Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

-I am surprised to see this from the ACC as my thought is they make more money by having their conference tournament but I guess they might be thinking they won't have their tourney for this season and this is a good way to fill the bank

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

Chapley put it exactly right in his tweet.  If you include the conference tournaments, 300+ teams are already in the tournament.  The conference tournament are play-in games for those who didn't get it done during the regular season.

Agreed. I hate the idea of expanding the tournament further. Just waters down a regular season that most of America doesn't pay attention to until February and March. Making the NCAA tournament should be something special and for all but maybe 25 programs that go just about every year it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who subscribes to the Athletic (paywall), Brian Bennett and Eamonn Brennan wrote an article about the proposal. I’ll do my best to summarize here. Both are EXTREMELY worried that such a proposal will be used to expand the tournament after 2021. They both seem to think a 1-off tournament where every team gets in in ‘20-‘21 might be a fun and interesting way to deal with the season’s extreme circumstances, but want those in charge to cross their hearts and hope to die that the tourney will go back to 68 teams in ‘22 ( not that I put any stock in the word of the NCAA). A few other issues they brought up. 
 

1-Logistics. How do you seed 346 teams? What process will the selection committee use? Do you have play-in games for the bottom 100 or so teams, or do you have Kansas playing Kennesaw State in the first round. Also, will you have multiple tournament sites, or play the entire thing in a 1-city bubble (Indy for example, since they’re supposed to be hosting the Final Four this year, and since NCAA headquarters is in Indy, might he easier to regulate everything)? If you do a 1-city bubble, it might be safer, but that’s a lot of hotel rooms and accommodations for 346 teams all at the same time.

2-Value of the regular season. The NCAA and the selection committee has always stressed that the regular season matters. Your strength of schedule matters. You can win 28 games, but if the only team you played was the Little Sisters of the Poor (and lose in your conference tournament, therefore not earning the autobid), you’re not getting into the tourney. If you give every team in division 1 a bid to the tourney, what exactly is the purpose of the regular season? Seeding, I suppose, but there’s no doubt that the regular season will be much less interesting and intense.

3-Brackets. A huge part of the fun of the NCAA tournament is filling out brackets as a fan, doing bracket challenges, trying to win your office pool, ect. If you have a 346-team tournament, are people going to want to fill out such huge brackets? Will people still care as much? Will they tune in to every game? Will the download the March Madness app so they can watch every game in real time to see how their teams are doing? 
 

Both Brian and Eamonn think it MIGHT be a fun and entertaining idea under the extreme circumstances that we currently find ourselves in, but love the normal tournament format (as we all do), and want to make sure this isn’t excuse to destroy that.

Now lets debate the pros and cons.

Go!

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Reinert310 said:

For anyone who subscribes to the Athletic (paywall), Brian Bennett and Eamonn Brennan wrote an article about the proposal. I’ll do my best to summarize here. Both are EXTREMELY worried that such a proposal will be used to expand the tournament after 2021. They both seem to think a 1-off tournament where every team gets in in ‘20-‘21 might be a fun and interesting way to deal with the season’s extreme circumstances, but want those in charge to cross their hearts and hope to die that the tourney will go back to 68 teams in ‘22 ( not that I put any stock in the word of the NCAA). A few other issues they brought up. 
 

1-Logistics. How do you seed 346 teams? What process will the selection committee use? Do you have play-in games for the bottom 100 or so teams, or do you have Kansas playing Kennesaw State in the first round. Also, will you have multiple tournament sites, or play the entire thing in a 1-city bubble (Indy for example, since they’re supposed to be hosting the Final Four this year, and since NCAA headquarters is in Indy, might he easier to regulate everything)? If you do a 1-city bubble, it might be safer, but that’s a lot of hotel rooms and accommodations for 346 teams all at the same time.

2-Value of the regular season. The NCAA and the selection committee has always stressed that the regular season matters. Your strength of schedule matters. You can win 28 games, but if the only team you played was the Little Sisters of the Poor (and lose in your conference tournament, therefore not earning the autobid), you’re not getting into the tourney. If you give every team in division 1 a bid to the tourney, what exactly is the purpose of the regular season? Seeding, I suppose, but there’s no doubt that the regular season will be much less interesting and intense.

