CSNbbs

Full Version: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
The ACC is recommending some changes.

With 72 teams...two sub regionals

One in Dayton and maybe one in like El Paso, Omaha, Salt Lake City, Alburquerque or Tulsa?

https://www.nunesmagician.com/2018/5/17/...-expansion
Put it in the Palestra. Every NCAA Tournament should kick off in the Palestra.
(05-17-2018 01:46 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]Put it in the Palestra. Every NCAA Tournament should kick off in the Palestra.

Dayton has been a great host. If you put the other one in the Palestra...Dayton is too close.
I could see it rotating between the Pit and Salt Lake City.
IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.
(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

IMO, they should cut it back to 64 and say God Bless the NIT. The field is way too diluted already. They should also cap the # of schools any conference can get into the field of 64. I'm thinking 5.
(05-17-2018 01:35 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC is recommending some changes.

With 72 teams...two sub regionals

One in Dayton and maybe one in like El Paso, Omaha, Salt Lake City, Alburquerque or Tulsa?

https://www.nunesmagician.com/2018/5/17/...-expansion

I'm having trouble making the math work here. If you increase the field to 72, with only two additional play-in games, the play-ins will provide 6 winners for the round of 64. That means there must be 58 teams who don't have to play in (64-6). But 58 byes plus 12 play-ins equals 70 teams total, not 72.

Seems to me you must have 8 play-in games and 56 byes to make 72 work. I assume the ACC doesn't want 4 more teams from the 20-22 one-bid leagues. The end result would be 12 teams from multi-bid leagues playing in to the round of 64, along with 4 from the minor conferences.
72 is too much. 68 hasn't been as big as a dilution as I originally thought it would be, but the NCAA would really be pushing it by further expanding the field. I realize the purpose is to grant more mid-majors into the dance, but - let's be honest: it will be yet another way to get more teams from the major conferences in (and yet another way to eliminate mid-major at-large teams altogether).

I am absolutely in favor of a 20 second shot clock on offensive rebounds and pushing back the 3-point line.
(05-17-2018 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

IMO, they should cut it back to 64 and say God Bless the NIT. The field is way too diluted already. They should also cap the # of schools any conference can get into the field of 64. I'm thinking 5.

Agree there needs to be a cap. Face it this recommendation by the ACC is so they can get 12-13 teams in the tournament. I'd rather see the #2 team in the Missouri Valley than the 12th best team in a P5.
(05-17-2018 02:26 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]I'm having trouble making the math work here. If you increase the field to 72, with only two additional play-in games

They are proposing a second "First Four" -- the existing First Four has 4 games, so a second First Four would add 4 additional games, not 2.
The First Four started out well its first few years.

2011 - VCU, UAB
2012 - BYU, Iona
2013 - Saint Mary’s, Boise, Middle Tennessee, LaSalle

These committees were more than fair and their choices backed them up on the court.
Of the above 4 winners, 1 went to the Final Four (VCU) and another the Sweet 16 (LaSalle).

Fast forward a few years and things got ridiculous.
2016- A 13 KenPom mid-major was relegated to the First Four (Wichita) while another with scalps of USC/UCLA/Notre Dame/Georgetown was left home (Monmouth).
2017 & 2018- Only 1 of 8 selections was non-P6 (St Bonaventure). Put in ‘17 Illinois State and this would’ve been passable.
(05-17-2018 03:07 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2018 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

IMO, they should cut it back to 64 and say God Bless the NIT. The field is way too diluted already. They should also cap the # of schools any conference can get into the field of 64. I'm thinking 5.

Agree there needs to be a cap. Face it this recommendation by the ACC is so they can get 12-13 teams in the tournament. I'd rather see the #2 team in the Missouri Valley than the 12th best team in a P5.

The largest current conference is the ACC with 15 members for basketball. I said I figured 5 because if you can't finish in the top 1/3rd of your conference then you don't deserve to play in the post season's premier tournament.

And by enforcing a cap you have better schools in the NIT thereby enhancing each conference's ability to make more money through even better ratings. Right now the NCAA is simply looking to further damage the NIT so that the NCAA can bankroll even more money off of the tourney. Paying tourney creds several years in arrears is also unacceptable. They are withholding that money and earning interest on it before disbursement thereby depriving the schools of the use of that money, or the interest from it.

