The NCAA should just go to 128 and drop the NIT

[jncuse]

If I'm the conference commissioner of a P5 conference, I'm concerned that the front-line players of my regular season champions probably won't dress for the game and lower the quality of the product for which my schools charge a premium for tickets and ESPN pays me quite well.

How would that be any different than the situation now? P5 teams are already locked, champ or not. I didn't see any P5 programs grossly giving up on the tournaments this past weekend.

 

[jncuse]

Every time this thread comes up I am reminded of this clip from the onion from several years back.

 

[SBU72]

You lost me with your first sentence. No way should (for example) a 13-15 Jacksonville St get a bye when a 29-4 UCLA has to play a 'first round' game.

I expected this push back and understand it completely. However, I didn't say that those 32 byes get the top seeds. Once the play ins had been determine, the teams would be reseeded. Jacksonville still gets the pleasure of playing Villanova. Their bonus for their automatic bib is no different than it currently is.

But how does any of that make for a more exciting product?

Does any expansion really improve the product? Not really. Maybe the final 64 teams would be a little better and more deserving while not pushing out the mid-majors. They get their chance to compete to actually get in. A 2nd or 3 mid-American conference team plays an 4th place P5 and the better team advances. Stop some arguments on who is worthy. This may just bring in more money (do away with NIT?) and spread it around a little. This way bubble teams get a better chance of actually playing in the NCAA.

I would be against any expansion. However, if it were expanded to 96 (I know this was being considered a little while back), I would make the following change. Each conference gets up to two automatic bids - one for the regular season and one for the conference tournament. However, some rules:

• If the same team wins both the season and the tournament, a second bid is not given
• Only one bid for winning the regular season - a tie breaker process would have to be put in place in the event that more than one team finishes at the top

Not bad.

 

[Hoo's That]

How would that be any different than the situation now? P5 teams are already locked, champ or not. I didn't see any P5 programs grossly giving up on the tournaments this past weekend.

Good question. I'm surprised that UNC-CHeat, Kansas, et al., don't pull their starters after the first TV timeout of each game in the tournament. The only thing that drives them is competitive spirit and being sure of locking up a #1 seed, I guess, and if you team has a bunch of turned ankles, etc., it may be worthwhile to rest them more. Purdue was the one who would have benefited the most from resting their players since they weren't going to move from the line they were on going into their tournament win or lose.

 

[orange2win]

There's room for improvement. Don't expand to 128, but allow the existing "playoff" round to expand and used as a filter, so the prevailing team(s) gain access to the tournament. In other words, the current NIT would screen the +64 crowd. This could be done in about a week.

 

[tbonezone]

you're moving the wrong way. how many 50+ seeds have won the damn thing. reduce it to back to 64. or make it for the actual contenders and invite just 32 combatants. that might juice things up for the NIT also.

 

[SWC75]

Good question. I'm surprised that UNC-CHeat, Kansas, et al., don't pull their starters after the first TV timeout of each game in the tournament. The only thing that drives them is competitive spirit and being sure of locking up a #1 seed, I guess, and if you team has a bunch of turned ankles, etc., it may be worthwhile to rest them more. Purdue was the one who would have benefited the most from resting their players since they weren't going to move from the line they were on going into their tournament win or lose.

If a team tanked the conference tournament, I could assume that would have a negative impact on their seeding in the NCAAs. A Power 5 regular season champion is going after a #1 seed.

 

[PhatOrange]

might as well. we have teams with losing records playing in bowl games.

it'd be an even bigger cash cow.

 

[Eric15]

might as well. we have teams with losing records playing in bowl games.

But almost everyone agrees that sucks beyond belief.

 

[PhatOrange]

But almost everyone agrees that sucks beyond belief.

not for the team and the players it doesn't, nor the fans of those teams.

but if your team is playing in a bowl game and you still think that sucks then i don't know what to tell you other than your nutz but i already knew that.

 

[orange2win]

you're moving the wrong way. how many 50+ seeds have won the damn thing. reduce it to back to 64. or make it for the actual contenders and invite just 32 combatants. that might juice things up for the NIT also.

Yea, but every weak conference wants to be represented in the tournament, even though they have no chance, and that is their right. We are a +64 team this year and if we could play our way back into the tournament, you could never convince me that this year's team has no chance. It could win 5 more in a row for sure. (Many are still saying Duke is the best team in the nation).

 

[Eric15]

Does any expansion really improve the product? Not really. Maybe the final 64 teams would be a little better and more deserving while not pushing out the mid-majors. They get their chance to compete to actually get in. A 2nd or 3 mid-American conference team plays an 4th place P5 and the better team advances. Stop some arguments on who is worthy. This may just bring in more money (do away with NIT?) and spread it around a little. This way bubble teams get a better chance of actually playing in the NCAA.

But why do we want to water down the prestige of playing in the NCAA Tournament?

I feel like this suggestion is more of an emotional reaction of being annoyed that we just missed the cut this year as opposed to a good long-term idea. If you're a P5 team who is on the bubble, it's your own fault. You had four months to win another game or two.

