If you want to make it more fair to the higher seed teams, go with a random drawing to set the seeds and brackets. Put 64 ping-pong balls in a hopper and draw them out one at a time. That takes the human bias out of the equation.

An annual gripe is the committee choosing bubble teams.

So a system could be set up like the Champions League in Europe, as far as teams qualifying.

Based on past NCAA performance or units earned, going into each season, conferences could be assigned a specific number of bids.

So for example, the A-10 in preseason knows that it will have 4 bids, and its schools play their season fighting for those 4 bids only. That way, bubble teams don't sit around worrying that Pepperdine will upset Gonzaga in the WCC tourney, because bubbles already know how many buds their conference will earn, independent of another conference's tourney results.

For seeding, the top 32 could be locked in (and location and seed could be locked in... the A-10 second bid would lock into the Midwest 3-seed for example. The others would be chosen via ping pong balls, again like the Champions League.

Not saying i like this exactly, but it would eliminate committee shenanigans.

(05-01-2017 11:28 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  Team A wins both game 1 and game 2= 0.7 * 0.7 = 49%

Team A wins game 1, loses game 2, wins game 3 = 0.7 * 0.3 * 0.7 = 14.7%

Team A loses game 1, wins game 2, wins game 3 = 0.3 * 0.7 * 0.7 = 14.7%

Sum them up, it's 78.4%, rounds down to 78%.

Wow, complete fail on my end.

(05-02-2017 09:29 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  If you want to make it more fair to the higher seed teams, go with a random drawing to set the seeds and brackets. Put 64 ping-pong balls in a hopper and draw them out one at a time. That takes the human bias out of the equation.

One of the cooler things soccer does with its major tournaments. Draws to determine pairings and home field.

I like the idea of structuring March Madness like the NCAA Baseball tournament, but I was wondering what people thought about aggregate single elimination like what they do in European sports leagues. What I'm saying is having things like: 1 seed plays at 16 seed's home court, then the 16 seed plays at the 1 seed's home court, etc. If one team has a higher total score from the two games than the other, it moves on, otherwise, they play as many overtime periods as necessary in game 2 until the aggregate tie gets broken. Also, I think that most leagues that do aggregate single elimination only do it in the early rounds and then do neutral site single-game single elimination later on.

That's really stupid because you're punishing teams that may have one bad game. One blowout loss compared to a comfortable win for example, doesn't prove much about either team. It also allows teams to make adjustments from one game to the next.

The current format is for the most exciting, economic and time friendly though I truly wish they'd do the one I suggested. There'd still be upsets and Cinderellas but also grace for teams that had a bad night or played teams that had a really good night.

(05-03-2017 03:52 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  That's really stupid because you're punishing teams that may have one bad game. One blowout loss compared to a comfortable win for example, doesn't prove much about either team. It also allows teams to make adjustments from one game to the next.

The current format is for the most exciting, economic and time friendly though I truly wish they'd do the one I suggested. There'd still be upsets and Cinderellas but also grace for teams that had a bad night or played teams that had a really good night.

That lack of grace is what adds to the imperative to watch. If a top team is on the ropes, knowing there is no tomorrow if they fail to rally draws eyeballs.

Not opposed to what you put forward, just don't think it fits the business model for CBS and Turner.

A format that might keep the excitement of the current structure but still have a better chance to truly crown the best team in the land is to utilize a modified version of the typical double elimination format you see in youth rec leagues.

Instead of double elimination within each regional pod as C2 proposes, winners move on as normal until the Final Four (which is now the Elite 8). Losers get a fighter's chance in the "survival bracket." The standard bracket (ie, winner's) and the a survival bracket merge heading into the Elite 8 (what was the Final Four), at which point it becomes single elimination. The survival bracket requires more games to get to the Elite 8 than the standard bracket.

So, #1 Villanova loses to #8 Wisconsin in the second round. Villanova still goes to New York, but in the East Region's survival bracket, playing 5-seed Virginia (who lost to #4 Florida in Round 2) on March 23 and then 2-seed Duke (who lost to 7-seed South Carolina in Round 2) on March 25. The second weekend of the tournament still showcases a full-slate of games, but half of those are survival bracket games. (*note - there are also survival bracket games for Round 1 losers on March 22-26).

If Villanova wins, it's on to the National Survival Round, starting Tuesday March 28 in Boston, against 4-seed Purdue (Round 3 survivor from the Midwest), then 2-seed Kentucky on Thursday March 30 (Round 4 survivor from the South). Win that gauntlet and Villanova earns its way back into the tournament, against 1-seed Gonzaga in the Elite 8. Winner gets the Final Four bid.

For the standard bracket, it only requires one additional game to reach the Final Four; though that additional game is likely against stiff competition, as you would face one of the four remaining teams from the survival bracket.