(02-29-2024 12:01 AM)C2__ Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 10:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 10:23 PM)Mid-Major Hoops Enthusiast Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 05:14 PM)Mid-Major Hoops Enthusiast Wrote:  There needs to an incentive if you win both the regular season and conference tournament in my opinion regardless of conference.


Oof, take the Power conference glasses off for a moment. Are you really that naive to believe JMU scheduled a lighter non-conference schedule on purpose?

Talk to any mid-major basketball coach. Almost every single one of them will tell you The #1 challenge is scheduling strong opponents in the non-conference schedule.

Did they turn down buy games against P5 teams?

Also, go look at the MWC. 3 of their top schools have top 100 OOC schedules. 2 of them top 30. Boise 30th best OOC schedule this year. 5 neutral site OOC games- all against Q1 and 2 opponents and also at Clemson. It can be done, you just can't have all cupcakes at home like JMU did.

Of course not. Its the other way around. Teams were avoiding playing JMU. Talk to some people around the college game in D1 and you'd realize how off you are and naive you are to think JMU could schedule just any random power conference team when they came into this season as Sun Belt favorites.

As great of a season they are having Mountain West is a terrible example as they are right at the top of the mid-major's sphere and there are a lot less teams further west which means scheduling is tighter.

JMU could have scheduled better mid major teams as well. It's not just the major teams you can play. Where are teams like Samford? McNeese? Charleston? UNC Wilmington?

How could they have known any of those teams would be good before the season except Charleston and maybe UNCW? And would those teams be willing to schedule them and assume they would have some strength?

Samford was good last year.

I mean you can do better than scheduling 4 MEAC schools. 4 of the worst 25 teams in the country.

End of the day their schedule is their schedule. Ranked #307 overall in the country.

And oh, they should be glad we're not with the RPI. Their RPI is #81 right now. With a RPI SOS of 341. That's just not good enough. They better figure out how to beat App St.

(02-28-2024 10:31 PM)Mid-Major Hoops Enthusiast Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 06:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Look - I think the NCAA Tournament (or at least its relatively open structure) will continue on in some form. I don’t *want* to see it changed. However, this is a power conference game. Just look at what the NCAA did to preserve the NIT when they got wind that the Big Ten, Big 12 and Big East were going to set up their own tournament with Fox.

The NIT will be gone with in three years anyway when players started opting out to focus on themselves and possible pro career. You are going to see a lot of that in a few weeks.

Just how many future NBA or even G-League players will have a chance to be in the NIT?

And with NIL these days, they may not make substantially more in the pros than in college. Finally, nobody tunes into the NIT to watch great players for the most part, especially given that most are in the NCAA Tournament. They tune in because their school or a regional/state school is playing or because they're just trying to get their basketball fix/appetizer before the real Tournament. If players start opting out, there's ways to sweeten things like add a cash prize for winning.

The NIT is going nowhere any time soon.

(02-28-2024 11:10 PM)46566 Wrote:  Instead of giving out 2 spots out to everyone. Just limit the amount of schools conferences can get in. Cap each conference at let's say 50% . So a 16 team conference is capped at 8 and 14 is capped at 7. Odd number conferences are rounded down. Maybe add a separate add on is that schools have to have a winning conference record for a at large bid. I'd doubt it's going to catch most of the lower at large P5 teams but it could free up a bit especially with PAC 12 dissolving for now.

LOL, what part of "every conference is not created equal" don't you understand? You can continue to complain that mediocre (in-league) power conference teams get more consideration than "good" mid-major and low-major teams but refuse to acknowledge they go through different challenges but it won't change the reality.

Any Big 12 school except potentially one (if one of the teams I'm naming is playing their own schedule) will have to play ALL of Kansas, Houston, Iowa State and Baylor. These are just the Top 15 teams, there are others who have come in and out of the rankings. Sometimes they have to play them twice and/or at their home arenas. Iowa State and Houston are undefeated at home this year and Kansas has one loss, just last night. For 90% of college that's at least 5, if not 6 losses automatically before you get to teams capable of making and winning in the Tournament.

There's simply no analog to that in the non-P4 except maybe in the MWC. Doesn't mean they can't compete, we went from dominating the AAC to dominating the Big 12 but it's hard to tell.

