(03-31-2022 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-23-2022 11:00 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  This is a possible format for a 96-team NCAA Tournament by which all teams are selected by objective criteria, not by a selection committee.

The 20 lowest-ranked conferences get two AQ. The top 12 conferences (ACC, B1G, B12, SEC, P12, B East, A100, AAC, WCC, MVC, MtW, and CUSA) share 56 AQ. The allocation of those 56 AQ is determined by tournaments played in December-January. Teams would play 3-games with a full championship and consolation bracket. The conference would be awarded one point for each win, with a bonus point for the tournament winner.

I simulated the results of these tournaments using KenPom ratings with randomized results. Teams were assigned randomly to these tournaments, making sure that there was only one team from a conference in any tournament.

If the 19 tournaments were spread out over five weeks, that would be four tournaments per week. If some tournaments were Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday and others Wednesday-Friday-Sunday, most games could be televised with two networks.

Iowa State (B12)...............4
Michigan (B1G).................2
Seton Hall (BE)................2
Stanford (P12).................2
Florida Atlantic (CUSA)........1
NC State (ACC).................1
East Carolina (AAC)............1
Alabama (SEC)..................0

Arizona (P12)..................4
Wisconsin (B1G)................2
Syracuse (ACC).................2
Cincinnati (AAC)...............2
St. John's (NY) (BE)...........1
Ole Miss (SEC).................1
Illinois State (MVC)...........1
New Mexico (MTW)...............0

Houston (AAC)..................4
Auburn (SEC)...................2
Davidson (A10).................2
Oregon (P12)...................2
North Carolina (ACC)...........1
Northwestern (B1G).............1
UNI (MVC)......................1
UTSA (CUSA)....................0

Wyoming (MTW)..................4
Oklahoma (B12).................2
Florida (SEC)..................2
Clemson (ACC)..................2
San Francisco (WCC)............1
Michigan State (B1G)...........1
Creighton (BE).................1
Tulsa (AAC)....................0

Washington (P12)...............4
Memphis (AAC)..................2
TCU (B12)......................2
Florida State (ACC)............2
UNLV (MTW).....................1
South Carolina (SEC)...........1
Butler (BE)....................1
Rice (CUSA)....................0

Tennessee (SEC)................4
Drake (MVC)....................2
Richmond (A10).................2
Middle Tennessee (CUSA)........2
SMU (AAC)......................1
Marquette (BE).................1
LMU (WCC)......................1
San Jose State (MTW)...........0

Gonzaga (WCC)..................4
Villanova (BE).................2
Boise State (MTW)..............2
Miami (FL) (ACC)...............2
USC (P12)......................1
Missouri State (MVC)...........1
Western Kentucky (CUSA)........1
Missouri (SEC).................0

Texas (B12)....................4
Iowa (B1G).....................2
Utah State (MTW)...............2
Marshall (CUSA)................2
UCF (AAC)......................1
Boston College (ACC)...........1
Pacific (WCC)..................1
La Salle (A10).................0

Vanderbilt (SEC)...............4
Kansas (B12)...................2
San Diego State (MTW)..........2
Portland (WCC).................2
Loyola Chicago (MVC)...........1
North Texas (CUSA).............1
DePaul (BE)....................1
Massachusetts (A10)............0

Colorado (P12).................4
Illinois (B1G).................2
Notre Dame (ACC)...............2
Indiana State (MVC)............2
Wichita State (AAC)............1
UTEP (CUSA)....................1
Saint Joseph's (A10)...........1
Georgetown (BE)................0

Providence (BE)................4
Saint Louis (A10)..............2
Penn State (B1G)...............2
Bradley (MVC)..................2
Fresno State (MTW).............1
Temple (AAC)...................1
Charlotte (CUSA)...............1
Pepperdine (WCC)...............0

LSU (SEC)......................4
UCLA (P12).....................2
FIU (CUSA).....................2
Evansville (MVC)...............2
Saint Mary's (WCC).............1
Kansas State (B12).............1
Minnesota (B1G)................1
Duquesne (A10).................0

Virginia (ACC).................4
Texas A&M (SEC)................2
Rutgers (B1G)..................2
Louisiana Tech (CUSA)..........2
Oklahoma State (B12)...........1
George Mason (A10).............1
Utah (P12).....................1
Air Force (MTW)................0

Ohio State (B1G)...............4
Kentucky (SEC).................2
UConn (BE).....................2
Virginia Tech (ACC)............2
Colorado State (MTW)...........1
Washington State (P12).........1
VCU (A10)......................1
Old Dominion (CUSA)............0

Purdue (B1G)...................4
Dayton (A10)...................2
Mississippi State (SEC)........2
Southern Illinois (MVC)........2
Arizona State (P12)............1
Pittsburgh (ACC)...............1
Southern Miss (CUSA)...........1
Nevada (MTW)...................0

