Three simple changes to the Tourney selection process that require no more teams but would
a) let who is in be decided through gameplay, instead of by a committee and b) end a lot of debate about who is in/out

1) TEAMS MUST BE .500 IN THEIR CONFERENCE (TOURNAMENT GAMES COUNT)
Not sure how you make a case for playing for a Nat. Championship if you can't even go .500 in your conference. Let's say a team goes 8-10 in the B12. They know they need to win 3 games and make it to the title game to have an invite (total season including tourney they would be 11-11). Sure, that team would probably make it anyway, but why create doubt? Tell them a concrete standard. It'd make some High Major late Feb. games pretty definitive.

2) REG. SEASON CONF. CHAMPIONS+CONF TOURNEY WINNERS SHOULDN'T HAVE A PLAY-IN GAME
Why should ANY team who wins their conference end up in a play-in game while some loser team that only won their conf. tourney and had a bad reg. season skip it? Winning your reg. season and conf tourney should be your guaranteed ticket out of play-in status.
or
ALL PLAY-IN GAMES ARE BETWEEN THE 15 and 16 SEEDS
This would have the effect of improving the quality of the 15 seeds and maybe 16 seeds in the tourney (presumably the 2 weakest 16s would be out).

3) RE-SEED the FINAL FOUR (based on original overall seed rank)
They announce the overall ranks of teams anyway... so why not add that twist. So 3 #1 seeds and a 9 seed all make it - that 9 should have to play Florida.

Just some thoughts.

1. stupid idea. uconn in the big east won the whole thing after going .500 in conference play. while under your system they would of qualified still ==> it does prove that teams with piss poor conference records can still compete in the tourny and make deep runs.

2. because this is a direct contradiction as to how seeding works. nc state/xavier playing a play in is fair/reasonable because these were the last two teams to make the tourny despite being 12 seeds. if the tourny goes back to 64 teams that doesn't mean the 16 seeds are the 4 teams that get cut.

3. it might cause rematches that the NCAA hoped to avoid by putting these teams in the opposite ends of the bracket in the first place. and it also might cause a fairness issue. part of the magic of the tourny is the cinderella team and upsets. this proposal makes it harder for cinderella's to get to the FF and it diminishes the impact of upsets when everyone knows a reseed is coming.

(03-19-2014 03:11 AM)john01992 Wrote:  1. stupid idea. uconn in the big east won the whole thing after going .500 in conference play. while under your system they would of qualified still ==> it does prove that teams with piss poor conference records can still compete in the tourny and make deep runs.

2. because this is a direct contradiction as to how seeding works. nc state/xavier playing a play in is fair/reasonable because these were the last two teams to make the tourny despite being 12 seeds. if the tourny goes back to 64 teams that doesn't mean the 16 seeds are the 4 teams that get cut.

3. it might cause rematches that the NCAA hoped to avoid by putting these teams in the opposite ends of the bracket in the first place. and it also might cause a fairness issue. part of the magic of the tourny is the cinderella team and upsets. this proposal makes it harder for cinderella's to get to the FF and it diminishes the impact of upsets when everyone knows a reseed is coming.

Add to #3, who the hell wants to erase their bracket and move a team or 2 to a different quadrant once they get to the final 4. Might as well do like some of the conf. tourneys give Florida, Wichita St., Virginia, Arizona byes to the elite 8. and all the 2 seeds byes to the sweet 16.

(03-19-2014 12:41 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  Three simple changes to the Tourney selection process that require no more teams but would
a) let who is in be decided through gameplay, instead of by a committee and b) end a lot of debate about who is in/out

1) TEAMS MUST BE .500 IN THEIR CONFERENCE (TOURNAMENT GAMES COUNT)
Not sure how you make a case for playing for a Nat. Championship if you can't even go .500 in your conference. Let's say a team goes 8-10 in the B12. They know they need to win 3 games and make it to the title game to have an invite (total season including tourney they would be 11-11). Sure, that team would probably make it anyway, but why create doubt? Tell them a concrete standard. It'd make some High Major late Feb. games pretty definitive.

2) REG. SEASON CONF. CHAMPIONS+CONF TOURNEY WINNERS SHOULDN'T HAVE A PLAY-IN GAME
Why should ANY team who wins their conference end up in a play-in game while some loser team that only won their conf. tourney and had a bad reg. season skip it? Winning your reg. season and conf tourney should be your guaranteed ticket out of play-in status.
or
ALL PLAY-IN GAMES ARE BETWEEN THE 15 and 16 SEEDS
This would have the effect of improving the quality of the 15 seeds and maybe 16 seeds in the tourney (presumably the 2 weakest 16s would be out).

3) RE-SEED the FINAL FOUR (based on original overall seed rank)
They announce the overall ranks of teams anyway... so why not add that twist. So 3 #1 seeds and a 9 seed all make it - that 9 should have to play Florida.

Just some thoughts.

#2 Usually 15 and 16 seeds are conference champions-from the weaker conferences. And the expansion to 68 was a compromise. The bottom dozen conferences wouldn't approve it if it meant they would always fill those last 8 slots and frequently not get into the first weekend.

I like suggestion #1, and there is a big difference between going .500 and then winning the whole thing vs SUB .500

.500 is a good minimum standard and if Uconn was .500 regular season before they ran the table in conf tourney, then they were several games above this proposed minimum.

To take this to another level...
Make ALL qualifying criteria objective.

You've got the auto bids for the conf tourney winners. Add auto bids for reg season champs of any conference that has advance two teams to the round of 32 in either of the 2 previous years.

Even stronger historical conference performance can guarantee that conf tourney runner ups and reg season runner ups get auto bids.