The fact is playing and winning against a good schedule is a better barometer of who is good than consuming a bunch of cupcakes then not being able to compete when you play good teams. And sometimes there are exceptions such as FAU the last couple of years.

(02-29-2024 12:05 AM)ETSUfan#2 Wrote:  For many of the smaller 1 bid conferences, take advantage of the NIT.

The NIT that just announced in October that they're doing away with auto bids for regular season conference champions and guaranteeing the top 12 spots to P5 teams?

Can't believe this has made it to a page 2 (if you go to settings, you can view 60 posts per page). This would barely be funny as a troll post but as a real post? The only reason I don't ridicule the OP and some of the supporters is because I respect all people's opinions regardless of how far out in left field they are because I'm typically living on the edge like that with my opinions, so I know how it feels.

That said, other than making all things equal (which college athletics and life are not) the suggestions in this thread have no basis in a realistic reality imo.

The only reason it made it that far is because it immediately turned into a P5 fans saying "Schedule better" and Non-P5 fans saying "You buy cupcakes OOC and never play any teams who'd actually need a bubble win."

(02-28-2024 02:34 PM)hburg Wrote:  This is a personal opinion. Every conference should have at least two teams and the NCAA basketball tournament as long as the conference has at least two teams that are above 20 wins. The net rating that they use whatever rating that they used to generate who will get into the tournament and a bit unfair to the lower conferences even though there's more conferences may or may not have a good shot at getting to the actual final.

The power conferences get plenty of money and teams into the conference. Perhaps allowing the smaller conferences at least two teams that are about 20 wins each and to the conference will actually help those teams and conferences to get better in basketball.

Teams with 20 plus wins should be rewarded with post play, and not be relegated to a lesser tournament.

Even in football the plate all should have at least one team per conference.

Just my two cents.

An alternative would be to eliminate the conference tournaments for the weaker conferences, and play regional tournaments:

Northeast: America East, Ivy, MAAC, NEC
Mid-Atlantic: Big South, CAA, MEAC, Patriot
Southeast: ASUN, CUSA, SoCon, SWAC, Sun Belt
Central: Horizon, MAC, OVC, Summit
West: Big Sky, Big West, Southland, WAC

Each region would have four tournament (5 for the Southeast) with 8 teams in each. Each tournament would 2 schools from each conference in that region, placed in opposite sides of the brackets. In effect, the four (or five) conferences are pulling their AQ's and competing against each other. A conference could get up to four (or 5 teams in the NCAAT based on merit (i.e. winning games).

Possible brackets based on conference finish and NET rankings. A 1st place team in a conference gets a #1 seed, 2nd place and so on. The highest ranked #1 Seed (Samford) is placed opposite the lowest ranked #2 Seed (Southern) and so on. I went ahead and placed all 55 teams in the tournament (provisionals Bellarmine and Queens excluded).

1 Samford
8-9 UAPB-SAla
5-12 Jax St-ODU
4 A Peay
3 Troy
6 N Ala
7 Mercer
2 Southern

1 App State
8-9 UTEP-Citadel
5 N Fla
4 Alcorn St
3 Chat
6-11 B-C-Tex St
7-10 FGCU-Ga Sou
2 Sam Hou

1 La Tech
8-9 Kenn St-Ala A&M
5 ULaLa
4 Furman
3 Tex Sou
6-11 MTSU-ULM
7-10 Marsh-VMI
2 Stets

1 E Ky
8-9 ETSU-FIU
5 Jackson St
4 Ark St
3 W Ky
6-11 USM-Fla A&M
7-10 Ala St-C Ark
2 UNCG

1 Gramb
8-9 Ga St-Jax (FL)
5-12 W Car-Co Car
4 Liberty
3 Lipscomb
6-11 Woff-Miss V St
7-10 NMSU-PV A&M
2 JMU

(02-29-2024 06:24 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 02:34 PM)hburg Wrote:  This is a personal opinion. Every conference should have at least two teams and the NCAA basketball tournament as long as the conference has at least two teams that are above 20 wins. The net rating that they use whatever rating that they used to generate who will get into the tournament and a bit unfair to the lower conferences even though there's more conferences may or may not have a good shot at getting to the actual final.