3-Brackets. A huge part of the fun of the NCAA tournament is filling out brackets as a fan, doing bracket challenges, trying to win your office pool, ect. If you have a 346-team tournament, are people going to want to fill out such huge brackets? Will people still care as much? Will they tune in to every game? Will the download the March Madness app so they can watch every game in real time to see how their teams are doing? 
 

Both Brian and Eamonn think it MIGHT be a fun and entertaining idea under the extreme circumstances that we currently find ourselves in, but love the normal tournament format (as we all do), and want to make sure this isn’t excuse to destroy that.

Now lets debate the pros and cons.

Go!

I don't mind expanding the field, but I still want the regular season to count for something. Reward those that had a good regular season. Just spitballing, but perhaps the Top 75 or 100 get a double bye and maybe even a home game before the field is reduced to 64 - then shift to the typical neutral site bubbles. 

The field of 64 would actually be a lot stronger than usual as most of the teams from the bottom 7-8 conferences won't make the field. You won't have the conference champs from the MEAC, Patriot, etc, survive the early play-in games to advance into the tourney. If a few do, then you have some great stories heading into the Tournament. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The conference tourneys basically do this. We’ve seen SLU knock off a #1 conf team and get in the tourney. We’re not the only school that’s done this. So there’s no need for a wide open State HS playoff system. Crazy times breed crazy ideas, I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been advocating for years let them all in.  First literally  divide D1 into 4 TRUE geographic regions.  Then seed using the regular season as you basis.  The top teams will get a bye and yes each bracket plays in their "bubble till down to 16 teams.  Then with 64 teams left they all move to another bubble for the rest of the tourney.  They would reseed from top to bottom and play till the championship.  

My guess is the big conference's believe they will dominate the survivors and garner most of the revenue.  They are doubting conference tourneys  even happen and this will more than make up for the lost conference  tourney.

For those of you saying this makes the regular season insignificant, "let em all in" has never hurt the high school  seasons.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this happens, it will be the best thing in history for the non-power five. Think about it, the tourney normally only let’s in like 20-25 small conference teams. Now, there would be like 200-230? Against the power five 60-70 teams? With the likelihood of upsets, it is possible the power five won’t even have a seat in the Final Four. It would be glorious!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

I've been advocating for years let them all in.  First literally  divide D1 into 4 TRUE geographic regions.  Then seed using the regular season as you basis.  The top teams will get a bye and yes each bracket plays in their "bubble till down to 16 teams.  Then with 64 teams left they all move to another bubble for the rest of the tourney.  They would reseed from top to bottom and play till the championship.  

My guess is the big conference's believe they will dominate the survivors and garner most of the revenue.  They are doubting conference tourneys  even happen and this will more than make up for the lost conference  tourney.

For those of you saying this makes the regular season insignificant, "let em all in" has never hurt the high school  seasons.

 

 

Interesting

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I hate the idea of expanding the field to all teams. Would make the reg season 10x less important. For one season sure, but I’ve already had nightmares of SLU going 6-24 from the FT line and losing to a 300-seed 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, majerus mojo said:

Yea I hate the idea of expanding the field to all teams. Would make the reg season 10x less important. For one season sure, but I’ve already had nightmares of SLU going 6-24 from the FT line and losing to a 300-seed 

C’mon man, we’d at least hit 10-24 so everyone could get free chicken sandwiches (only at participating locations).

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the "let em all in"  helps the mid majors.   think the 40+ teams.   typically unless they win their conference tourney they are out while about 20 low D1 conferences that really have no chance in hell to win the thing get auto bids.    imo the tourney should be about the best 64 teams in the country lined up and if it takes letting 340 teams in the tourney to come closer to achieving the real best top 64 so be it.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i think the "let em all in"  helps the mid majors.   think the 40+ teams.   typically unless they win their conference tourney they are out while about 20 low D1 conferences that really have no chance in hell to win the thing get auto bids.    imo the tourney should be about the best 64 teams in the country lined up and if it takes letting 340 teams in the tourney to come closer to achieving the real best top 64 so be it.   

Roy, you continue to gloss over the effect it will have on the regular season. It'll become as close to meaningless as it can.

The comparison to high school basketball doesn't work for me as basically nobody in the general public cares about high school basketball unless 1) it involves their kids (either on the team or attending the school), 2) there is a superstar player involved or 3) you are an absolute super-fan. If college basketball wants to strive for a regular season of the same relevance/viewership as high school basketball, this is the way to do it.