Bracket creep only assists the NCAA and if they are looking for bigger ratings then that means it assists the larger conferences in getting even more schools in. It has nothing to do with good basketball.
(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

If you did that, all 16 first 8 teams would be small conference winners. That basically would give away 8 credits to the small conferences.

It would mean at more at large, realistically increasing the 6 Major conference share of bids from 36-38 to 39-41, with the upper mid-majors (MWC, WCC, American, MVC, A10, CUSA) getting usually 1 more at large.

From a major conference stand point they'd want all 8 of the play-in teams be at-large 12 seeds, as this would add a net 5-6 extra credits to the majors, or almost 1 per conference. These schools would all be in the "churn" anyway.
(05-17-2018 02:59 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]72 is too much. 68 hasn't been as big as a dilution as I originally thought it would be, but the NCAA would really be pushing it by further expanding the field. I realize the purpose is to grant more mid-majors into the dance, but - let's be honest: it will be yet another way to get more teams from the major conferences in (and yet another way to eliminate mid-major at-large teams altogether).

I am absolutely in favor of a 20 second shot clock on offensive rebounds and pushing back the 3-point line.

If you are going to go to 72, you might as well go to 80.

Seed all teams 1-80. Top 48 get first round byes. The 16 first round losers get automatic berth in the NIT, where they host 16 at-large entries in the first round of that tourney.

NCAAT first round games played on Tuesday and Wednesday at the same sub-regional sites as everyone else.

It doesn't have to be complicated.
(05-17-2018 03:07 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2018 02:26 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]I'm having trouble making the math work here. If you increase the field to 72, with only two additional play-in games

They are proposing a second "First Four" -- the existing First Four has 4 games, so a second First Four would add 4 additional games, not 2.

I think that's what they meant, but it's not what they said. They said just 2 additional games, 4 additional schools.
They’ll just make it so all the 16 seeds play-in plus the last 8 in. They have to sell out the second venue and a lineup of 4 16v16 games won’t do that.
There have been talks of splitting D1 for all other sports to 1A and 1AA. This would give the FBS conferences and maybe the MVFC schools in 1A. The other schools that are in good basketball conferences will have to claw and beg their way into 1A. That is why you are seeing teams like VCU, Dayton, Gonzaga and Saint Mary's moving to either the AAC or the MWC. Plus the latest with Grand Canyon a Big West LA school and both New Mexico State and BYU be in an FBS conference.
(05-17-2018 03:19 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2018 02:59 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]72 is too much. 68 hasn't been as big as a dilution as I originally thought it would be, but the NCAA would really be pushing it by further expanding the field. I realize the purpose is to grant more mid-majors into the dance, but - let's be honest: it will be yet another way to get more teams from the major conferences in (and yet another way to eliminate mid-major at-large teams altogether).

I am absolutely in favor of a 20 second shot clock on offensive rebounds and pushing back the 3-point line.

If you are going to go to 72, you might as well go to 80.

Seed all teams 1-80. Top 48 get first round byes. The 16 first round losers get automatic berth in the NIT, where they host 16 at-large entries in the first round of that tourney.

NCAAT first round games played on Tuesday and Wednesday at the same sub-regional sites as everyone else.

It doesn't have to be complicated.

It can work with the arenas, but CBS/Turner were not interested when the coaches wanted to expand to 96 tournament teams. They accepted 68 and use the Tuesday/Wednesday games as a promotion for TruTV. They would likely accept a few more games if given the additional games at no additional cost, but why set the precedent of giving them more games without getting more money.

The additional games would be mostly a coaches' job security program -- more coaches will either get an extension or not get fired if there are more teams in the tournament -- so it's not shocking that they're back again with another tournament expansion proposal.
(05-17-2018 02:59 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]72 is too much. 68 hasn't been as big as a dilution as I originally thought it would be, but the NCAA would really be pushing it by further expanding the field. I realize the purpose is to grant more mid-majors into the dance, but - let's be honest: it will be yet another way to get more teams from the major conferences in (and yet another way to eliminate mid-major at-large teams altogether).

I am absolutely in favor of a 20 second shot clock on offensive rebounds and pushing back the 3-point line.

68 isn't diluted but 72 is? 19% to 20% is just too much?
Ugh, go back to 64 or all the way to 128. Everyone should play the same number of games in the tournament.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Reference URL's