March Sadness

[SWC75]

I just listened to an extended discussion of SU's NCAA hopes on the radio, with much discussion of quadrants, road wins, bad losses. Soon we'll be getting into "blind resumes" and how many teams a conference will get in, (despite the fact that that supposedly isn't a factor). I realize that talk and controversy might be good for a sport but I prefer on the field or on the court results to talking heads. Then there's the mysterious NCAA committee that decides things behind closed doors with criteria that seems to change every year. We are told that every game for a team like SU is a "must win" and so is the next one and the one after that. If don't get chosen we will have been "snubbed" and find ourselves in the NIT, a tournament nobody cares about. Half of our players will be interested in an NIT game and the other half won't. The season will be a failure and we'll have March Sadness instead of March Madness.

I'm of two minds about this. My traditional stance has been that the purpose of the NCAA tournament is to bring together the teams that have proven themselves over the course of the season to be one of the top teams in the country to hold a tournament to see who is the best of the best. A 16 team tournament would probably be a big enough to cover this. Then you could have a number of other tournaments that could serve like basketball bowl games and hopefully provide more interest than the current NIT because they would have team that know they weren't going to make the championship tournament but they could end their season on a positive note by winning a tournament. Maybe we could have a tournament in the Dome. Teams like Syracuse would know that they weren't going to be in the 16 team tournament and wouldn't be sweating it out. There would be teams in the 15-20 range that do so but it would be a smaller number of teams.

But basketball has the opposite problem of football, which has too few teams in it's tournament. The basketball tournament is bloated with teams that obviously aren't among the nation's top teams. Some of them should probably be in a basketball version of Division 1AA. others are power conference also-rans. They might be looking to pull off a big upset or make it to the second weekend. But they are not threats to win the tournament. And when they pull off those upsets, they prevent the confrontations we have been waiting all year to see.

i remember when the tournament went to 32 teams, I felt that should be the upper limit and that they wouldn't go beyond that. But they quickly went to 40, then 48, the 64. Surely that was the absolute limit. that's when the practice of passing out sheets for the office pool exploded. then came the play-in games. More and more teams were included and more and more teams were bummed out that they weren't "in". This lad to the Lunardi Era and all the angst so many teams and their fans feel this time of year.

I'd love to go backwards to a more restrictive tournament full of teams that have proven they really deserve a shot at the national championship. To undue the past is always more difficult than creating the future because there will be just too much opposition to it: you're swimming upstream rather than downstream.

So these day's I'm more apt to go in the opposite direct and include everybody. it wouldn't be as outlandish a proposition as some might think. There are 351 Division 1 schools. Rank them from 1-351 by some mathematical method, (not a committee meeting behind closed doors. You can use a single ranking system like Sagarin or combined the results of several systems. Then have the bottom 95 teams play the next 95 teams in the first round. (I'd suggest having the early rounds at the home arena of the higher seeded team). The top 161 teams would get byes. That would be the first week. the second week would be the round of 256: 128 games to get it down to that number. the third week would be the round of 128 to get it down to 64. Now the teams go to neutral venues and you can hand out the sheets for the 64 team field.

Look at the Sagarin rankings: College Basketball Ratings Page
We are currently the 60th ranked team. If the tournament were held no we would skip the first week, (and the players could rest up). if the first week "went chalk", we'd play Kent State, (11-14),the 196th team in the round of 256. if that round also went chalk, we'd play St. John's (13-13), the 68th team in the round of 128. if that went chalk we'd still be in the 64 team field and playing Michigan State, (25-3) the fifth ranked team in the round of 64. We be focused on beating those teams rather than worrying about getting snubbed.

The one issue would be our seeding but we wouldn't be far from #60. If we felt we should be 59th, (if chalk held), we'd be playing Bowling Green (14-10), the 197th team, in the round of 256, Murray State (19-5), the 69th team, in the round of 128 and Auburn (23-3) in the round of 64. If somebody thought we should be #61, then our opponents would be #195 Troy (11-13), #67 Boston College (16-10) and #4 Cincinnati (23-3). What's the difference? No angst there.