The power conferences get plenty of money and teams into the conference. Perhaps allowing the smaller conferences at least two teams that are about 20 wins each and to the conference will actually help those teams and conferences to get better in basketball.

Teams with 20 plus wins should be rewarded with post play, and not be relegated to a lesser tournament.

Even in football the plate all should have at least one team per conference.

Just my two cents.

An alternative would be to eliminate the conference tournaments for the weaker conferences, and play regional tournaments:

Northeast: America East, Ivy, MAAC, NEC
Mid-Atlantic: Big South, CAA, MEAC, Patriot
Southeast: ASUN, CUSA, SoCon, SWAC, Sun Belt
Central: Horizon, MAC, OVC, Summit
West: Big Sky, Big West, Southland, WAC

Each region would have four tournament (5 for the Southeast) with 8 teams in each. Each tournament would 2 schools from each conference in that region, placed in opposite sides of the brackets. In effect, the four (or five) conferences are pulling their AQ's and competing against each other. A conference could get up to four (or 5 teams in the NCAAT based on merit (i.e. winning games).

Possible brackets based on conference finish and NET rankings. A 1st place team in a conference gets a #1 seed, 2nd place and so on. The highest ranked #1 Seed (Samford) is placed opposite the lowest ranked #2 Seed (Southern) and so on. I went ahead and placed all 55 teams in the tournament (provisionals Bellarmine and Queens excluded).

1 Samford
8-9 UAPB-SAla
5-12 Jax St-ODU
4 A Peay
3 Troy
6 N Ala
7 Mercer
2 Southern

1 App State
8-9 UTEP-Citadel
5 N Fla
4 Alcorn St
3 Chat
6-11 B-C-Tex St
7-10 FGCU-Ga Sou
2 Sam Hou

1 La Tech
8-9 Kenn St-Ala A&M
5 ULaLa
4 Furman
3 Tex Sou
6-11 MTSU-ULM
7-10 Marsh-VMI
2 Stets

1 E Ky
8-9 ETSU-FIU
5 Jackson St
4 Ark St
3 W Ky
6-11 USM-Fla A&M
7-10 Ala St-C Ark
2 UNCG

1 Gramb
8-9 Ga St-Jax (FL)
5-12 W Car-Co Car
4 Liberty
3 Lipscomb
6-11 Woff-Miss V St
7-10 NMSU-PV A&M
2 JMU

I don't think the Ivy League joins this tournament since they only recently added a conference tourney and only do 4 teams each to limit wear on their players so you can probably cut them from the list, move the Patriot to the NE and move a SE conference to the Mid-Atlantic for 4 conferences each. I'd also be open to expanding each region to 12 teams. RS champs earn a bye, 2nd and 3rd from each league seeded 5-12. Maybe even expand to 16 teams using a ladder bracket (9-12 play 13-16, 4 winners play 5-8, next 4 winners play 1-4).

Having said all of that, I don't think the mid-majors do this because of the risk of a conference losing their bid to another conference when they've already got a guaranteed bid unless they see a significant increase in payout money even if they miss the NCAA Tourney, but I'm open to the idea.

(02-29-2024 11:33 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 06:24 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 02:34 PM)hburg Wrote:  This is a personal opinion. Every conference should have at least two teams and the NCAA basketball tournament as long as the conference has at least two teams that are above 20 wins. The net rating that they use whatever rating that they used to generate who will get into the tournament and a bit unfair to the lower conferences even though there's more conferences may or may not have a good shot at getting to the actual final.

The power conferences get plenty of money and teams into the conference. Perhaps allowing the smaller conferences at least two teams that are about 20 wins each and to the conference will actually help those teams and conferences to get better in basketball.

Teams with 20 plus wins should be rewarded with post play, and not be relegated to a lesser tournament.

Even in football the plate all should have at least one team per conference.

Just my two cents.

An alternative would be to eliminate the conference tournaments for the weaker conferences, and play regional tournaments:

Northeast: America East, Ivy, MAAC, NEC
Mid-Atlantic: Big South, CAA, MEAC, Patriot
Southeast: ASUN, CUSA, SoCon, SWAC, Sun Belt
Central: Horizon, MAC, OVC, Summit
West: Big Sky, Big West, Southland, WAC

Each region would have four tournament (5 for the Southeast) with 8 teams in each. Each tournament would 2 schools from each conference in that region, placed in opposite sides of the brackets. In effect, the four (or five) conferences are pulling their AQ's and competing against each other. A conference could get up to four (or 5 teams in the NCAAT based on merit (i.e. winning games).

