SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,545
- Like
- 64,569
I was thinking about the Olympics where they put teams into pools that play round-robins to determine who would move on. Could that work for March Madness?
I should say that, in my mind, the NCAA tournament is about confrontations between the teams we heard about all year, not David vs. Goliath upsets. (The product of the fact that we've been Goliath for so long) I like it when the best teams advance to play each other.
What if we had a field of 64 teams, (not 68 or some other number), and we seeded them from 1 to 64. Then organize them into 16 pools, balanced so each pool had the same combined seeding. (Just put one of the first 16 teams in order in each pool, right to left, then 17 to 32 go in left to right, then 33 to 48 right to left and 49-64, left to right: every pool will have a combined seed of 130). Then we played a round robin, double headers three nights in a row, with reach team playing each other team. If the result is a tie between two 2-1 teams, they play an extra game the fourth night to determine who wins the pool. You could have a three way tie between 2-1 teams, (and the fourth team would be 0-3). In that case the two lower seeded teams play on the fourth night and the highest seeded 2-1 team takes on the winner on the fifth night. It might look like this:
Suppose a 7th seeded Syracuse team, (I'll use the Sagarin rankings for the top 64 teams:
http://sagarin.com/sports/cbsend.htm ) was in a pool with #26 UNLV, #39 Connecticut and #58 Texas. The first night Syracuse plays Texas and UNLV plays Connecticut. The second night Syracuse plays Connecticut and UNLV plays Texas. The third night Syracuse plays UNLV and Connecticut plays Texas. Suppose Texas goes 0-3 and the others are 2-1. On the fourth night, UNLV would play Connecticut. Syracuse would take on the winner on the fifth night.
For the second week the 16 first round pool winners would be re-seeded and organized into four pools in the same fashion. (Each second round pool would have a combined seed of 34, based on the new seeding). You do the same thing in each pool as in the first round.
Here I'll assume the top 16 seeds won the first round pools and the seedings didn't have to be changed. That puts Syracuse in a pool with #2 Kansas, #10 Minnesota and #15 Miami. The first night Kansas plays Miami and Syracuse plays Minnesota. The second night Kansas plays Minnesota and Syracuse plays Miami. The third night Kansas plays Syracuse and Minnesota plays Miami. Suppose Kansas and Syracuse wind up 2-1 and Minnesota and Miami are 1-2, (actually, Minnesota and Miami could be given the option of going home if their game had no impact on who won the pool), the Jayhawks and the Orange would play on the fourth night for the pool championship.
Now you've got your Final Four. You determine the national champion the game way. Suppose SU beat Kansas to make it to the Final Four and joined #1 Florida, #3 Michigan and #4 Indiana. The first night Florida plays Syracuse and Michigan plays Indiana. The second night Florida plays Indiana and Michigan Plays Syracuse. The third night Florida plays Michigan and Indiana plays Syracuse. if there's a tie at that point you resolve it as described above.
It would mean more games: 9-15 games over three weeks instead of six. Is that too many?
It would be harder for a Cinderella team to make the Final Four: pulling off one upset wouldn't be enough.
Networks won't like the uncertainty of whether games will be played on the fourth and fifth nights.
Office brackets would have to be done differently, perhaps just picking the teams that make it to the second round and then to the Final Four.
Eliminated teams might have to play teams that are still in contention: How hard would they play? Maybe the chance to spoil somebody else's season in a game people would actually watch, (as opposed to a consolation game), and the chance to end the year on a winning note would be enough.
The national championship might be won by a team sitting in the stands watching a rival get eliminated on the court.
But...
A bad shooting night, a bad match-up or a whistle happy ref wouldn't, by itself, end your season. You could conceivably lose 3 games in the tournament and still win the championship.
The best teams would be more likely to move on, rather than be eliminated early. We'd be more likely get the games we'd waited for all year.
And we'd get a cornucopia of those big confrontations. Who wouldn't want to see Florida, Michigan, Indiana and Syracuse playing a round robin?
It wouldn't come down to a game like that Connecticut-Butler abomination.
There would be little doubt the naito0nal champions was really the best team.
