March Madness changes and what it means for The Bills

[The Wiz]

Reports from a number of sources are saying the NCAA has agreed in principle to a 76 team format  for next year.  They still need to take a final vote on the proposal but the 76ers think they have enough votes.  The way this would work is there would be 52 auto bids plus 24 play-in bids.  The 24 play-in teams would play 12 games at 2 sites.  For those not following along...52 ABs = 12 PIG games(24 teams) = 76 teams....12 PIGs eliminated= 64 team bracket

In some ways this will change things , in other ways not so much. The good news is more teams will be able to have a Chance to Dance. The bad news is the NCAA is still in charge. Let's take a look at an example..  Coming into this year, my data is showing the A-10 is a 1 bid league. Now let's assume hypothetically,   the new 76 rules come into effect this year instead of next year.  My computer is showing the A10 would be eligible for 3 bids...1 auto and 2 play-in bids (eligible means you are in the discussion).....And yes SLU would be one of the 3 teams. But then comes the NCAA cloud of uncertainty.    Let's assume SLU finishes with a NET of 52. ...looks like a  chance for an at large bid if we don't win the A10 tourney or at least a good shot at a play-in spot. ...right?...Time for a trivia question...Do you know a coach who recently had a 29 NET  and whose team was shunned by the Committee?....Hint...his initials are JS. So the problem for SLU is still the same...does the Committee go with SLU with a projected NET of around 60 this year  or choose an SEC bottom feeder like South Carolina with a NET in the upper 80s? Enquiring minds want to know.

For me, the new format  would change my  Madness predictions.  For those who have followed me for awhile, you will remember that if I gave a team a rating of B+  they would have about 1 chance in 3 of making the Dance. With recent changes (NIL , NET and Portal) you now need an A- to have an 80% chance to Dance. If the Madness expands to 76 teams then a B+ will have about a 75% chance.  But again , your conference may be more important than your NET.

Let the fun begin...Just a couple more weeks to my Pre Season forecast.

 

[Dr. Holly Hills]

GM won 27 games last year. Went 15-3 in the league and made it to the A10 tourney championship game.  They didn’t make the NCAA tourney and I don’t really remember them EVEN BEING IN THE CONVERSATION as a bubble team.  Granted highest ranked team they beat was probably Dayton, but that’s crazy and very concerning for A10 teams.

i fear more teams in the tourney will just mean more bottom feeder P5’ers.

 

[billiken_roy]

dr hills is correct this is all code for the big 10, big east, sec, big east and acc to advance towards they all get in and us lesser bees get the scraps.   the eventual outcome will be D-1 and D-1A and 1A arent invited.  might be another 10 years but that is what i see.

[TheA_Bomb]

Change it back to 64

Get rid of quad system, ease up a bit on SoS influence on the NET.

They're diluting the product.

Also making it harder for Cinderellas to advance to later rounds. A team can get hot and win a couple games, maybe three, in a blue moon 4, but more rounds makes that less likely for teams lacking depth.

[billikenfan05]

8 hours ago, Dr. Holly Hills said:

GM won 27 games last year. Went 15-3 in the league and made it to the A10 tourney championship game.  They didn’t make the NCAA tourney and I don’t really remember them EVEN BEING IN THE CONVERSATION as a bubble team.  Granted highest ranked team they beat was probably Dayton, but that’s crazy and very concerning for A10 teams.

i fear more teams in the tourney will just mean more bottom feeder P5’ers.

 

Despite the lobbying of Seth Davis that Mid Majors should unquestionably be in favor of NCAA expansion, we saw Rocco Miller say that the current prevailing sentiment is that (and I forget the exact wording) but essentially the one bid league AQs will be exiled to the expanded "first four". It's like saying you can still get in, but we're going to put 5lb ankle weights on you. They are taking teams ALREADY qualified for the field of 68 and giving them another game, while adding mediocre P4 teams to the main field of 64... I will say this again, if the P4 are lobbying for expansion, you can be damned sure it doesn't benefit anyone but the P4. 

