Is there a better way of doing this?

[MSOrange]

Are all the teams at the D1 level really playing at a D1 level? or are they just in it to have a shot at the D1 tournament? Is that better than having a shot at a national championship at a lower level?

We have had this discussion before, but as an alum of a mid-major school, I would much rather be in the NCAA tournament. Mercer beating Duke was much more memorable to me than beating Tennessee State, Georgia State, Old Dominion, Fairfield and Utah State to win the CBI.

 

[Alsacs]

We have had this discussion before, but as an alum of a mid-major school, I would much rather be in the NCAA tournament. Mercer beating Duke was much more memorable to me than beating Tennessee State, Georgia State, Old Dominion, Fairfield and Utah State to win the CBI.

The first two days are awesome because of upsets.
A smaller tournament or expanded tournament would kill the first two days.

 

[SWC75]

That is what makes March Madness appealing nationally.
Is having matchups you don’t see often and it’s 1 game and you are out.

You want a system that rewards the best teams. Pro basketball does that.
The quality of play isn’t what it used to be.

The current tournament system is ideal.
If they had a champions league tournament it would do what you are suggesting and it would be during the season.
The best soccer teams for all the countries in Europe play home and homes during their domestic league seasons and then play it down to 1 team as champion.

SU-Montana didn't have that much national appeal.

 

[Alsacs]

SU-Montana didn't have that much national appeal.

Upsets have national appeal.
Montana was just an example of a team we wouldn’t play ever without the NCAAT.

UMBC over Virginia, Coppin State over South Carolina, Lehigh over Duke, Norfolk State over Missouri,.

 

[SWC75]

Probably not. I am sure there are vast differences in budgets and level of commitment.

Again, to me, the bottom line is revenue. If moving to 128 drives a lot more revenue and gets more athletes scholarships (or puts a lot more colleges in a position where they can continue to support the sports they already have), expansion is worth it.

Assuming there is extra money to be had expanding, maybe some of it could be put back in the pockets of the athletes who play in the tournament as well.

I think going to 96 with 32 play in games would be a better move. it would be enough to get in both regular season and conference tournament champs and the power conference teams with winning conference records, which i think would be a solid improvement. Having just four play-in games has always seemed so silly. Put the 32 lowest seeded teams in the play-ins. That gives you a better chance for the David vs. Goliath games for those that really want them and gets them out of the way so we can really get down to business.

 

[SWC75]

Upsets have national appeal.
Montana was just an example of a team we wouldn’t play ever without the NCAAT.

UMBC over Virginia, Coppin State over South Carolina, Lehigh over Duke, Norfolk State over Missouri,.

To me those upsets just prevent the confrontations we've waited all season to see. Most of those games wind up like SU-Montana and the upseters almost always go out in the next round, having done their damage to the tournament. meanwhile their players have had no shot at a national title. It's Marvin Hagler being knocked out by Mike Tyson.

 

[Eric15]

Eliminate the NIT and just increase the tournament.

Obviously the NIT is associated with failure for SU and a few dozen other teams, but it's still a huge accomplishment for probably 2/3rds of the teams in D1. You're in the postseason, you're playing games on national TV, and the Final Four is at MSG.

 

[TinyManInside]

I think going to 96 with 32 play in games would be a better move. it would be enough to get in both regular season and conference tournament champs and the power conference teams with winning conference records, which i think would be a solid improvement. Having just four play-in games has always seemed so silly. Put the 32 lowest seeded teams in the play-ins. That gives you a better chance for the David vs. Goliath games for those that really want them and gets them out of the way so we can really get down to business.

I am of the opinion that the play-in games gives the winning teams an unfair advantage of momentum going into a game against a high seeded opponent. I am not in favor of them existing in any way. If we expand from 64 I think it should be directly to 128 to add another full round.

 

[Eric15]

First, I am not a super strong proponent of this. I am kind of ambivalent but like I said, leaning towards being supportive.