Possible brackets based on conference finish and NET rankings. A 1st place team in a conference gets a #1 seed, 2nd place and so on. The highest ranked #1 Seed (Samford) is placed opposite the lowest ranked #2 Seed (Southern) and so on. I went ahead and placed all 55 teams in the tournament (provisionals Bellarmine and Queens excluded).

1 Samford
8-9 UAPB-SAla
5-12 Jax St-ODU
4 A Peay
3 Troy
6 N Ala
7 Mercer
2 Southern

1 App State
8-9 UTEP-Citadel
5 N Fla
4 Alcorn St
3 Chat
6-11 B-C-Tex St
7-10 FGCU-Ga Sou
2 Sam Hou

1 La Tech
8-9 Kenn St-Ala A&M
5 ULaLa
4 Furman
3 Tex Sou
6-11 MTSU-ULM
7-10 Marsh-VMI
2 Stets

1 E Ky
8-9 ETSU-FIU
5 Jackson St
4 Ark St
3 W Ky
6-11 USM-Fla A&M
7-10 Ala St-C Ark
2 UNCG

1 Gramb
8-9 Ga St-Jax (FL)
5-12 W Car-Co Car
4 Liberty
3 Lipscomb
6-11 Woff-Miss V St
7-10 NMSU-PV A&M
2 JMU

I don't think the Ivy League joins this tournament since they only recently added a conference tourney and only do 4 teams each to limit wear on their players so you can probably cut them from the list, move the Patriot to the NE and move a SE conference to the Mid-Atlantic for 4 conferences each. I'd also be open to expanding each region to 12 teams. RS champs earn a bye, 2nd and 3rd from each league seeded 5-12. Maybe even expand to 16 teams using a ladder bracket (9-12 play 13-16, 4 winners play 5-8, next 4 winners play 1-4).

Having said all of that, I don't think the mid-majors do this because of the risk of a conference losing their bid to another conference when they've already got a guaranteed bid unless they see a significant increase in payout money even if they miss the NCAA Tourney, but I'm open to the idea.

The Ivy does a small tournament for the sake of academics, not for player wear and tear. They didn't even do one at all for numerous decades for that reason alone.

(02-28-2024 05:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 02:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 02:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  That could work, but there would need to be a significant culling first. I dunno, perhaps a ~ 70 team breakaway with the entire P4 leaving the NCAA and starting our own version of the NCAAT and a new CFP? In the current model, with 30 Conferences eligible for NCAAT games and 10 (9) for the CFP, your solution is unworkable.

Yours sounds boring and would lose half it's audience.

I don't know about half, but I do agree that the NCAAT is far better the way it is now than whatever would take it's place in a P4-only tourney. I was actually discussing that more as a reason why his idea doesn't make sense (or dollar$). You need a whole bunch of 18-22 win P4 schools in there so they can get upset by #15 seed Colgate every so often, but 2 schools from the Patriot and every other tiny league full of schools with a tiny basketball budget and 697 fans per game would be worse than what we have now.

Obviously the OP's suggestion wouldn't work. But if we start having 18-22 win teams as the #2 seeds it'll be worth reevaluating.

(02-28-2024 05:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 02:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 02:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  That could work, but there would need to be a significant culling first. I dunno, perhaps a ~ 70 team breakaway with the entire P4 leaving the NCAA and starting our own version of the NCAAT and a new CFP? In the current model, with 30 Conferences eligible for NCAAT games and 10 (9) for the CFP, your solution is unworkable.

Yours sounds boring and would lose half it's audience.

I don't know about half, but I do agree that the NCAAT is far better the way it is now than whatever would take it's place in a P4-only tourney. I was actually discussing that more as a reason why his idea doesn't make sense (or dollar$). You need a whole bunch of 18-22 win P4 schools in there so they can get upset by #15 seed Colgate every so often, but 2 schools from the Patriot and every other tiny league full of schools with a tiny basketball budget and 697 fans per game would be worse than what we have now.