Arkansas (SEC).................4
Xavier (BE)....................2
West Virginia (B12)............2
Maryland (B1G).................2
BYU (WCC)......................1
California (P12)...............1
Georgia Tech (ACC).............1
Fordham (A10)..................0

Baylor (B12)...................4
Georgia (SEC)..................2
George Washington (A10)........2
Nebraska (B1G).................1
Valparaiso (MVC)...............1
Louisville (ACC)...............0

Santa Clara (WCC)..............4
Wake Forest (ACC)..............2
Rhode Island (A10).............2
UAB (CUSA).....................1
Oregon State (P12).............1
South Florida (AAC)............0

Texas Tech (B12)...............4
Indiana (B1G)..................2
St. Bonaventure (A10)..........2
Duke (ACC).....................1
San Diego (WCC)................1
Tulane (AAC)...................0

Simply put, this is far too complicated to be seriously considered. If 96 is your magic number, I would propose this alternative.

What is too complicated?

How do you decide whether Texas A&M or Rutgers belongs in the tournament? Currently there is a selection committee. You suggest using a computer program.

But is there really a way to compare Texas A&M and Rutgers? No there isn't! They didn't play each other, and had few common opponents.

But can we compare Texas A&M and Alabama? or Rutgers and Indana? Of course we can. That is why we have standings and conference tournaments.

So is there a way for the B1G to determine which of its teams qualify. Yes, so long as we know how many berths they have. We had no problem giving two berths to the bottom 20 conferences. So how do we determine how many the B1G or SEC get?

We have teams from the B1G play lots of games against teams from the other top conferences. In my proposal each team would play 3 challenge games, so we have 42 games.

In my simulation the B1G was 26-16: Ohio State and Purdue won 3 games; Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana, 2 each; and Northwestern, Michigan State, Minnesota, and Nebraska, 1 each. Ohio State and Purdue earn a bonus point for winning their tournament.

The B1G has 28 of the total 238 points. 28/238 is equivalent to 6.59 of the 56 berths shared among the Top 12 conferences, which gets rounded to 7 berths.

Those 7 berths are awarded based on on-the-court performance. You don't need a selection committee or a computer program.

How do we decide the 7 B1G teams. We don't. The B1G does. My recommendation is that they give 3 berths to the Top 3 in regular season play: (1) Illinois; (2) Wisconsin; and 3 (Purdue). These teams also qualify directly to the quarterfinals of the tournament.

The remaining four berths are won in the preliminary rounds:

(4) Rutgers v. winner (11) Penn State-(12) Northwestern
(5) Iowa v. winner (10) Maryland-(13)Nebraska
(6) Ohio State v. (9) Indiana-(14) Minnesota
(7) Michigan State v (8) Michigan

These four advance to the quarterfinals.

The quarterfinals:

(1) Illinois
(bye)
(5) Iowa (or Maryland/Nebraska)
(4) Rutgers (or Penn State/Northwestern)

(3) Purdue
(6) Ohio State (or Indiana-Minnesota)
(7) Michigan State (or Michigan)
(2) Wisconsin

(03-31-2022 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  Every conference gets two automatic qualifiers. These are the two highest finishers based on conference W-L records, unless a third team wins its conference tournament. In that case, that team bumps the presumptive qualifier or at large in the conference with the worst conference W-L record.

There is no reason to dictate how each conference determines their two teams. They decide their rules before the season begins.

No conference can have more than 50% of its members in the 96 team field.

This is an arbitrary limitation. In my simulation the B12 earned 6 berths for its 10 team (60%).

All 96 teams are seeded according to their Massey Composite rank. The Top 32 teams (seeds 1-8) get a first round bye. The remaining 64 (seeds 9-24) play on Tuesday and Wednesday. Number 9s play #24s, #10 plays #23, etc. to advance to the second round.

I would have 8 #9 seeds, ..., #16 seeds. Both #1 and #2 seeds would face the winner of #9/#16 in the second round. This gives more geographical flexibility. Instead of a #9 and #10 to each region, you can assign 2 #9 to each region.

I think we would have to announce the tournament on Saturday, or perhaps play three games the second week:

Wed: 10 1st round games.
Thu: 10 1st round games.
Fri: 12 1st round games.
Sat: 16 2nd round games.
Sun: 16 2nd round games.

Tuesday: 8 3rd round games (Saturday winners)
Wednesday: 8 3rd round games (Sunday winners)
Thursday: 4 Sweet 16.
Friday: 4 Sweet 16.
Saturday: 2 Elite 8.
Sunday: 2 Elite 8.

Saturday: Final Four.
Monday: National Championship.

32 first round losers and 16 second round losers to NIT which begins in second week.