You can argue the regular season is devalued but honestly, the teams from 69-128 are all or almost all going to lose immediately, and then you are going to have the same setup you have now. As the tournament expands, the value of the regular season becomes less about making the tournament and more about positioning yourself for success in the tournament (by getting a high seed). I don't think it is a big deal.

The pro here is that I think every time the NCAA has increased the sign of the tournament, it has driven more interest in the sport, more investment and more excitement for those participating or competing to participate.

If we did this, I think it would ensure that all the mid majors who had good seasons would make the tournament. We wouldn't have a Belmont, who went 26-4 and got upset in their tournament championship game, left out. Teams like UB, who made a great run late in the season but ran into a buzzsaw with Ohio in the MAC finals, would still get in.

If you doubled the field, I think it would result in bad/mediocre teams catching a hot streak (there's so much randomness to single college basketball games) and having watered down later rounds which would undermine the legitimacy of the entire regular and postseason.

In terms of Belmont, their SOS was 263 this year. They played zero Quad 1 games and 1 Quad 2 game. I know this was a tricky year with non-conference games, but you just have to play a harder schedule if you want an at-large.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I’m old fashioned. I think it should go back to 32. The odds of someone lower than that are very very slim that they’ll win a NC and has never happened.

So you would do away with auto bids or cut out mid majors altogether?

 

[sutomcat]

If you doubled the field, I think it would result in bad/mediocre teams catching a hot streak (there's so much randomness to single college basketball games) and having watered down later rounds which would undermine the legitimacy of the entire regular and postseason.

In terms of Belmont, their SOS was 263 this year. They played zero Quad 1 games and 1 Quad 2 game. I know this was a tricky year with non-conference games, but you just have to play a harder schedule if you want an at-large.

That didn't happen the other 4 or 5 times the tournament was expanded and I see no reason why it would here.

A lot of mid majors have a very hard time playing harder schedules. Especially the really good ones that big name schools may be wary of.

Again, this is not a big issue to me. The biggest reason to explore it is if it would significantly increase the payout to the schools. Not sure if that is the case. If not, I am definitely not in favor of expanding.

I believe every time the tournament has expanded, it has become dramatically more popular and profitable. Maybe we are finally at a point where this would stop. I don't pretend to know the answer to this.

 

[Eric15]

I am definitely not in favor of expanding.

Well said I definitely agree with you here.

 

[Orangezoo]

The main thought I have ever had is turning this into the NBA playoffs once you get to say the elite 8. The first three rounds being the true cinderella rounds and single elimination. Elite 8 being either 3 games or a two game aggregate score approach. I would max each round forward at 3 games. No need past that. Pushes the tourney to mid April and adds another element.

The other thought and maybe in addition to would be to have 32 protected seeds and then 64 teams play in for the other 32 spots. That is 96 teams but essentially only 32 are in, 64 are playing for the right to get in but are still postseason participants.

The 32 losers make up the NIT.

 

[Scooch]

You want a system that rewards the best teams. Pro basketball does that.

Yep, and the NBA playoffs are largely a 2-month exercise in crowning a champ amongst the 2 or 3 teams that everyone figured would win when the playoffs started.

It is incredibly rare for the NBA champion to not be at least a #2 conference seed. Since Magic Johnson and Larry Bird turned pro there have been 41 NBA champions, and 36 of them were either the #1 or #2 seed in their conference. 4 of those other 5 were #3 seeds.

The "best team" wins in the NBA, and it's kinda boring. I don't want college to emulate that.

 

[Bayside44]

Yep, and the NBA playoffs are largely a 2-month exercise is crowning a champ amongst the 2 or 3 teams that everyone figured would win when the playoffs started.

It is incredibly rare for the NBA champion to not be at least a #2 conference seed. Since Magic Johnson and Larry Bird turned pro there have been 41 NBA champions, and 36 of them were either the #1 or #2 seed in their conference. 4 of those other 5 were #3 seeds.

The "best team" wins in the NBA, and it's kinda boring. I don't want college to emulate that.

They'll never do it but the first round 5 game series helps with upsets. The longer it goes the more likely the *better* team wins.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Yep, and the NBA playoffs are largely a 2-month exercise is crowning a champ amongst the 2 or 3 teams that everyone figured would win when the playoffs started.