The leading argument against this would be that it makes the regular season meaningless. of course it's not meaningless if it determines your seeding, even if minor differences are, well , minor. But I think it would actually make regular season achievements more meaningful because they would no longer be seen as a stepping stone to the NCAA tournament. they would be seen as accomplishment sin their own right, as they should be. Win the ACC regular season because it would be a great thing to win the ACC regular season. Win the ACC tournament just like you'd want to win the preseason NIT or the Maui Classic, except it would be a little more meaningful because it's against your conference rivals.

Then, let's all go dancing and see what happens there. get rid of the angst and replace it with hope and excitement.

 

[jncuse]

I really dislike idea of 351 teams. Dislike the thought more than even Duke, UConn or the NCAA.

I think the current number is fine. Sure there will be some subjectivity amongst the bubble teams, but if you put yourself on the line, just accept whatever fate you get. I don't think the committee is as inconsistent from year to year as some people think. I think the bigger issue is that some people choose not to listen, make up their own rules, and then yell inconsistency.

If anything I would support a formula picks the 37 at larges, than going to 351 teams. 351 teams would be a disaster and would kill the tournament. People will not be invested early on like they are today. I think that will kill much of the momentum and flow of the event.

 

[SWC75]

I really dislike idea of 351 teams. Dislike the thought more than even Duke, UConn or the NCAA.

I think the current number is fine. Sure there will be some subjectivity amongst the bubble teams, but if you put yourself on the line, just accept whatever fate you get. I don't think the committee is as inconsistent from year to year as some people think. I think the bigger issue is that some people choose not to listen, make up their own rules, and then yell inconsistency.

If anything I would support a formula picks the 37 at larges, than going to 351 teams. 351 teams would be a disaster and would kill the tournament. People will not be invested early on like they are today. I think that will kill much of the momentum and flow of the event.

It might create even more interest because everyone would be in it. I think the tournament would gain momentum rather than lose it.

 

[newmexicuse]

I very much appreciate your post.

As far as I am concerned, forget the quadrants and all of the advanced metrics.

If we go 9 - 9 in the ACC and finally win at least one ACC tourney game we deserve to be in - end of story.

If we go 9 - 9 with no ACC tourney wins or 8 - 10 in conference with at least one ACC tourney win, we are on the bubble and taking fate out of our own hands. I would have no complaint in that scenerio if we are in or out.

Anything less then the above and we don't deserve an invite.

 

[two3zone]

I very much appreciate your post.

As far as I am concerned, forget the quadrants and all of the advanced metrics.

If we go 9 - 9 in the ACC and finally win at least one ACC tourney game we deserve to be in - end of story.

If we go 9 - 9 with no ACC tourney wins or 8 - 10 in conference with at least one ACC tourney win, we are on the bubble and taking fate out of our own hands. I would have no complaint in that scenerio if we are in or out.

Anything less then the above and we don't deserve an invite.

9-9 sounds good but when you throw in playing Pitt twice it probably looks more like a 7-9.

We took advantage of our weak schedule but should've been able to do more with the team's we faced missing their best players due to injuries.

I just don't see how we get in without a couple more victories and one or two wins in the acc tournament.

 

[Col. Bleep]

The bottom line is the Orange have to beat some people.
That means you, Miami.
And UNC, Duke, BC & Clemson.
At least 3 victories.
Win and get in.
Lose and snooze...until next season.

 

[jncuse]

It might create even more interest because everyone would be in it. I think the tournament would gain momentum rather than lose it.

Part of the appeal of the current tournament is the structure, the "bracket" people. It has plenty of casual appeal. That all goes away with the 351 team tourney. Everybody knows the 1-16 matchup. It's somewhat easy to follow -- you know Thursday and Friday are your upset days.

Although I am not a person that does brackets. the format itself is consistent that makes it easy for hardcore and casual alike to invest in. I think once you get to 351 and then start tinkering as you add a team or two to the NCAA, it will just all get very confusing.

 

[jncuse]

I don't want to be the backdoor moderator guy, but I am not if sure if this should turn into a thread of what we need to do to get in (and I realize it is coming from me). There are plenty of other threads for that.

