I always thought that post-season should be decided on the field as much as possible instead of by committees --

I'd tweak the NCAA Tourney --
Auto-bid for all reg. season conf champs and for all conf tourney champs
-This makes the end of the season conf races in smaller conferences incredibly important

Play-in games for all teams seeded 13-16
-Earn your way into the field

Bye in play-in game for a 13-16 seed team who wins both reg season and conf tourney
-incentive for teams in 1-bid conferences to win both

You have to have at least a .500 record in your conf.
-How can you play for the Nat Champ if you're not .500?? It would make the final games in Feb for teams like Baylor or UNC decisive and interesting - teams would know what they have to accomplish.

(02-19-2014 11:57 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  I always thought that post-season should be decided on the field as much as possible instead of by committees --

I'd tweak the NCAA Tourney --
Auto-bid for all reg. season conf champs and for all conf tourney champs
-This makes the end of the season conf races in smaller conferences incredibly important

Play-in games for all teams seeded 13-16
-Earn your way into the field

Bye in play-in game for a 13-16 seed team who wins both reg season and conf tourney
-incentive for teams in 1-bid conferences to win both

You have to have at least a .500 record in your conf.
-How can you play for the Nat Champ if you're not .500?? It would make the final games in Feb for teams like Baylor or UNC decisive and interesting - teams would know what they have to accomplish.

Kojak, I'd be in favor of all those things. The people who make the decisions… not so much.

March Madness.

Not even close

The big dance and it isn't close. There is some terrible football played in bowls, some of it due to the long layoff. Regular season football is so much better.

A four team playoff isn't going to be big enough to pass it either....Needs to be at least 8 to be legit.

Not a single thing about college football has the national allure and interest of march madness. While it's true that the basketball regular season doesn't have the allure of college football, March Madness is the star that outshines everything else.

No other event besides the super bowl brings people in that don't even care about sports.

Bowl season is a blast. As a fan of a participating team who can afford to take the time off work and go... it is tough to beat the experience of being crowded into some town with 10k of your suddenly close old friends (most you don't recognize but they've got the same color shirt, so we're buddies).

That is fun and as a fan who followed his team in the I-AA playoffs, I'll take the bowl experience and it's why I think 8 is probably the limit on a college football playoff even though the artist now known as FCS has a larger playoff for fewer participating teams. Unless you are a contender traveling to some other school's stadium at the last minute doesn't compare to weeks of preparing for a winter vacation that includes a football game.

But March Madness is a special event. When I was in private practice if I had no appearances scheduled, I took off at 11am the first Thursday and Friday and sat at home and watched games. There is no comparable post-season or tournament event to it that I can think of. 64 (now 68) teams in a single elimination contest lasting three weeks. Soccer has some bigger number of teams single elimination tournaments but they play out over the better part of the regular season and winning those events is second to winning the league.

I've been to several Final Fours and to the BCS championship game. The BCS title game is an amazing event because so many fans of the teams are there but in my opinion, except when the BCS was in New Orleans, the Final Four was far and away the more fun event.

I've been to NCAA sub-regionals and they aren't that fun to attend. You've got so many seats reserved for the 8 participants that many of the games aren't that well attended and it is the rare sporting event where you wish you had a TV because there are other games going on and odds are the one EVERYONE will be talking about isn't the one you are at.

The NCAA tournament is in my opinion one of the best TV sports events ever.

When the NCAA was toying with expanding the field to 96 to get more TV money, my thought was leave at 64 but add a week. Instead of playing 16 games on Thursday and 16 on Friday. Play 8 Thursday, 8 Friday, 8 Saturday and 8 Sunday and eliminate the day games on Thursday and Friday to boost viewership. I liked that idea because those first round upset winners would get to go home for a hero's welcome before playing the round of 32.

(02-19-2014 11:57 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  I always thought that post-season should be decided on the field as much as possible instead of by committees --

I'd tweak the NCAA Tourney --
Auto-bid for all reg. season conf champs and for all conf tourney champs
-This makes the end of the season conf races in smaller conferences incredibly important

Play-in games for all teams seeded 13-16
-Earn your way into the field

Bye in play-in game for a 13-16 seed team who wins both reg season and conf tourney
-incentive for teams in 1-bid conferences to win both

You have to have at least a .500 record in your conf.
-How can you play for the Nat Champ if you're not .500?? It would make the final games in Feb for teams like Baylor or UNC decisive and interesting - teams would know what they have to accomplish.

1) Auto bids -- I'd give them to regular-season champs only. If a team stinks it up in the regular season and gets lucky for 3-4 games in their conference tournament, that shouldn't be enough to get into the NCAA tournament.