[wgstl]

8 hours ago, Dr. Holly Hills said:

GM won 27 games last year. Went 15-3 in the league and made it to the A10 tourney championship game.  They didn’t make the NCAA tourney and I don’t really remember them EVEN BEING IN THE CONVERSATION as a bubble team.  Granted highest ranked team they beat was probably Dayton, but that’s crazy and very concerning for A10 teams.

i fear more teams in the tourney will just mean more bottom feeder P5’ers.

 

To a degree, I think this happens to us this year. The difference being I think will be in the conversation because we’ll play better teams, but we’ll rack up a ton of wins and miss out because of the SOS.  

[brianstl]

The answer is get rid of the conference tournaments and go to 128.  Regular season conference winners get the auto bid  puts and to be eligible as an at large team you have to have a .500 or above record.  Both those things add some importance back to regular season.  First round games at the home court of the higher seed and spread out over what was before the final week of the conferences tournaments. 

You more than double the inventory of tournament games to sell media rights for, more power conference teams get in, more non power conference teams get in, teams playing on their home court makes sure the first round tickets sell and everyone makes more money.

[Lord Elrond]

13 minutes ago, brianstl said:

The answer is get rid of the conference tournaments and go to 128.  Regular season conference winners get the auto bid  puts and to be eligible as an at large team you have to have a .500 or above record.  Both those things add some importance back to regular season.  First round games at the home court of the higher seed and spread out over what was before the final week of the conferences tournaments. 

You more than double the inventory of tournament games to sell media rights for, more power conference teams get in, more non power conference teams get in, teams playing on their home court makes sure the first round tickets sell and everyone makes more money.

If you double the inventory of tournament games to sell media rights to, why would we assume the media rights for those will still be as valuable?  National interest in these games simply will not be the same as it is for current 1st round games.

[BrettJollyComedyHour]

14 minutes ago, Lord Elrond said:

If you double the inventory of tournament games to sell media rights to, why would we assume the media rights for those will still be as valuable?  National interest in these games simply will not be the same as it is for current 1st round games.

According to what's been posted already, the answer is the opposite of whatever the NCAA is currently doing. I think the NCAA hates its fans.

[TheA_Bomb]

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

The answer is get rid of the conference tournaments and go to 128.  Regular season conference winners get the auto bid  puts and to be eligible as an at large team you have to have a .500 or above record.  Both those things add some importance back to regular season.  First round games at the home court of the higher seed and spread out over what was before the final week of the conferences tournaments. 

You more than double the inventory of tournament games to sell media rights for, more power conference teams get in, more non power conference teams get in, teams playing on their home court makes sure the first round tickets sell and everyone makes more money.

Interesting solution. 

I think Conferences own their Tourney TV rights and they will be hesitant to give them up unless they'll make more money.  Not to mention the varying contract end dates that complicate a clean shift.

This also makes Cinderellas less likely. 

I'm going all Cracker Barrel logo,  leave it alone, go back to 64. It was perfect. Sweet 16, elite 8, final 4 have all become part of our  American vernacular because of the memorable tournament moments.

Powers that be, stop chasing dollars and undermining why we love something. 

[TheA_Bomb]

41 minutes ago, BrettJollyComedyHour said:

According to what's been posted already, the answer is the opposite of whatever the NCAA is currently doing. I think the NCAA hates its fans.

You're onto something, this is the issue with bureaucracy they know more than us and most justify their existence by tweaking things that don't need tweaks.  Also, greed for more TV $.

[gobillsgo]

3 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

dr hills is correct this is all code for the big 10, big east, sec, big east and acc to advance towards they all get in and us lesser bees get the scraps.   the eventual outcome will be D-1 and D-1A and 1A arent invited.  might be another 10 years but that is what i see.