SWC has come up with a concept for a new tourney format, and I think the merits and or / flaws of that format are what we should try to keep in this thread.

 

[jncuse]

16, 68 or 351 would be an interesting poll. I don't think you can add it to your post unfortunately.

 

[newmexicuse]

Well, since we are belittling the regular season in a 351 team tournament, let's take it to the extreme.

Play a ten game regular season to get seedings. Conferences go bye-bye - computers will generate random schedules. Follow that up with a series of four 351 team tournaments - just for fun we could re-seed after every tournament. Let the four winners (or runners-up if somebody wins more than once) then have a final four to determine the grand champ.

That will put an end to March Madness & we could have a Monthly Madness instead. Never too much of a good thing !!

 

[Alsacs]

How about we just leave it the way it is.
We don’t need participation trophies for everyone.
Win quality games away from home you make the tournament.

Just because teams 69-91 were left out doesn’t mean we need more.
Less is more. Heck the regular season of college hoops already struggles for attention making the tournament for everyone is just stupid.
Conference tournaments are the 351 idea. Everyone gets a shot to make it.

 

[Fat tire 13]

How about we just leave it the way it is.
We don’t need participation trophies for everyone.
Win quality games away from home you make the tournament.

Just because teams 69-91 were left out doesn’t mean we need more.
Less is more. Heck the regular season of college hoops already struggles for attention making the tournament for everyone is just stupid.
Conference tournaments are the 351 idea. Everyone gets a shot to make it.

Good point about the conference tourneys. Pitt (trying not to laugh) technically still has a shot at making it

Glad to discuss a new topic too. Personally I like the 64 team format. 32 is probably more fair, and rewards worthy teams. But let's face it, all the first round upsets are probably one of the most entertaining things in all of sports. Those first 4 days are the highlight of my year.

 

[SWC75]

Part of the appeal of the current tournament is the structure, the "bracket" people. It has plenty of casual appeal. That all goes away with the 351 team tourney. Everybody knows the 1-16 matchup. It's somewhat easy to follow -- you know Thursday and Friday are your upset days.

Although I am not a person that does brackets. the format itself is consistent that makes it easy for hardcore and casual alike to invest in. I think once you get to 351 and then start tinkering as you add a team or two to the NCAA, it will just all get very confusing.

In my concept the NCAA sheets would be done when you get it down to 64 teams. None of that would be lost.

 

[SWC75]

Good point about the conference tourneys. Pitt (trying not to laugh) technically still has a shot at making it

Glad to discuss a new topic too. Personally I like the 64 team format. 32 is probably more fair, and rewards worthy teams. But let's face it, all the first round upsets are probably one of the most entertaining things in all of sports. Those first 4 days are the highlight of my year.

Well, we might get even more of those. it just wouldn't be the first round.

 

[SWC75]

Well, since we are belittling the regular season in a 351 team tournament, let's take it to the extreme.

Play a ten game regular season to get seedings. Conferences go bye-bye - computers will generate random schedules. Follow that up with a series of four 351 team tournaments - just for fun we could re-seed after every tournament. Let the four winners (or runners-up if somebody wins more than once) then have a final four to determine the grand champ.

That will put an end to March Madness & we could have a Monthly Madness instead. Never too much of a good thing !!

I'd like to see the regular season cut down to about 20 games. You could do one a weekend and avoid the weeknight games. But that's less $$$$.

 

[ScrabbCuse]

Here’s an idea that hasn’t been mentioned. I’m borrowing this concept from grand slam tennis tournaments. Seed the top 16 overall seeds, 1-4 in each bracket and randomly select the rest of the bracket from teams 17-64(play in games can still be played to make the main draw). Get rid of seeds 5-16. Every team not ranked in the top 16 is unseeded. That means the top overall seed could play the 17th best team in the country in the 1st round. Number 63 can play 64. The top 16 still can’t play each other until the sweet sixteen. If nothing else, it would make the first two rounds pretty entertaining.