(02-28-2024 05:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Oof.

I feel like a lot of fans of smaller conferences aren’t reading the room correctly. Just as the G5 need to be fighting just to keep their single auto-bid to the CFP (rather than thinking above asking for more), the non-power leagues need to planning for how to simply keep what they have now with all of them having auto-bids. The power conferences are looking to take bids *away* - the thought of multiple bids for smaller leagues would be an utter non-starter. I’m not a power conference breakaway truther, but if the non-power leagues ever attempted to propose what the OP has contemplated, that would actually spur the power leagues to split off and destroy the NCAA Tournament (and thereby take away ALL of that revenue from the smaller conferences) entirely.

I know that it probably sounds elitist, but the non-power leagues need to be happy with what they have today because the only thing that can happen is for it to get worse (and possibly MUCH worse) for them. There is ZERO leverage to even think for two seconds about asking for more. It’s going to take everything that those smaller conferences have just to simply defend what they have today.

(02-28-2024 09:51 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 05:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Oof.

I feel like a lot of fans of smaller conferences aren’t reading the room correctly. Just as the G5 need to be fighting just to keep their single auto-bid to the CFP (rather than thinking above asking for more), the non-power leagues need to planning for how to simply keep what they have now with all of them having auto-bids. The power conferences are looking to take bids *away* - the thought of multiple bids for smaller leagues would be an utter non-starter. I’m not a power conference breakaway truther, but if the non-power leagues ever attempted to propose what the OP has contemplated, that would actually spur the power leagues to split off and destroy the NCAA Tournament (and thereby take away ALL of that revenue from the smaller conferences) entirely.

Just follow FB's lead. Assign conferences automatic bids.

B1G 14
SEC 12
XII 8
ACC 8
BE 4

That is 48 bids right there (out of 64). For the other 27 conferences they should be guaranteed only 1 bid for their highest ranked champion. Make it like what the G5 have in FB, 1 bid to split among themselves.

It would be a very strange system if the clear cut best conference in basketball (XII) got the 3rd most auto-bids (40% fewer bids than the #1 conference).

(02-29-2024 11:33 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 06:24 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 02:34 PM)hburg Wrote:  This is a personal opinion. Every conference should have at least two teams and the NCAA basketball tournament as long as the conference has at least two teams that are above 20 wins. The net rating that they use whatever rating that they used to generate who will get into the tournament and a bit unfair to the lower conferences even though there's more conferences may or may not have a good shot at getting to the actual final.

The power conferences get plenty of money and teams into the conference. Perhaps allowing the smaller conferences at least two teams that are about 20 wins each and to the conference will actually help those teams and conferences to get better in basketball.

Teams with 20 plus wins should be rewarded with post play, and not be relegated to a lesser tournament.

Even in football the plate all should have at least one team per conference.

Just my two cents.

An alternative would be to eliminate the conference tournaments for the weaker conferences, and play regional tournaments:

Northeast: America East, Ivy, MAAC, NEC
Mid-Atlantic: Big South, CAA, MEAC, Patriot
Southeast: ASUN, CUSA, SoCon, SWAC, Sun Belt
Central: Horizon, MAC, OVC, Summit
West: Big Sky, Big West, Southland, WAC

Each region would have four tournament (5 for the Southeast) with 8 teams in each. Each tournament would 2 schools from each conference in that region, placed in opposite sides of the brackets. In effect, the four (or five) conferences are pulling their AQ's and competing against each other. A conference could get up to four (or 5 teams in the NCAAT based on merit (i.e. winning games).

Possible brackets based on conference finish and NET rankings. A 1st place team in a conference gets a #1 seed, 2nd place and so on. The highest ranked #1 Seed (Samford) is placed opposite the lowest ranked #2 Seed (Southern) and so on. I went ahead and placed all 55 teams in the tournament (provisionals Bellarmine and Queens excluded).