Sure it's different- we are outside the box. Is it a good idea or a bad one?
I should say that, in my mind, the NCAA tournament is about confrontations between the teams we heard about all year, not David vs. Goliath upsets. (The product of the fact that we've been Goliath for so long) I like it when the best teams advance to play each other.
What if we had a field of 64 teams, (not 68 or some other number), and we seeded them from 1 to 64. Then organize them into 16 pools, balanced so each pool had the same combined seeding. (Just put one of the first 16 teams in order in each pool, right to left, then 17 to 32 go in left to right, then 33 to 48 right to left and 49-64, left to right: every pool will have a combined seed of 130). Then we played a round robin, double headers three nights in a row, with reach team playing each other team. If the result is a tie between two 2-1 teams, they play an extra game the fourth night to determine who wins the pool. You could have a three way tie between 2-1 teams, (and the fourth team would be 0-3). In that case the two lower seeded teams play on the fourth night and the highest seeded 2-1 team takes on the winner on the fifth night. It might look like this:
Suppose a 7th seeded Syracuse team, (I'll use the Sagarin rankings for the top 64 teams:
http://sagarin.com/sports/cbsend.htm ) was in a pool with #26 UNLV, #39 Connecticut and #58 Texas. The first night Syracuse plays Texas and UNLV plays Connecticut. The second night Syracuse plays Connecticut and UNLV plays Texas. The third night Syracuse plays UNLV and Connecticut plays Texas. Suppose Texas goes 0-3 and the others are 2-1. On the fourth night, UNLV would play Connecticut. Syracuse would take on the winner on the fifth night.
For the second week the 16 first round pool winners would be re-seeded and organized into four pools in the same fashion. (Each second round pool would have a combined seed of 34, based on the new seeding). You do the same thing in each pool as in the first round.
Here I'll assume the top 16 seeds won the first round pools and the seedings didn't have to be changed. That puts Syracuse in a pool with #2 Kansas, #10 Minnesota and #15 Miami. The first night Kansas plays Miami and Syracuse plays Minnesota. The second night Kansas plays Minnesota and Syracuse plays Miami. The third night Kansas plays Syracuse and Minnesota plays Miami. Suppose Kansas and Syracuse wind up 2-1 and Minnesota and Miami are 1-2, (actually, Minnesota and Miami could be given the option of going home if their game had no impact on who won the pool), the Jayhawks and the Orange would play on the fourth night for the pool championship.
Now you've got your Final Four. You determine the national champion the game way. Suppose SU beat Kansas to make it to the Final Four and joined #1 Florida, #3 Michigan and #4 Indiana. The first night Florida plays Syracuse and Michigan plays Indiana. The second night Florida plays Indiana and Michigan Plays Syracuse. The third night Florida plays Michigan and Indiana plays Syracuse. if there's a tie at that point you resolve it as described above.
It would mean more games: 9-15 games over three weeks instead of six. Is that too many?
It would be harder for a Cinderella team to make the Final Four: pulling off one upset wouldn't be enough.
Networks won't like the uncertainty of whether games will be played on the fourth and fifth nights.
Office brackets would have to be done differently, perhaps just picking the teams that make it to the second round and then to the Final Four.
Eliminated teams might have to play teams that are still in contention: How hard would they play? Maybe the chance to spoil somebody else's season in a game people would actually watch, (as opposed to a consolation game), and the chance to end the year on a winning note would be enough.
The national championship might be won by a team sitting in the stands watching a rival get eliminated on the court.
But...
A bad shooting night, a bad match-up or a whistle happy ref wouldn't, by itself, end your season. You could conceivably lose 3 games in the tournament and still win the championship.
The best teams would be more likely to move on, rather than be eliminated early. We'd be more likely get the games we'd waited for all year.
And we'd get a cornucopia of those big confrontations. Who wouldn't want to see Florida, Michigan, Indiana and Syracuse playing a round robin?
It wouldn't come down to a game like that Connecticut-Butler abomination.
There would be little doubt the naito0nal champions was really the best team.
Sure it's different- we are outside the box. Is it a good idea or a bad one?