That level of greed would be akin to the top European soccer clubs attempting to form a Super League a few years back.  Main difference would be fans of the big soccer clubs rioted at the idea and it was scrapped.  Somehow I can’t see SPUMAC or Illini fans going to bat for little ol’ SLU on this issue.  We’d have to hope the average fan tunes out of March Madness without the possibility of a Cinderella.  But I’m not sure the loyalty of the average fan here runs as thick as in European soccer. 

[dlarry]

Awesome. Can't wait to watch 12-18 Northwestern take on 10-20 Oregon State. 

[Cowboy]

-I wish I could find a silver lining somewhere in this proposal but I am not seeing one 

-I wonder if any of the non-hard core hoops fans who fill out brackets for office or other pools and watch games will be turned off by these changes causing ratings to decline, part of me hopes so

-is it possible to put the toothpaste back in the tube once a change like this is made? I doubt it

[OkieBilliken]

Win now.  Win big.  Make in inevitable that we get in to the Big East.  Make it an obvious choice.  Thats really hard to do.   Otherwise we are screwed.  

No confidence that we have the leadership that has a remote chance of getting that done otherwise.  

 

 

[RiseOfTheBillikens]

2 hours ago, OkieBilliken said:

Win now.  Win big.  Make in inevitable that we get in to the Big East.  Make it an obvious choice.  Thats really hard to do.   Otherwise we are screwed.  

No confidence that we have the leadership that has a remote chance of getting that done otherwise.  

 

 

This. We are screwed

[brianstl]

7 hours ago, gobillsgo said:

That level of greed would be akin to the top European soccer clubs attempting to form a Super League a few years back.  Main difference would be fans of the big soccer clubs rioted at the idea and it was scrapped.  Somehow I can’t see SPUMAC or Illini fans going to bat for little ol’ SLU on this issue.  We’d have to hope the average fan tunes out of March Madness without the possibility of a Cinderella.  But I’m not sure the loyalty of the average fan here runs as thick as in European soccer. 

They can’t screw the smaller conferences as long as they don’t get an antitrust exemption.  I if you really want to save the smaller programs call your congress critter and let them know to oppose the bill that would give college athletic programs an antitrust exemption.  

[thetorch]

I can't believe that the blue blood programs really want to go 30-0 all season and then lose to one of their crappy conference rivals in the tournament.

This format doesn't really reward excellence.  If I was Duke and Wake or NC St that I beat twice and they went 7-11 in conference gets another shot at me, I'd much rather play an upstart cinderella team.

The other thing I don't get in restricting the mid majors is merchandising.  When a mid major blows up their merch gets sold at a much higher clip for years, when a low level BCS team wins, not so much.

[Lord Elrond]

Yeah, but if the one of the Power Conf teams lose to another Power Conf team, they can say it was because the Power Conf teams are so much better than the other conferences. It adds to their narrative about how they are the elite.

As for the merch, agreed, but who really benefits in what percentage when a mid-major team sells merch?

Bottom line, I think the Power Conf teams see more in it for them if it’s only about them. Not sure I agree, one of the best parts of the tourney is Cinderella upsets. But I don’t think Power Conf teams think it’s anything worth having.

[billikenfan05]

15 hours ago, thetorch said:

I can't believe that the blue blood programs really want to go 30-0 all season and then lose to one of their crappy conference rivals in the tournament.

This format doesn't really reward excellence.  If I was Duke and Wake or NC St that I beat twice and they went 7-11 in conference gets another shot at me, I'd much rather play an upstart cinderella team.

The other thing I don't get in restricting the mid majors is merchandising.  When a mid major blows up their merch gets sold at a much higher clip for years, when a low level BCS team wins, not so much.

My guess is these directives are coming straight from Conference Administrators and not from teams themselves. My guess is the conferences do not care which team gets to what round, they just care that their teams get the most opportunity to grab NCAA Wins and credits. 