Tournament units are awarded as follows. Each conference gets one unit, and the winner of each game, including Final Four games (95 in all), earns a unit for its conference, for a total of 127 units (versus 132 in the current model) so the value of each unit is slightly higher.

Since the bottom 20 conferences would have 40 teams, and only 32 could possibly lose in the first round, they are guaranteed at least 28 units (they earned 27 this year with St. Peter's run).

A Bracket Committee, comprised of 10 ADs from the bottom 20 conferences (as determined by their 3 year average Massey rank), would have the leeway to move a team up or down no more than one seed from its presumptive seed per Massey ranking, but no top 8 seed could lose its first round bye by this process.

At the end of the day, the revenue distribution would not be much different than it is now, and the P6 conferences would have about the same number of teams in the aggregate as they do now. The biggest difference is that the other 26 conferences would get 28 more teams into the tourney (probably 8 of which would come from the six mid-major conferences).

This model eliminates the Selection Committee, and places more emphasis on regular season performance within each conference. It doesn't add a single day to the length of the tournament. It's easy to understand and effectively removes any suspicion of bias in the selection or seeding process.

(03-23-2022 11:45 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The 96-team format was discussed around 2011 when the Turner deal happened but tv wasn’t willing to pay extra for it.

I think you’d see 32 AQ and 64 at-large.

That's what it would be if expansion to 96 teams ever happened. No chance in the real world that each conference would get two autobids, or that a quota system would be used to limit the number of at-large bids a conference can get.

And it still seems unlikely that TV would want to pay for an extra full "round of 96" prior to the round of 64. Only way that it might make financial sense in the near future is if the competition for content among streaming providers becomes so fierce that someone offers to pay a huge amount of money to stream the round of 96 before handing the rest of the tournament off to OTA and "cable" channels.

Some of the OP is looking to “settle it on the court.” How to do this without “19 tournaments” or whatever insane structure is being proposed? Do what the European champions leagues do, give points to conferences based on tournament performance and establish quotas based on the last 4 years (weighted) of points. Stronger conferences will also be put into better seeds, etc.

It is a different method. The strength of the committee is that it creates a, roughly, 1v64 bracket where ‘better’ teams get easier paths. Hard to do that with quotas or with seeding tournaments. As others have mentioned, a non-committee algorithm could do much the same. The quota system settles it “on the court” but over the past few years.

(03-31-2022 03:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-23-2022 11:45 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The 96-team format was discussed around 2011 when the Turner deal happened but tv wasn’t willing to pay extra for it.

I think you’d see 32 AQ and 64 at-large.

That's what it would be if expansion to 96 teams ever happened. No chance in the real world that each conference would get two autobids, or that a quota system would be used to limit the number of at-large bids a conference can get.

And it still seems unlikely that TV would want to pay for an extra full "round of 96" prior to the round of 64. Only way that it might make financial sense in the near future is if the competition for content among streaming providers becomes so fierce that someone offers to pay a huge amount of money to stream the round of 96 before handing the rest of the tournament off to OTA and "cable" channels.

Keep in mind that I wasn't the one who proposed a 96 team tournament. I am responding to an OP that proposed it with what I believe is a more rational approach to deciding who gets in such a field.

As for limiting the number of at large bids a conference may get, current rules require that an at large team have a winning record. Since that only encourages powerful conferences to pad their records with cupcakes, I suggest that instead they should have a winning record in their conference. That is no more arbitrary than the current rule. My take on that is that having a 50% limit on the number of teams would likely accomplish the winning record rule at least 95% of the time. I would argue that experience shows us that there is no way of telling whether the sixth or seventh place team in any power conference is better or more deserving than its counterpart in another power conference. So I went for simplicity. Top half of every power conference by conference W-L record seems as reasonable as any other way of picking bubble teams.

As for what TV would pay for, I didn't presume that they would pay anything for the additional games. However, it's not unreasonable to assume that somebody would be willing to pay something more than zero dollars. But increasing the media revenue was not an objective of my proposal.

I admit that my personal bias is that adding more P6 teams will not improve the tournament or increase viewership. Adding more mid-majors to the field would, and adding more schools from the bottom half of D-I conferences might, if only slightly. My major goals would be to eliminate the Selection Committee and increase the importance of regular season play.

(03-31-2022 05:35 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Some of the OP is looking to “settle it on the court.” How to do this without “19 tournaments” or whatever insane structure is being proposed? Do what the European champions leagues do, give points to conferences based on tournament performance and establish quotas based on the last 4 years (weighted) of points. Stronger conferences will also be put into better seeds, etc.

It is a different method. The strength of the committee is that it creates a, roughly, 1v64 bracket where ‘better’ teams get easier paths. Hard to do that with quotas or with seeding tournaments. As others have mentioned, a non-committee algorithm could do much the same. The quota system settles it “on the court” but over the past few years.

