world how substandard those last in automatic conference winner teams are so the world will see we need to have more of the bcs schools in to prove the real tourney field.

no doubt the number one seeds would all smoke those bottom four teams. now we are going to see that 12 and 11 seed at large teams will smoke them as well. so the ncaa will reason, "we really need to have those at large teams that barely didnt make it in the tourney as well."

next thing you know we got 96 teams in the tourney.

My read of the article and a different link to it was that that the 4 bottom teams would play eachother and the 4 final at-larges would play eachother. It is not at large vs. small conference winner in any of the games. At least thats how I read it.

[Clock_Tower]

you guys are way off on this. i think this is about showing the world how substandard those last in automatic conference winner teams are so the world will see we need to have more of the bcs schools in to prove the real tourney field.

no doubt the number one seeds would all smoke those bottom four teams. now we are going to see that 12 and 11 seed at large teams will smoke them as well. so the ncaa will reason, "we really need to have those at large teams that barely didnt make it in the tourney as well."

next thing you know we got 96 teams in the tourney.

Roy. You could be right. But history has shown that anything can happen in one (1) college game. Parity exists in the college game. BCS know this and this is why they refuse to play away games and/or non-conference games except for easy buy games or "tournaments". I truly believe that there have been many good automatic qualifier teams which could have beaten good teams but just simply have not had the chance. Instead, they face a #1, #2 or #3 seed at the start which is really hard to do. IMO, some of these lesser known schools will finally get to play (and beat) some of the "also ran" BCS schools. The more the BCS schools get exposed, the weaker they become.

Play the games and watch the BCS schools fall.

[slu72]

I don't care how they format it, let's just get in the damn thing.

[Clock_Tower]

Anyone know how the revenue will be split? Example: a team makes the Tourney but loses its first game now in the "second round". Or will it be more profitable to play in the ?first round" and the "second round". In the past teams made money for each win.

[billiken_roy]

Anyone know how the revenue will be split? Example: a team makes the Tourney but loses its first game now in the "second round". Or will it be more profitable to play in the ?first round" and the "second round". In the past teams made money for each win.

duke, kansas, ucla, north carolina, etc havent decided yet what is best for them. i am sure they will let the ncaa know soon how to split the funds.

[SShoe]

My read of the article and a different link to it was that that the 4 bottom teams would play eachother and the 4 final at-larges would play eachother. It is not at large vs. small conference winner in any of the games. At least thats how I read it.

That's also my understanding.

[MB73]

duke, kansas, ucla, north carolina, etc havent decided yet what is best for them. i am sure they will let the ncaa know soon how to split the funds.

This coming from a banker.

[billiken_roy]

This coming from a banker.

what does my being a banker have to do with a handful of schools that i perceive control the ncaa?

now had i been a lawyer. that comment would have made sense and truly been funny.

[MB73]

what does my being a banker have to do with a handful of schools that i perceive control the ncaa?

now had i been a lawyer. that comment would have made sense and truly been funny.

Lawyers would be funny, too, but I just think bankers really control a lot more... especially when you look at global issues.... than lawyers. Just laughing that you, a banker, are always cynical about the "big dogs" controlling everything in NCAA hoops.

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow

private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

[Box and Won]

I guess this gives new meaning to Court TV.

Har-har-har.

[billiken_roy]

Lawyers would be funny, too, but I just think bankers really control a lot more... especially when you look at global issues.... than lawyers. Just laughing that you, a banker, are always cynical about the "big dogs" controlling everything in NCAA hoops.

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow

private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

i agree with jefferson.

i thought you were playing the "bankers destroyed the economy" card. while i have nothing but disdain for the big banks and the wall street investment bankers, community bankers (which i am) are the backbone of the real financial system and were not the ones that f'd things up. yet when all is said and done, the community bankers are the ones getting hand tied the worst from the govt reaction and legislation.

back to basketball, i just think that too few of the old line programs get things their way. personally i would welcome the bcs going off by themselves.

[Clock_Tower]

Guess no one knows about the new system. Same question, though, about the current system. Does the winner of the play-in game (64v. 65) get paid for both the play-in game and then for playing their first round game (#16 v. #1)? Does this team make more money than the other #16 seeds??