 

[jncuse]

I would be against any expansion. However, if it were expanded to 96 (I know this was being considered a little while back), I would make the following change. Each conference gets up to two automatic bids - one for the regular season and one for the conference tournament. However, some rules:

• If the same team wins both the season and the tournament, a second bid is not given
• Only one bid for winning the regular season - a tie breaker process would have to be put in place in the event that more than one team finishes at the top

My issue with this is why are we watering down the tournament with multiple teams from the 20th to the 32nd best conference. Those are typically some bad conferences. Let them decide what their process should be to determine their 1 champion.

 

[Eric15]

not for the team and the players it doesn't, nor the fans of those teams.

but if your team is playing in a bowl game and you still think that sucks then i don't know what to tell you other than your nutz but i already knew that.

But we're discussing it from the perspective of having as great of a post-season as possible for the overall sport of college basketball. Of course the individual teams who got an extra bid would be happy about it. If we let in 2-27 Alabama A&M, I'm sure their players would be delighted.

 

[tbonezone]

Yea, but every weak conference wants to be represented in the tournament, even though they have no chance, and that is their right. We are a +64 team this year and if we could play our way back into the tournament, you could never convince me that this year's team has no chance. It could win 5 more in a row for sure. (Many are still saying Duke is the best team in the nation).

well they might actually have a slight goat's ass chance of winning the newly expanded and enhanced NIT.

no way your team is winning an oscar but you might land a peoples choice for the trophy case mantel.

 

[Chip]

Drop back to 64 and come up with something more universal upon which the committee makes its decisions.

Don't keep moving the goalposts (well this year it's Top 50 wins, this year it's bad losses, this year it's RPI). It's stupid.

Have Bilas lead the committee the first couple years while they figure it out.

I'm not just saying that because he likes us. But it's exactly as he said Monday, this isn't about Syracuse, it's about having consistency on how we pick the best teams.

 

[RandygoCuse]

My issue with this is why are we watering down the tournament with multiple teams from the 20th to the 32nd best conference. Those are typically some bad conferences. Let them decide what their process should be to determine their 1 champion.

Fair enough - I just think that if we went to 96 (and I'd rather not), I'd prefer to see teams that dominated small conferences and had a bad break in their tourney than more at large teams that barely won half their games.

 

[Oráiste]

I would hate that - makes the regular meaningless other than for seeding purposes.

by that reasoning, conference tourneys would have already rendered the regular conference season meaningless, and we know that is not true

Going to 128 teams:

4 32-team brackets (alternatively, combine the conference and tournament champions into one pool and at-large into another pool, 2 64-team brackets):
The Tournament of Champions
1. Regular season champions
2. Conference tournament champions (or runner-up if same as regular season champion)
3. Top 6 conferences at-large (as they comprise almost all of the current at-large anyway)
4. Remaining 26 conferences at-large

Data shows that there would be more than enough 'quality' teams from the at-large in each of these brackets - roughly 1 extra team from each of the smaller conferences.

Winners of the four brackets in the Final Four (or if combined, final two of each pool in the Final Four). This would be 1/3 of all D1 teams, much less than what FBS does for the bowls...

The NIT, CBI, and CIT are meaningless and a burden. Fold them and expand the NCAAT and get it over with. Don't see one extra round as an issue but only from a marketing perspective would it cause some headaches and re-workings.

you don't have to fold the NIT; you can incorporate it and add luster to it:

Combine your first 2 brackets and call it the NCAA Tournament. The winners of those brackets play and the winner is crowned NCAA Tournament Champion.

Combine your 2nd two brackets and call it the National Invitational Tournament. The winners of those brackets play and the winner is crowned NIT Champion.

Then the NIT and NCAA champions play and the winner is crowned National Champion.

 

[Eric15]

by that reasoning, conference tourneys would have already rendered the regular conference season meaningless, and we know that is not true


you don't have to fold the NIT; you can incorporate it and add luster to it:

Combine your first 2 brackets and call it the NCAA Tournament. The winners of those brackets play and the winner is crowned NCAA Tournament Champion.

Combine your 2nd two brackets and call it the National Invitational Tournament. The winners of those brackets play and the winner is crowned NIT Champion.

Then the NIT and NCAA champions play and the winner is crowned National Champion.

But everyone already loves the NCAA Tournament, as is. It captures the entire country's attention for three weeks. Why all this over-complication?

 

[Oráiste]

But everyone already loves the NCAA Tournament, as is. It captures the entire country's attention for three weeks. Why all this over-complication?

everyone loved it when it was 32 teams, and 48, and 64 . . .

 

[tbonezone]

i'd bet nobody at kansas or duke is having this expansion conversation . yawl indulging in loser speak.

 

[Eric15]

i'd bet nobody at kansas or duke is having this expansion conversation . yawl indulging in loser speak.

And the flip side of the expansion is, in seasons when we're awesome like 2003 or 2010 or 2012, do we really want all these additional mediocre teams adding randomness upset potential and watering down our great regular season? Of course not.

 

[SWC75]

The real problem is all of the Division II teams that are in Division I.

 

[tbonezone]

like those cheap gummy freeze dried marshmallows packaged in hot cocoa ? do they add any real value ?

 

[SWC75]

like those cheap gummy freeze dried marshmallows packaged in hot cocoa ? do they add any real value ?

All they do is hope to prevent the confrontations we've waited all year to see while preventing their own players from competing for a championship they could actually win. They are middleweights in a tournament for the heavyweight championship hoping to pull off an upset before they get kayo'd.