It is incredibly rare for the NBA champion to not be at least a #2 conference seed. Since Magic Johnson and Larry Bird turned pro there have been 41 NBA champions, and 36 of them were either the #1 or #2 seed in their conference. 4 of those other 5 were #3 seeds.

The "best team" wins in the NBA, and it's kinda boring. I don't want college to emulate that.

The best teams would win in college too if the games were even just two out of three. The tournament is fun because of the upsets that are possible which I get. But one game lends itself to such upsets. The more games you play, the more you regress to the mean.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Going from 64/68 teams to 16 eliminates ~75% of student/alum/local fan viewership.

Much like the purpose of television shows is not to entertain but to sell ads, the purpose of the tournament isn’t to decide the best team but to generate the most revenue and the excitement and tension of single elimination with a wide field is a critical component of that. Other sports are adding playoff spots in order to include more fans and increase viewership. Going to a 16 team field only makes the tournament more of an appeal to the hardcore audience.

I‘m fine with the current number of teams in the field, but don’t need the play-in nonsense. Whether you have 64 or 68, there are still minor controversies about who is going to make the cut.

 

[Alsacs]

96 teams makes the regular season pointless for most P6 teams.

68 teams require teams atleast earn their way into the field.

Last year’s team wasn’t NCAAT good enough with 96 teams they make it.

We don’t need another 28 teams making the NCAAT.

 

[Scooch]

They'll never do it but the first round 5 game series helps with upsets. The longer it goes the more likely the *better* team wins.

Yep, way too much revenue at stake to prune back the 7 game series. For sheer entertainment value, playing 3 game series for the entire NBA playoffs would be a blast.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Anything that pushes basketball further to the football model is stupid.

 

[Eric15]

If you went 128 this year you would probably have the entire Big Ten minus Nebraska in the NCAA Tournament. And even Nebraska has a NET ranking of 126 so it would be a close call.

One word: woof.

 

[tbonezone]

one word . BINGO.

let the coaches vote on the 64 best teams and put their names in the cage. then let it roll .
selection sunday is the first draw. after that round winners go back in for the next draw.
and so it goes. don't know who you playing. don't know where you are playing. don't when you are playing next until the numbers are drawn. that would jazz things up and make every drawing round must see TV . just my thoughts. no bias. no rewards. just BASKETBALL BINGO.

 

[SWC75]

Going from 64/68 teams to 16 eliminates ~75% of student/alum/local fan viewership.

Much like the purpose of television shows is not to entertain but to sell ads, the purpose of the tournament isn’t to decide the best team but to generate the most revenue and the excitement and tension of single elimination with a wide field is a critical component of that. Other sports are adding playoff spots in order to include more fans and increase viewership. Going to a 16 team field only makes the tournament more of an appeal to the hardcore audience.

I‘m fine with the current number of teams in the field, but don’t need the play-in nonsense. Whether you have 64 or 68, there are still minor controversies about who is going to make the cut.

Those people wouldn't watch a round robin of Gonzaga, Michigan, Baylor and Illinois because they aren't students, alums or locals?

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Those people wouldn't watch a round robin of Gonzaga, Michigan, Baylor and Illinois because they aren't students, alums or locals?

I wouldn’t.
I have missed only two broadcasted SU games since 1985. But my investment in college basketball is limited entirely to Syracuse.
I’m not saying my perspective is applicable to the masses but similarly, the perspective of the hardcore NCAA fan isn’t applicable to the casual viewer who is involved primarily for predictably personal attachment reasons. It’s not like the NBA. That’s a different model.


*this is, of course, opinion

 

[pokercuse08]

People in this country can hardly agree on anything. Virtually every sports fan in America loves March Madness and I've never met one who hates it.

What are we even discussing here?

Don't change an awesome thing beyond tweaks around the edges. Want a couple more play-in games? Fine. Regular season champ plays conference tourney champ for an auto bid? That's cool. But don't mess with March Madness beyond that.