[ACE]

I have talked about this for a couple of years- tournament expansion is THE most realistic way that "mid majors" can remain relevant. I completely understand the skepticism that a lot of these extra bids will go to bottom feeder P6 schools, but the status quo should not be an option for fans of mid major programs. At large bids for them have become nearly impossible. 

Coach Schertz is in favor of it. All SLU fans should be in favor of it. It boggles my mind why a few of our fans are tools for the P6 programs and like the status quo. 

As imperfect as a 76 field will likely be implemented, it will be better. For example, even the selection committee with an expanded field would have been unable to deny Schertz's ISU team an at large bid with their 28 NET.  Last year, VCU entered the conference tournament finals with a NET under 40.  IF they had lost that game, it was projected they would have been left out of the Dance. That should scare the hell of out SLU and every other mid major program.

 There have been 60 teams added to D1 since the field expanded to 64 in 1985. It's time to expand again.

[BrettJollyComedyHour]

13 minutes ago, ACE said:

I have talked about this for a couple of years- tournament expansion is THE most realistic way that "mid majors" can remain relevant. I completely understand the skepticism that a lot of these extra bids will go to bottom feeder P6 schools, but the status quo should not be an option for fans of mid major programs. At large bids for them have become nearly impossible. 

Coach Schertz is in favor of it. All SLU fans should be in favor of it. It boggles my mind why a few of our fans are tools for the P6 programs and like the status quo. 

As imperfect as a 76 field will likely be implemented, it will be better. For example, even the selection committee with an expanded field would have been unable to deny Schertz's ISU team an at large bid with their 28 NET.  Last year, VCU entered the conference tournament finals with a NET under 40.  IF they had lost that game, it was projected they would have been left out of the Dance. That should scare the hell of out SLU and every other mid major program.

 There have been 60 teams added to D1 since the field expanded to 64 in 1985. It's time to expand again.

I don't have time for a longer response, but I believe others have mentioned this will continue to disincentivize people to watch the Tournament as time goes on.

[billikenfan05]

40 minutes ago, ACE said:

I have talked about this for a couple of years- tournament expansion is THE most realistic way that "mid majors" can remain relevant. I completely understand the skepticism that a lot of these extra bids will go to bottom feeder P6 schools, but the status quo should not be an option for fans of mid major programs. At large bids for them have become nearly impossible. 

Coach Schertz is in favor of it. All SLU fans should be in favor of it. It boggles my mind why a few of our fans are tools for the P6 programs and like the status quo. 

As imperfect as a 76 field will likely be implemented, it will be better. For example, even the selection committee with an expanded field would have been unable to deny Schertz's ISU team an at large bid with their 28 NET.  Last year, VCU entered the conference tournament finals with a NET under 40.  IF they had lost that game, it was projected they would have been left out of the Dance. That should scare the hell of out SLU and every other mid major program.

 There have been 60 teams added to D1 since the field expanded to 64 in 1985. It's time to expand again.

P4s are currently doing everything they can to not give mid-majors regular season matchups. Do you really think that's where it stops? 

"Coach Schertz is in favor of it." Coach Schertz endorsement does not automatically mean it's good. 

[ACE]

32 minutes ago, BrettJollyComedyHour said:

I don't have time for a longer response, but I believe others have mentioned this will continue to disincentivize people to watch the Tournament as time goes on.

Really? That seems like an odd take. More schools participating in the opening round would create a lot more interest IMO than the current four PIG games.

BTW - the NCAA will need to rebrand it and call it the opening round, rather than the Play in Round, which is dumb. The teams that don't have to play an opening game, are rewarded with a bye and an appearance in round two.

[ACE]

9 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

P4s are currently doing everything they can to not give mid-majors regular season matchups. Do you really think that's where it stops? 

"Coach Schertz is in favor of it." Coach Schertz endorsement does not automatically mean it's good. 

Like I said, it unfortunately won't be perfect in how it is implemented, but the current system is far worse and yes, I will side with Schertz on what's better for mid majors considering he's a guy who got screwed out of an at large with a NET of 28.