2) Play-in games -- I'd do this for some of the autobid teams. I'd have the 16 autobid teams rated lowest by the committee play a play-in game, with the 8 winners receiving #15 or #16 seeds. (By doing this, and by eliminating the new "first round" on Tuesday and Wednesday, four more at-large places would be added to the tournament.)

3) .500 record in conference -- I'm ok with this, but it would have very little impact on the NCAA tournament. In any given year, there are somewhere between 0 and 2 at-large teams in the NCAAs who were under .500 in conference play. (Obviously an under .500 team that wins its conference tournament can't be reached by this rule unless you eliminate autobids for conference tournament winners, as I think they should.)

(02-19-2014 01:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 11:57 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  I always thought that post-season should be decided on the field as much as possible instead of by committees --

I'd tweak the NCAA Tourney --
Auto-bid for all reg. season conf champs and for all conf tourney champs
-This makes the end of the season conf races in smaller conferences incredibly important

Play-in games for all teams seeded 13-16
-Earn your way into the field

Bye in play-in game for a 13-16 seed team who wins both reg season and conf tourney
-incentive for teams in 1-bid conferences to win both

You have to have at least a .500 record in your conf.
-How can you play for the Nat Champ if you're not .500?? It would make the final games in Feb for teams like Baylor or UNC decisive and interesting - teams would know what they have to accomplish.

1) Auto bids -- I'd give them to regular-season champs only. If a team stinks it up in the regular season and gets lucky for 3-4 games in their conference tournament, that shouldn't be enough to get into the NCAA tournament.

2) Play-in games -- I'd do this for some of the autobid teams. I'd have the 16 autobid teams rated lowest by the committee play a play-in game, with the 8 winners receiving #15 or #16 seeds. (By doing this, and by eliminating the new "first round" on Tuesday and Wednesday, four more at-large places would be added to the tournament.)

3) .500 record in conference -- I'm ok with this, but it would have very little impact on the NCAA tournament. In any given year, there are somewhere between 0 and 2 at-large teams in the NCAAs who were under .500 in conference play. (Obviously an under .500 team that wins its conference tournament can't be reached by this rule unless you eliminate autobids for conference tournament winners, as I think they should.)

I've long supported changing auto bids. Rate the leagues 1-32 or 31 whatever it is now, and give the top 8 or 12 or 16 leagues the potential to earn up to two auto bids. One for the regular season champ and one for the tournament champ (as long as the regular season champ is in the conference tournament). If you are in a league with two auto bids you get a notice before the season that if you win the auto bid for regular season you placed at X sub-regional so as soon as you clinch the regular season, the fans can start booking hotel rooms. Your main incentive in the conference tournament would be playing well enough to keep or improve your seed so you've got incentive to play well.

The rest of the leagues can have a tournament or award based on regular season, whatever they want to live with.

(02-19-2014 01:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've been to NCAA sub-regionals and they aren't that fun to attend. You've got so many seats reserved for the 8 participants that many of the games aren't that well attended and it is the rare sporting event where you wish you had a TV because there are other games going on and odds are the one EVERYONE will be talking about isn't the one you are at.

I've enjoyed the sub-regionals that I've been to. I actually like that each game isn't full because it's easier to get around an arena that isn't packed. You get to see 8 different teams, and you're bound to see at least one upset. Pick a good tournament site, and you can make a long weekend out of it by spending 2 days at the games and 2 days doing other things in the area.

(02-19-2014 01:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've been to NCAA sub-regionals and they aren't that fun to attend. You've got so many seats reserved for the 8 participants that many of the games aren't that well attended and it is the rare sporting event where you wish you had a TV because there are other games going on and odds are the one EVERYONE will be talking about isn't the one you are at.

I've enjoyed the sub-regionals that I've been to. I actually like that each game isn't full because it's easier to get around an arena that isn't packed. You get to see 8 different teams, and you're bound to see at least one upset. Pick a good tournament site, and you can make a long weekend out of it by spending 2 days at the games and 2 days doing other things in the area.

Don't ever go to a sub-regional with me. All the best seeds win fairly comfortably and all the buzzer beater improbable upsets are at the same time somewhere else.

Ideally, the football playoff should be 8 teams-

The conf. champs of the Big 5 conferences plus the conference champ of the highest rated non Big 5 conf. champ - and 2 at larges - the two highest rated non-conf champs

First 4 games are played TH - SAT the third week of Dec or so, with "FINAL FOUR" played New Year's Day (as nature intended) - highest rated conf champ in match-up hosts home game - so, sorry Alabama, your punishment for not winning the conference is you have to travel
*=conf champ

8 UCF*at
1* FSU

5 STANFORD* at
4 MICH ST*

3 ALABAMA at
6 BAYLOR*

7 Ohio State at
2 AUBURN*

Now, from a glance, I'd say every one of those games is worth watching. And ... look at UCF going to FSU...

