NCAA Tournament format

So I was up early and turned to ESPN Gameday. The first subject the guys started to discuss was expanding the tournament field. I forget who said what, but here are some options they were talking about:

-Get rid of the play-in game and leave it at 64. I personally like it this way. I don't know why there needs to be a play-in so that one more at-large team can get in.

-Expand to 128 teams and play the first round at the higher seed. Are there really that many teams that should get to go to the Dance?

-Get rid of automatic bids. Just take the best 64 teams. This way, in theory, some of the teams on the bubble now will make it in. But this way, winning the conference championship is really nice, but if you're in a small conference, you don't get to go to the Dance, which I think is the best part. I think seeing the small schools go up against the top programs is one of the best parts of the NCAAs.

So what do you think? I just found the discussion interesting. (I've got an intriguing idea I could post later.)

I think, if you don't have a winning record in your conference, you don't get in. I don't see why a Big-10 team with a 7-9 conference record and a bunch of home non-conference cupcake games gets in, while small schools with 20+ wins, no reputation, and no fan base get left out. I say let in more of the "cinderellas". Maybe one will even win a game once in awhile!

If they got rid of the Auto bids that would be a shame. I love that every team (theoretically) has a shot at the tourney on day one. I also love seeing the upsets happen. That being said, I have realized I don't like the cinder(f)ellas getting too far. Once it gets to the Elite Eight, I want to see the top seeds advance. It really is better, and more entertaining basketball in my opinion. As cool as it was that George Mason made it to the Final Four, I wasn't that excited to watch their semifinal.

I also get tired of hearing all this bubble talk, and all the bickering (if you will) about which teams were left out. Yes, we all realize that the top 5-10 teams are better than several of the teams in the tournament. But do they realistically have a shot to win it all, no. I have a solution for those teams, win more games!! Anyway, I like it the way it is (well actually I prefer the 64, take away an at large).

PLEASE ,

NO MORE "BUBBLE TALK" IT CHEAPEN'S THE NCAA TOURNAMENT SEVERLY.

Exactly. If you want to be off the bubble in March, take care of business the rest of the year.

I was thinking something like England's FA Cup, where every DI team gets in, would be kind of cool. The pairings for each round could be a totally random draw, so the Pilots might get Howard for their first game, or they could draw UW.

Only problem with that is you pretty much kill the need for the conference tournaments... And again the travel costs would be ridiculous (and we know how the NCAA feels about travel costs)...

England: 93,788 square miles
United States: 3,537,441 square miles
(England would be the 12th biggest state...)

It would be fun, but just isn't feasible...

Not to mention, if the entire draw is at random it pretty much eliminates any need to maintain conferences or anything like that if the seeding makes no difference and no autobids allowed... Can you imagine telling the Pac 10, ACC or Big East: Uh yeah you pretty much don't matter anymore for college basketball anymore??

Fine. I'm done posting here and I'm not coming back.




For the next 60 seconds.

PurplePrideTrumpet wrote:I was thinking something like England's FA Cup, where every DI team gets in

We already have that with the "Little Dances." Technically every team is in, they just have to make it through their conference tourney...or preliminary round if you will. Although, some conferences don't allow all members into their respective tourneys...

Their are a couple conferences where the bottom 2-3 teams don't make the tourney, and some leagues (Ivy League, for example) send their regular season champ to the NCAAs without a tournament at all. However, 200+ teams have the chance to make it to the BIG dance.

Yeah, I forgot about the Ivy, it is in fact, the only one w/o a tourney.

Exactly how many conferences are there? I've always wanted a playoff system, where every conference has a playoff and ONLY the conference playoff winner advances to the NCAA's. No at large bids. At large bids are way too political and way too subjective. This way every school theoritically has an equal chance and every conference is treated equally. In the end, you have one large, MUCH more fair, NCAA playoff.

Just my

-SciFi

Next year I think there will be 32 eligible for an automatic bid. That's a nice round number...

And the system you propose was indeed in place for many many years: One conference champion. That was all.

Now conference tournaments like the ACC's or the Big East are big events, but the top-ranked teams know it's not the end of the world if they are upset in a game. Could you imagine UConn and Pitt meeting in Madison Square Garden for the Big East title and the only available NCAA bid?

Not only that, can you imagine 16 teams staying in the Big East if their conference only got one bid?? You would have to see that conference break into divisions and each division have a bid... Meanwhile you have teams like Gonzaga and Memphis sitting pretty with their conferences on virtual lock down...

Not gonna happen.

The results of the current ESPN.com poll are as follows:

What changes would you make to the NCAA tournament format?

Don't Change it 66%
Fewer Automatic Bids 14%
Eliminate Automatic Bids 10%
Expand the Field 10%

I would have voted for, Remove ONE at-large bid.

I love the tourney the way it is, I just get tired of all the whining over who should have been in. I get a little tired of the bracketology, last four in, last four out whatnot, but it is really all the whining the day after the brackets are announced. At least though, once the tournament starts, all that talk stops...unlike some other sport, where we still hear how Auburn got jobbed in '03.

I'll be honest here... I don't mind the play-in game and wouldn't necessarily mind to see even more of them. In the end, it does kind of suck that teams like St. Mary's, Davidson, Providence, Creighton, etc. might not get into the tournament.

If we added three play-in games and allowed three more at-larges? I honestly would be just fine with that. Would anyone really be opposed to the current 15/16 seeds have to play each other in a play-in game? No 16 seed has ever won a game and only two or three 15 seeds have.

What we'd end up with is having a better quality matchups up and down the whole field, including the 16/1 games.

I love the charm of the Cinderellas and they are what make March Madness what it is, but to be honest... the tournament would be better including a few more at-larges and just loooking over the history of the current 16/1 and 15/2 matchups... I don't think the integrity of the tournament would be at stake. Fact of the matter is I'd rather watch SMC play Creighton in a really intriguing 8/9 game than Mt. St. Mary's get waxed by North Carolina.

PPT wake's the Mesa up. Are u sure you won't stay ? Then have Angela and his "boyfriend" take off.