1 Samford
8-9 UAPB-SAla
5-12 Jax St-ODU
4 A Peay
3 Troy
6 N Ala
7 Mercer
2 Southern

1 App State
8-9 UTEP-Citadel
5 N Fla
4 Alcorn St
3 Chat
6-11 B-C-Tex St
7-10 FGCU-Ga Sou
2 Sam Hou

1 La Tech
8-9 Kenn St-Ala A&M
5 ULaLa
4 Furman
3 Tex Sou
6-11 MTSU-ULM
7-10 Marsh-VMI
2 Stets

1 E Ky
8-9 ETSU-FIU
5 Jackson St
4 Ark St
3 W Ky
6-11 USM-Fla A&M
7-10 Ala St-C Ark
2 UNCG

1 Gramb
8-9 Ga St-Jax (FL)
5-12 W Car-Co Car
4 Liberty
3 Lipscomb
6-11 Woff-Miss V St
7-10 NMSU-PV A&M
2 JMU

I don't think the Ivy League joins this tournament since they only recently added a conference tourney and only do 4 teams each to limit wear on their players so you can probably cut them from the list, move the Patriot to the NE and move a SE conference to the Mid-Atlantic for 4 conferences each. I'd also be open to expanding each region to 12 teams. RS champs earn a bye, 2nd and 3rd from each league seeded 5-12. Maybe even expand to 16 teams using a ladder bracket (9-12 play 13-16, 4 winners play 5-8, next 4 winners play 1-4).

Having said all of that, I don't think the mid-majors do this because of the risk of a conference losing their bid to another conference when they've already got a guaranteed bid unless they see a significant increase in payout money even if they miss the NCAA Tourney, but I'm open to the idea.

It was not intended that this be voluntary. It would be the procedure by which schools from these conferences gain access to the NCAA tournament.

Another approach would be to reduce the tournaments to four teams from each conference, and call it the Qualification Round. Each conference would be responsible for designating (and ranking) their four teams.

A conference might continue to hold a conference tournament. One format that might be utilized is to give the Top 2 regular season teams byes to the conference tournament semifinals, with the four semifinalists qualifying for NCAA tournament. If the conferences chose to use the regular season standings this would be one hypothetical bracket.

1 Samford
4 Austin Peay
3 Troy
2 Southern

1 Appalachian State
4 Alcorn St
3 Chattanooga
2 Sam Houston

1 Louisiana Tech
4 Furman
3 Texas Southern
2 Stetson

1 Eastern Kentucky
4 Arkansas State
3 Western Kentucky
2 UNC Greensboro

1 Grambling
4 Liberty
3 Lipscomb
2 James Madison

not really sure what would be in it for conferences like the SWAC to do this at all. go from having an auto bid to almost having no chance to make the tourney.

(02-29-2024 09:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  not really sure what would be in it for conferences like the SWAC to do this at all. go from having an auto bid to almost having no chance to make the tourney.

Characterize it differently:

84 schools from the 21 lowest ranked conferences would enter the Qualification Round. Competition would be similar to the play-in but four schools from the SWAC would have a chance to reach the First Round of 64 teams.

To the OP I’d be for this assuming we got rid of about 20 conferences.

(02-28-2024 09:51 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 05:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Oof.

I feel like a lot of fans of smaller conferences aren’t reading the room correctly. Just as the G5 need to be fighting just to keep their single auto-bid to the CFP (rather than thinking above asking for more), the non-power leagues need to planning for how to simply keep what they have now with all of them having auto-bids. The power conferences are looking to take bids *away* - the thought of multiple bids for smaller leagues would be an utter non-starter. I’m not a power conference breakaway truther, but if the non-power leagues ever attempted to propose what the OP has contemplated, that would actually spur the power leagues to split off and destroy the NCAA Tournament (and thereby take away ALL of that revenue from the smaller conferences) entirely.

Just follow FB's lead. Assign conferences automatic bids.

B1G 14
SEC 12
XII 8
ACC 8
BE 4

That is 48 bids right there (out of 64). For the other 27 conferences they should be guaranteed only 1 bid for their highest ranked champion. Make it like what the G5 have in FB, 1 bid to split among themselves.

That many auto bids for the Big XII, ACC, and Big East isn't too unreasonable, but for the SEC and Big Ten, that would open the possibility of consistently putting one or more teams in that not only have a loosing record within their own conference, but possibly an overall loosing record. Going by current March 1, 2024 standings, the #12 team for the SEC is currently a 14-14 Arkansas that has a 5-10 record in SEC play.