There are 146 teams in the Top 12 Conferences (148 next year when Murray State and Belmont move). 148/8 = 18.5 . Or 148 = 17x8 + 2x6.

Every school plays in an eight-team tournament. The collective results of those 19 tournaments determines how many berths each conference gets. It does not determine seeding.

Contemporary results are more likely to be accurate than those based on past years. These tournaments would also be interesting in their own right and likely produce handsome TV revenues.

(03-31-2022 09:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 03:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-23-2022 11:45 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The 96-team format was discussed around 2011 when the Turner deal happened but tv wasn’t willing to pay extra for it.

I think you’d see 32 AQ and 64 at-large.

That's what it would be if expansion to 96 teams ever happened. No chance in the real world that each conference would get two autobids, or that a quota system would be used to limit the number of at-large bids a conference can get.

And it still seems unlikely that TV would want to pay for an extra full "round of 96" prior to the round of 64. Only way that it might make financial sense in the near future is if the competition for content among streaming providers becomes so fierce that someone offers to pay a huge amount of money to stream the round of 96 before handing the rest of the tournament off to OTA and "cable" channels.

Keep in mind that I wasn't the one who proposed a 96 team tournament. I am responding to an OP that proposed it with what I believe is a more rational approach to deciding who gets in such a field.

As for limiting the number of at large bids a conference may get, current rules require that an at large team have a winning record. Since that only encourages powerful conferences to pad their records with cupcakes, I suggest that instead they should have a winning record in their conference. That is no more arbitrary than the current rule. My take on that is that having a 50% limit on the number of teams would likely accomplish the winning record rule at least 95% of the time. I would argue that experience shows us that there is no way of telling whether the sixth or seventh place team in any power conference is better or more deserving than its counterpart in another power conference. So I went for simplicity. Top half of every power conference by conference W-L record seems as reasonable as any other way of picking bubble teams.

As for what TV would pay for, I didn't presume that they would pay anything for the additional games. However, it's not unreasonable to assume that somebody would be willing to pay something more than zero dollars. But increasing the media revenue was not an objective of my proposal.

I admit that my personal bias is that adding more P6 teams will not improve the tournament or increase viewership. Adding more mid-majors to the field would, and adding more schools from the bottom half of D-I conferences might, if only slightly. My major goals would be to eliminate the Selection Committee and increase the importance of regular season play.

Why should we care if a school has a winning record?

The B1G or SEC are certainly capable of determining a fixed (for that season) number of teams using a combination of regular season and tournament performance.

The M6 (including the Big East) have their own lucrative TV contracts. They have no interest in mid-season or pre-season tournaments that include non-TV draws. Full stop period. And they have no interest in a scheme that limits the number of credits they can earn. Socialism was a bad idea 150 years ago and it's still a bad idea today. This is too much to each according to his need, from each according to his ability BS in this. Any scheme to change things need to bring more money to the SEC, B1G, and other power conferences. If it doesn't it's the wet dream of a socialist.

Far far far more likely the P5 start their own tournament with a much larger TV contract and payout --as in double to triple--, a super league if you will, walking away from the NCAA. The Achilles Heel of the NCAA is not the selection process, not the number of teams (there are not 30 more deserving teams, not even 10 more truth be told), but the less than maximum money they are getting for the tournament locked into a very long term contract. That makes them vulnerable to a break away.

If you want a tournament fix, focus on the money.

(04-01-2022 11:38 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The M6 (including the Big East) have their own lucrative TV contracts. They have no interest in mid-season or pre-season tournaments that include non-TV draws. Full stop period. And they have no interest in a scheme that limits the number of credits they can earn. Socialism was a bad idea 150 years ago and it's still a bad idea today. This is too much to each according to his need, from each according to his ability BS in this. Any scheme to change things need to bring more money to the SEC, B1G, and other power conferences. If it doesn't it's the wet dream of a socialist.

Far far far more likely the P5 start their own tournament with a much larger TV contract and payout --as in double to triple--, a super league if you will, walking away from the NCAA. The Achilles Heel of the NCAA is not the selection process, not the number of teams (there are not 30 more deserving teams, not even 10 more truth be told), but the less than maximum money they are getting for the tournament locked into a very long term contract. That makes them vulnerable to a break away.

If you want a tournament fix, focus on the money.

Frankly, I don't see a network doubling or tripling their bid for a P5 only tournament. Last time around CBS almost walked away because the price tag was too high for them, and only stayed in because Turner joined them for a 50% stake to keep ESPN from taking it over.

A P5 (or P6) only tournament would be smaller, though, and if the P5 didn't have to share with the rest of the NCAA, even if the media deal were at the current price their per team payouts would be much higher. Of course, that may be the only thing that matters to them, and they can afford to finance their own championships in other sports.

Still, I don't foresee a P5 (or P6) only breakaway.