Could NCAA Tournament committee follow CFB Playoff's lead?

[Alsacs]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ge-football-playoff-ncaa-tournament/19277795/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ge-football-playoff-ncaa-tournament/19277795/
I hope the NCAA committee does this just to end the need of ESPN parading Joe Lunardi around like he is some sorta genius for Bracketology. He was the first guy, but he is not good and gets way too much face time during selection season.

If the committee follows the CFB playoff committee and released its own top 25 every week starting in mid-January it would bring more transparency to college basketball.

 

[Lawrinson14]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ge-football-playoff-ncaa-tournament/19277795/
I hope the NCAA committee does this just to end the need of ESPN parading Joe Lunardi around like he is some sorta genius for Bracketology. He was the first guy, but he is not good and gets way too much face time during selection season.

If the committee follows the CFB playoff committee and released its own top 25 every week starting in mid-January it would bring more transparency to college basketball.

I don't like it.

My favorite part of college basketball is selection sunday and watching the brackets get revealed for the first time.

 

[jordoo]

Well it would take a lot of the mystery out of it which would be nice in some respects but you also lose the excitement of selection Sunday like Lawrinson14 mentioned.

 

[orange79]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ge-football-playoff-ncaa-tournament/19277795/
I hope the NCAA committee does this just to end the need of ESPN parading Joe Lunardi around like he is some sorta genius for Bracketology. He was the first guy, but he is not good and gets way too much face time during selection season.

If the committee follows the CFB playoff committee and released its own top 25 every week starting in mid-January it would bring more transparency to college basketball.

Ugh. If it ain't broke...

 

[Alsacs]

I am not saying their some negatives to this idea. As Lawrinson pointed it would end some suspense, but it would tell fans during Championship Week exactly where they stood and could get teams not to just punt conference tournaments if they knew exactly where they were. I like having as much information as possible and it would show the committee's mindset going into Selection Sunday.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If only someone had drawn this parallel when there was a discussion on the board about the FB committee a few weeks ago, and Kaiser had said there was no hope for that person.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I am not saying their some negatives to this idea. As Lawrinson pointed it would end some suspense, but it would tell fans during Championship Week exactly where they stood and could get teams not to just punt conference tournaments if they knew exactly where they were. I like having as much information as possible and it would show the committee's mindset going into Selection Sunday.

Hmm. Would they update their rankings after every day of the conference tourneys, or just before?

 

[Alsacs]

Hmm. Would they update their rankings after every day of the conference tourneys, or just before?

Every Monday from mid-January till Selection Sunday the committee could release its top 25. If you knew Syracuse was 9th on the S-Curve going into Championship week you would know exactly which teams to root against and could avoid any shenanigans.

More info = more transparency and less outrage at top.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Let's talk about what this is really about- ESPN is willing to pay for this weekly show. Would they run it as a lead-in to Big Monday and push those games back to 7:30 tip times?

I think it's fine because it still leaves plenty of room for surprises after the conference tournaments.

 

[Lawrinson14]

This sounds like way to much work for the committee to ever actually happen. No way they rank 64+ teams every week.

 

[Alsacs]

This sounds like way to much work for the committee to ever actually happen. No way they rank 64+ teams every week.

Just a top 25 would be necessary. The teams on the bubble could be announced during the actual selection show. Honestly I don't care for them to do the whole list. Remember there are 31 automatic bids and 37 at-large bids.

I would just love to have a weekly top 25 rankings released by the committee. So we know going to Championship Week where we stand. I think JB tends to view the conference tournament as a nuisance some years. If he knew exactly where he was I think like anyone with a brain he would treat it differently some years.

 

[Full_Rebar]

This sounds like way to much work for the committee to ever actually happen. No way they rank 64+ teams every week.

It would only be top 16 and to be honest the committee should be ranking the 64 each week, which is why it shouldn't consist of current AD's or conference folks.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I say yes they should. I suggested this on another thread last week. Not only would it increase transparency, but it would get the more casual fan to follow the sport earlier and more closely than they normally would.

 

[Madbiker]

It's much harder to do in basketball because of the number of games and multiple games per week played on different days. Not a static one game per week almost all on the same day. Even aside from that i don't like it. Part of what makes the hoop tourney so much fun is all the talk and speculation the last 2 weeks prior to Selection Sunday. This removes a lot of that. I also don't need to know in January how the committee is thinking of seeding teams -- way too premature and it could be demoralizing for a lot of teams. The current system works pretty well. The hoops tourney is popular with a lot of buzz those 2-3 weeks before SS. Let's not ruin it. BTW IMO the football committee putting these standings out is a real buzz kill -- hate it. Add to that that their continuing use of "amnesia" for early season terrible losses while killing teams who suffer later season "good" losses to power house high ranked teams on the road. SOS.

 

[cpatrocks]

This sounds like way to much work for the committee to ever actually happen. No way they rank 64+ teams every week.

Come on - it's not like these people have real jobs! If ESPN can make money off of it, it's gonna happen.

 

[Alsacs]

The actual committee's top 25 would matter. The Coaches Poll/AP polls are worthless when it comes to March Madness. I mean if you knew you had the committee's #1 team on your schedule you know that game is against the current #1 team in the country.

I don't get how you can be against this as you can just choose to avoid looking at the rankings.

 

[CorduroyG]

Lunardi just crapped his pants

 

[Knicks411]

I don't think they could do it every week or whatever; too many games going on. It would be a ton of work. Very cool idea though, don't get me wrong. The more transparency the better.

 

[Chris02M]

id be for it in someway but not every week. at end of January then mid February then one before conference tourneys start so 3 rankings

 

[PoppyHart]

Committee members in football are responsible for watching about 10% of the number of games as the BB committee would. This would be a full-time job for everyone involved if they took the role seriously.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Committee members in football are responsible for watching about 10% of the number of games as the BB committee would. This would be a full-time job for everyone involved if they took the role seriously.

I'd argue that both committees should be full-time jobs. You can't convince me that D1 AD's have the time to devote to watching enough games in either sport.

 

[kirbivore]

Every Monday from mid-January till Selection Sunday the committee could release its top 25. If you knew Syracuse was 9th on the S-Curve going into Championship week you would know exactly which teams to root against and could avoid any shenanigans.

More info = more transparency and less outrage at top.

Why bother revealing the S curve when they don't even use it after the top 4 teams?

 

[Cusefan0307]

I'm arguing with Mike Decourcey about this on twitter right now. He doesn't like the idea. Who doesn't like transparency? I sure as hell want to know who's ahead or behind us so we know what we have to do. I think most coaches would agree.

 

[Alsacs]

He

I'm arguing with Mike Decourcey about this on twitter right now. He doesn't like the idea. Who doesn't like transparency? I sure as hell want to know who's ahead or behind us so we know what we have to do. I think most coaches would agree.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this idea. The only people against want the suspense of Selection Sunday which is fine but if people claim its wrong for any other reason it makes no sense. If the committee tells you their rankings throughout the year you see what criteria the committee values. If a home loss drops you more than a road loss. If he hates this idea then we should just get rid of the AP/Coaches as those polls are worthless as it relates to the tournament.

 

[dasher]

It would only be top 16 and to be honest the committee should be ranking the 64 each week, which is why it shouldn't consist of current AD's or conference folks.

why should they rank the teams each week? It is meaningless until you see the final record.