Depending on how remaing season games and the SEC Tournament play out, they may well finish with a loosing record.

That would also see the SEC not having any teams for the NIT, as the only remaining schools are 8-20 Vanderbilt and Missouri. Even with the NIT taking away auto bids for the smaller conferences, any team in the NIT must still have a .500 or better win record, which neither of those teams have. Looking at the standings for the SEC right now, LSU, Georgia, and Texas A&M, all of which are 15-13 overall, still have enough games left both in regular season and the conference tournament that at least 1 of those teams may slide below .500

I don't care if you are historically the best or one of the best overall programs in the country, and in the best conference in the country, if you have 20 or more losses by the time regular season play ends, personally I think that you shouldn't even bother with your conference tournament, let alone the NCAA or NIT. At the expense of loosing some money by not being the #14 or #16 seed in your conference tournament, after a certain point it might be better overall for a program to cut losses and have an extra week or 2 to start focusing on the next season. Or in the case of players and coaches, have an extra week or 2 to figure out what or where they'll even be doing next year.

(02-28-2024 09:51 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 05:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Oof.

I feel like a lot of fans of smaller conferences aren’t reading the room correctly. Just as the G5 need to be fighting just to keep their single auto-bid to the CFP (rather than thinking above asking for more), the non-power leagues need to planning for how to simply keep what they have now with all of them having auto-bids. The power conferences are looking to take bids *away* - the thought of multiple bids for smaller leagues would be an utter non-starter. I’m not a power conference breakaway truther, but if the non-power leagues ever attempted to propose what the OP has contemplated, that would actually spur the power leagues to split off and destroy the NCAA Tournament (and thereby take away ALL of that revenue from the smaller conferences) entirely.

Just follow FB's lead. Assign conferences automatic bids.

B1G 14
SEC 12
XII 8
ACC 8
BE 4

That is 48 bids right there (out of 64). For the other 27 conferences they should be guaranteed only 1 bid for their highest ranked champion. Make it like what the G5 have in FB, 1 bid to split among themselves.

That many auto bids for the Big XII, ACC, and Big East isn't too unreasonable, but for the SEC and Big Ten, that would open the possibility of consistently putting one or more teams in that not only have a loosing record within their own conference, but possibly an overall loosing record. Going by current March 1, 2024 standings, the #12 team for the SEC is currently a 14-14 Arkansas that has a 5-10 record in SEC play.

Depending on how remaing season games and the SEC Tournament play out, they may well finish with a loosing record.

That would also see the SEC not having any teams for the NIT, as the only remaining schools are 8-20 Vanderbilt and Missouri. Even with the NIT taking away auto bids for the smaller conferences, any team in the NIT must still have a .500 or better win record, which neither of those teams have. Looking at the standings for the SEC right now, LSU, Georgia, and Texas A&M, all of which are 15-13 overall, still have enough games left both in regular season and the conference tournament that at least 1 of those teams may slide below .500

I don't care if you are historically the best or one of the best overall programs in the country, and in the best conference in the country, if you have 20 or more losses by the time regular season play ends, personally I think that you shouldn't even bother with your conference tournament, let alone the NCAA or NIT. At the expense of loosing some money by not being the #14 or #16 seed in your conference tournament, after a certain point it might be better overall for a program to cut losses and have an extra week or 2 to start focusing on the next season. Or in the case of players and coaches, have an extra week or 2 to figure out what or where they'll even be doing next year.

(02-29-2024 09:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  not really sure what would be in it for conferences like the SWAC to do this at all. go from having an auto bid to almost having no chance to make the tourney.

Four teams in the Qualification Round

(03-01-2024 01:05 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 09:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  not really sure what would be in it for conferences like the SWAC to do this at all. go from having an auto bid to almost having no chance to make the tourney.

Four teams in the Qualification Round

yeah. sounds great except for the teams involved. Wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of advancing and anyone with a morsel of a brain would know that.

They aren't going to expand the tourney this way at all.

I mean if the tourney expands to 80 say, the 12 extra teams are going to be the next 12 at large. 96 would add 28 at large. The small conferences are still going to have only 1 team in the tourney guaranteed.