 

[SBU72]

I just listened to an extended discussion of SU's NCAA hopes on the radio, with much discussion of quadrants, road wins, bad losses. Soon we'll be getting into "blind resumes" and how many teams a conference will get in, (despite the fact that that supposedly isn't a factor). I realize that talk and controversy might be good for a sport but I prefer on the field or on the court results to talking heads. Then there's the mysterious NCAA committee that decides things behind closed doors with criteria that seems to change every year. We are told that every game for a team like SU is a "must win" and so is the next one and the one after that. If don't get chosen we will have been "snubbed" and find ourselves in the NIT, a tournament nobody cares about. Half of our players will be interested in an NIT game and the other half won't. The season will be a failure and we'll have March Sadness instead of March Madness.

I'm of two minds about this. My traditional stance has been that the purpose of the NCAA tournament is to bring together the teams that have proven themselves over the course of the season to be one of the top teams in the country to hold a tournament to see who is the best of the best. A 16 team tournament would probably be a big enough to cover this. Then you could have a number of other tournaments that could serve like basketball bowl games and hopefully provide more interest than the current NIT because they would have team that know they weren't going to make the championship tournament but they could end their season on a positive note by winning a tournament. Maybe we could have a tournament in the Dome. Teams like Syracuse would know that they weren't going to be in the 16 team tournament and wouldn't be sweating it out. There would be teams in the 15-20 range that do so but it would be a smaller number of teams.

But basketball has the opposite problem of football, which has too few teams in it's tournament. The basketball tournament is bloated with teams that obviously aren't among the nation's top teams. Some of them should probably be in a basketball version of Division 1AA. others are power conference also-rans. They might be looking to pull off a big upset or make it to the second weekend. But they are not threats to win the tournament. And when they pull off those upsets, they prevent the confrontations we have been waiting all year to see.

i remember when the tournament went to 32 teams, I felt that should be the upper limit and that they wouldn't go beyond that. But they quickly went to 40, then 48, the 64. Surely that was the absolute limit. that's when the practice of passing out sheets for the office pool exploded. then came the play-in games. More and more teams were included and more and more teams were bummed out that they weren't "in". This lad to the Lunardi Era and all the angst so many teams and their fans feel this time of year.

I'd love to go backwards to a more restrictive tournament full of teams that have proven they really deserve a shot at the national championship. To undue the past is always more difficult than creating the future because there will be just too much opposition to it: you're swimming upstream rather than downstream.

So these day's I'm more apt to go in the opposite direct and include everybody. it wouldn't be as outlandish a proposition as some might think. There are 351 Division 1 schools. Rank them from 1-351 by some mathematical method, (not a committee meeting behind closed doors. You can use a single ranking system like Sagarin or combined the results of several systems. Then have the bottom 95 teams play the next 95 teams in the first round. (I'd suggest having the early rounds at the home arena of the higher seeded team). The top 161 teams would get byes. That would be the first week. the second week would be the round of 256: 128 games to get it down to that number. the third week would be the round of 128 to get it down to 64. Now the teams go to neutral venues and you can hand out the sheets for the 64 team field.

Look at the Sagarin rankings: College Basketball Ratings Page
We are currently the 60th ranked team. If the tournament were held no we would skip the first week, (and the players could rest up). if the first week "went chalk", we'd play Kent State, (11-14),the 196th team in the round of 256. if that round also went chalk, we'd play St. John's (13-13), the 68th team in the round of 128. if that went chalk we'd still be in the 64 team field and playing Michigan State, (25-3) the fifth ranked team in the round of 64. We be focused on beating those teams rather than worrying about getting snubbed.

The one issue would be our seeding but we wouldn't be far from #60. If we felt we should be 59th, (if chalk held), we'd be playing Bowling Green (14-10), the 197th team, in the round of 256, Murray State (19-5), the 69th team, in the round of 128 and Auburn (23-3) in the round of 64. If somebody thought we should be #61, then our opponents would be #195 Troy (11-13), #67 Boston College (16-10) and #4 Cincinnati (23-3). What's the difference? No angst there.

The leading argument against this would be that it makes the regular season meaningless. of course it's not meaningless if it determines your seeding, even if minor differences are, well , minor. But I think it would actually make regular season achievements more meaningful because they would no longer be seen as a stepping stone to the NCAA tournament. they would be seen as accomplishment sin their own right, as they should be. Win the ACC regular season because it would be a great thing to win the ACC regular season. Win the ACC tournament just like you'd want to win the preseason NIT or the Maui Classic, except it would be a little more meaningful because it's against your conference rivals.