It also turns the conf champ games into defacto play-off games (meaning the B12 would be compelled to add a playoff eventually)

The difference between the two to me is that March Madnesss starts more fun, but bowl season ends more fun. March Madness is huge the first weekend. The Final Four itself isn't as fun as any of the big bowl games though.

Edit: There's also no comparing the regular seasons. Football wins hand down.

The most fun I ever had at a sub-regional was the one in Little Rock. I was sitting next to Mike Newell who coached UALR over Notre Dame NCAA upset. At the time he was coaching Ark-Monticello and had played Texas earlier that year and we were watching Texas. At timeout Texas made a substitution and he said "Watch this, they are going to bring it to the right side, pass left, quick pass right, immediate pass down low on the right and if they can't get an easy lay-up they'll kick out to the guy coming in who will jack a three and probably make it." Ball goes in play, Texas hits a three exactly as he described it and he laughed and said "They ran that all night on us, we couldn't stop it."

Quote:1) Auto bids -- I'd give them to regular-season champs only. If a team stinks it up in the regular season and gets lucky for 3-4 games in their conference tournament, that shouldn't be enough to get into the NCAA tournament.

2) Play-in games -- I'd do this for some of the autobid teams. I'd have the 16 autobid teams rated lowest by the committee play a play-in game, with the 8 winners receiving #15 or #16 seeds. (By doing this, and by eliminating the new "first round" on Tuesday and Wednesday, four more at-large places would be added to the tournament.)

3) .500 record in conference -- I'm ok with this, but it would have very little impact on the NCAA tournament. In any given year, there are somewhere between 0 and 2 at-large teams in the NCAAs who were under .500 in conference play. (Obviously an under .500 team that wins its conference tournament can't be reached by this rule unless you eliminate autobids for conference tournament winners, as I think they should.)

Yeah, if someone gets hot and wins the conf tourney - cool, they can get in. The tourneys will always have an auto-bid otherwise they have no reason to exist- I do think reg season champ needs to get in, and have that extra incentive bye - no play in game - for 1 big conferences (otherwise, the reg season conf champ is a jerk to take an extra bid away from another team - unless they have something to play for like a bye)

Note everyone in single bid leagues is gonna be 13 - 16 seeded.

I like the .500 conf record - and if you wanna include conf tourney wins in that .500 record (i.e. 7-9 in reg season means you have to win 3 in conf tourney to get to .500 and finish 10-10) would give pretty clear guidance to teams - you'd have a lot fewer teams on the bubble thinking they should get in. Likewise, pulling out those bottom 16 (32) teams for play-in games really opens things up - no one who legitimately should have a shot can complain.

The change I would like to see to the NCAAT is to add a week. There are really only 12-14 conferences whose champion truly deserves an automatic spot in the tourney as it is now structured. What I would do is relegate all the other conferences into a separate tournament track.

Have them complete their regular season a week earlier than the power conferences. Then invite 32 of their teams to play two rounds, with the 8 survivors qualifying for the main round of 64. All conference champions are in this field of 32. Any regular season winner is guaranteed a berth before any at large selections are made.

Finish these games in time for the winners to be seeded for the field of 64.

Schools in these conferences now have a legitimate shot at winning one or more tournament games, and there are more spots available for the power conference schools. With a stronger field of 64, even the Thursday/Friday games offer a realistic chance of an upset. Currently, while we get an occasional David-Goliath game, most are just boring tuneups for everybody excepts the parents and girlfriends of the overmatched automatic qualifiers.

(02-18-2014 12:38 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  What is your choice?

I give the nod to March Madness. The First Weekend (Thursday-Sunday) are the four best days of sports period.

I enjoy the first week of March madness when there are multiple games on at a time, but quickly lose interest after that. I admittedly enjoy football more than basketball, and I actually enjoy the bowl season (particularly around New Years). Despite my obvious bias, I think the new FBS playoff format will be huge.

I am making mental notes of how many March Madness supporters consider themselves fans of schools that have competitive basketball programs.

Outside of the first two days...I rarely ever watch the NCAA Tournament. Do fill out a bracket every year for kicks. I watch every bowl game played...regardless who is playing in it. I find basketball boring outside of the chance at a major early round NCAA upset.

Because the excitement kinda wanes in the 2nd and 3rd weeks of the NCAA tourney, I would almost like to see the sweet 16 combined into 1 week at 1 location.

4 games on Tues sweet 16 round
4 games on wed sweet 16 round
2 games on thurs elite 8 round
2 games on fri elite 8 round
2 games on sat final 4 round
mon championship game

can you imagine going from 68 to 1 team in 2 weeks?