You simply have to make the regular season meaningful. Here's an idea, let's figure out the best 32 teams and give them a bye all the way to the round of 64. Then let all the others play it out for the right to get into the round of 64. You know what that sounds like? The current set-up where you have about half the team as at-larges and the other 32 or so bids get settled by the conference tournies.

I think it was Goodman that tweeted yesterday the motivation behind this for the ACC coaches was that they didn't want to play a non-con season and they inherently understood the difficulty in determining a field of 68 if there aren't non-conference games. While I agree with their conclusion that non-con games need to be played I find it odd that basketball coaches from their conference are unwilling to play games in November and December, but the football teams start this weekend. Hard to understand that logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the numbers. Hopefully I have done the right:
The largest seed would be a 64 seed. It would take 2 games or an extra week to get from the round of 256 to the traditional round of 64. 
To have every team in the tournament, there would need to be a preceding Play In week, where the teams ranked 257 to 356+ play to fill in the bottom half of the opening weekend. In other words, the Play In weekend helps fill in the bottom 32 teams, seeds 33-64 in each quadrant. 
Over all, the tournament would be 2 weeks longer. 
After the Play In week, the 1 seeds would square off with 64 seeds, 2 with 63, etc. 

1 seeds would be favored by 25+ in the opening game.  However the closest strength team in the middle would be seeds 23 vs 24 ranked about 128, think St. Bonaventure last year.  The winner of that game would square off against the 1 seeds in the second round of that opening week.  A 1 seed playing a 32 would probably be a 17 point favorite.  In the middle, the 16 seeds, play 17 seeds.  Based on last years Sagarin results that would be a game like us playing Rhode Island, for the right to face off with a 1 seed in the traditional 64 team tournament.

The round of 64 would be much different for the high seeds that have traditionally faced teams ranked 200+ in game one.  Seeds 13 - 16 would no longer be easy win games. 1 seeds would face teams ranked in the 60s. There would be a lot more casualties in the higher seeds in the first day of the round of 64. Based on last year's Sagarin finishes, there would be games like SLU  as a 16 seed squaring off against Dayton 1 seed.  1 seeds with 12 point spreads are no cake walk, especially if that game has the 16 seed  close to home. 

The non conference season would still have meaning, as it provides all of the ranking data for initial seeding.  Winning a conference title would not have anything to do with qualifying for the tournament, it would still be a Conference Title and the ranking improvement that comes with ending the seasons with a bunch of wins against good teams.

As a fan, I would enjoy watching the lower seeded teams in our conference and some of the lower ranked regional teams in the Play In games.  As a fan, I think I would enjoy it.
So for the last ranked team in Div. 1 dreaming of a national title or deep run: To quote Jim Carrey - "So you are telling me there is a chance!"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kshoe said:

Roy, you continue to gloss over the effect it will have on the regular season. It'll become as close to meaningless as it can.

The comparison to high school basketball doesn't work for me as basically nobody in the general public cares about high school basketball unless 1) it involves their kids (either on the team or attending the school), 2) there is a superstar player involved or 3) you are an absolute super-fan. If college basketball wants to strive for a regular season of the same relevance/viewership as high school basketball, this is the way to do it.

You simply have to make the regular season meaningful. Here's an idea, let's figure out the best 32 teams and give them a bye all the way to the round of 64. Then let all the others play it out for the right to get into the round of 64. You know what that sounds like? The current set-up where you have about half the team as at-larges and the other 32 or so bids get settled by the conference tournies.

I think it was Goodman that tweeted yesterday the motivation behind this for the ACC coaches was that they didn't want to play a non-con season and they inherently understood the difficulty in determining a field of 68 if there aren't non-conference games. While I agree with their conclusion that non-con games need to be played I find it odd that basketball coaches from their conference are unwilling to play games in November and December, but the football teams start this weekend. Hard to understand that logic.

as an avid high school basketball fan, i say "let em all in" does nothing to diminish the high school regular season.

but that said, letting in 20 conference tourney winners that have no business being mentioned in the tip 64 field imo sure as hell diminishes the tourney while 20 mid majors that actually have a chance to get to the final four are playing in the NIT or nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...