Then, let's all go dancing and see what happens there. get rid of the angst and replace it with hope and excitement.

I have always maintained that the NCAA should divide the income that they get from the tournament equally among ALL Division 1 schools. This would greatly reduce one of the main argument about who should or should not get in. It is widely recognized that the best 65 (now 68) teams do NOT get in because conference champions or 1 sort or another get in. Go ahead an invite 64 (68) teams but get as close as possible to the best ones. This may lead to reducing the # getting in and bringing forth added NIT types, again splitting the revenue equally.

 

[Fat tire 13]

Well, we might get even more of those. it just wouldn't be the first round.

Reading your post more closely, there are several intriguing parts. What if 32 teams made it automatically, and the rest played their way into the other 32 spots? And the lower you are ranked, the more games you have to win. Shortening the season by even 3-5 games would allow time for this tournament.

And anything that involves more gambling is a bonus!

 

[rrlbees]

The upsets are fun but there’s too many teams. 32 may not be enough because there may not be much difference between 26-40. I think it should be a 48 team tourney. Seeds 1-16 get a bye the first Thursday/Friday and 17-48 play Thursday/Friday. Then the remaining 32 teams all play Sat/Sun.

The only downside is some people feel a team playing their second game in the tourney are at an advantage over a team playing its first. If that’s a big concern then go to 32.

 

[sugrad68]

The bottom line is the Orange have to beat some people.
That means you, Miami.
And UNC, Duke, BC & Clemson.
At least 3 victories.
Win and get in.
Lose and snooze...until next season.

I fully agree. Each win against those 5 teams would be solid.

ON the other subject. I think that the current tournament format is excellent. To be an at-large team you have to excel during the season by not losing to mediocre teams, beating most teams with equal talent, and beating some teams with better talent.

 

[pfister1]

I'd suggest 350 teams, leave 1 team out every year. That way you keep the bubble and at least one team that feels like it got screwed. Somes aspects of March Madness are too good to give up.

Actually if you went to 256 you could play an extra weekend and you wouldn't have to hand out byes.

I guess I should add, that if there really is going to be a change, I think they should drop back to 64. It was pretty much perfect at 6 rounds, no byes.

 

[cuseincincy]

My opinion is we already have the 351 team tournament due to the conference tournaments. As far as smaller and more tournaments are concerned i dont feel copying a broken bowl system model is the right way to go. Those smaller bowls are so interesting that nobody goes to them. Most schools can't even sell their ticket allotment. Not sure hoop would be any different.

 

[OrangeDW]

Personally, I wish the tournament was more about getting the 68 best teams in. Not really a fan of the auto bids for the crappy conferences. Sorry, but the Patriot League champion would not go 9-9 in the ACC.

I don’t really care about the “underdog” angle...because for every cindarella upset there’s 20 first blow outs because one of the team sucks and has no business being in the dance. I’d rather see stronger first round matchups across the board.

 

[cuseincincy]

Personally, I wish the tournament was more about getting the 68 best teams in. Not really a fan of the auto bids for the crappy conferences. Sorry, but the Patriot League champion would not go 9-9 in the ACC.

I don’t really care about the “underdog” angle...because for every cindarella upset there’s 20 first blow outs because one of the team sucks and has no business being in the dance. I’d rather see stronger first round matchups across the board.

I don't disagree as a fan of college basketball. But as a grad of one of those "crappy conferences" I gotta tell you those teams, schools , players and students live for the opportunity to bring down a Goliath in the dance.

 

[OrangeDW]

I don't disagree as a fan of college basketball. But as a grad of one of those "crappy conferences" I gotta tell you those teams, schools , players and students live for the opportunity to bring down a Goliath in the dance.

I should add that I certainly don’t have a problem with those schools making the tournament...if they’re good enough. Occasionally you’ll get one of them that’s legit and fully capable of beating anybody.

Which I realize is harder to evaluate in the regular season with those schools, depending on their non league schedules.