NOW that you have a larger body of Auto-qualifiers-- start ranking teams by #of wins against teams already in.

Would be interesting to see how this approach would create a different field (or maybe nearly identical). What it would do as the OP said, would be to build in more drama to the conf tourney games as teams and fans would know up front exactly what was needed to qualify.

2 teams to round of 32 earns your conf 2 auto bids for the next 2 years.

3 teams to round of 16 gets your conf 3 auto bids for 2 years.

4 teams to round of 16 gets your conf 4 auto bids for the next year.

(03-19-2014 07:25 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  I like suggestion #1, and there is a big difference between going .500 and then winning the whole thing vs SUB .500

.500 is a good minimum standard and if Uconn was .500 regular season before they ran the table in conf tourney, then they were several games above this proposed minimum.

last year there were 3 teams in the tourny with under .500 conference records

one was a 16 seed and lost

the other 2 were from the b10 and both teams advanced to the round of 32

sorry dude but this would be one of the dumbest rule changes ever

I heard Mike Decourcy on 850 the buzz give the best explanation and comment about the NCAA moving to 68. Basically sense this has happened, there really has been no "Deserving" team left out. When it comes down to the last four, it is really goes to try and determine which of the last four have the least negatives to get in, since the final four have faults. Which is probably the truest way to look at it. Again, I don't think NCSU was anymore deserving than SMU, it just happened to be where the cut-off was. It could have been NCSU as a One Seed in the NIT and SMU playing Tuesday. I do believe NCSU probably got in with the better politicking by Coach Gott taken every chance to say we played the type of Schedule the committee told us was needed to get in and I do think Coach K comments after the State/Duke game helped. I am just glad NCSU put away Xavier so maybe you all will move to Xavier robbed you of a tourney spot. Good luck tonight in the NIT.

Throw all of these bubble teams in a pre-NCAA tournament. Then the Final 4 or whatever from that play-in tourney should get the "last 4 in" spots in the big dance.

Have NC State and SMU decide it on the court, not by a committee...

(03-19-2014 09:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Throw all of these bubble teams in a pre-NCAA tournament. Then the Final 4 or whatever from that play-in tourney should get the "last 4 in" spots in the big dance.

Have NC State and SMU decide it on the court, not by a committee...

Everyone already gets a last chance to make the dance via their respective conference tournaments (except for the Ivy League). We don't need extra superfluous games and devalue the regular season even further.

For a pool of 68 teams, there's nothing that needs to be changed with the NCAA Tournament selection. The process is about as good as it gets when you have to balance both objective and subjective measures.

(03-19-2014 09:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Throw all of these bubble teams in a pre-NCAA tournament. Then the Final 4 or whatever from that play-in tourney should get the "last 4 in" spots in the big dance.

Have NC State and SMU decide it on the court, not by a committee...

Everyone already gets a last chance to make the dance via their respective conference tournaments (except for the Ivy League). We don't need extra superfluous games and devalue the regular season even further.

For a pool of 68 teams, there's nothing that needs to be changed with the NCAA Tournament selection. The process is about as good as it gets when you have to balance both objective and subjective measures.

These "superfluous games" began when they added the First Four...

Argument Fail.

(03-19-2014 09:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Throw all of these bubble teams in a pre-NCAA tournament. Then the Final 4 or whatever from that play-in tourney should get the "last 4 in" spots in the big dance.

Have NC State and SMU decide it on the court, not by a committee...

Everyone already gets a last chance to make the dance via their respective conference tournaments (except for the Ivy League). We don't need extra superfluous games and devalue the regular season even further.

For a pool of 68 teams, there's nothing that needs to be changed with the NCAA Tournament selection. The process is about as good as it gets when you have to balance both objective and subjective measures.

exactly. if change was truly needed, we would be having a more serious discussion about it. you are correct that the process is as good as it gets and any more changes will only lead to more problems.

(03-19-2014 09:33 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Throw all of these bubble teams in a pre-NCAA tournament. Then the Final 4 or whatever from that play-in tourney should get the "last 4 in" spots in the big dance.

Have NC State and SMU decide it on the court, not by a committee...

Everyone already gets a last chance to make the dance via their respective conference tournaments (except for the Ivy League). We don't need extra superfluous games and devalue the regular season even further.

For a pool of 68 teams, there's nothing that needs to be changed with the NCAA Tournament selection. The process is about as good as it gets when you have to balance both objective and subjective measures.

These "superfluous games" began when they added the First Four...

Argument Fail.

adding those extra games was a necessity IMO. it solves more problems than it creates.

the only change that's going to happen soon is they're going to move the play-in games to all the 16 seeds, instead of the last 4 bubble teams and worst 4 16's.

I like giving conf champs of conferences with 2 or more bids auto bids

You would have to provide an additional incentive so that team is not the spoiler for its conf by also winning the conf tournament -

Ultimately, maybe seeds 13-16 are all play in games, and you avoid a play in by winning both conf and conf tourney?

(03-19-2014 09:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  the only change that's going to happen soon is they're going to move the play-in games to all the 16 seeds, instead of the last 4 bubble teams and worst 4 16's.

I could see them expanding the field with 2 more play-in games for the 16 seeds, but definitely don't think that they're getting rid of the bubble team games. Those have significantly increased the value of the "first round" (play-in games for the rest of us that aren't mentally challenged in naming conventions like the NCAA - only the NCAA can take things as simple as Division I-A and Division I-AA along with what we all know is the true first round of the NCAA Tournament and confuse the heck out of everyone) and allows more power conference teams a greater chance to call themselves "bubble teams" later in the season (which keeps interest in their respective regular seasons and conference tournaments) along with ultimately giving them more at-large bids. The bubble team play-in games are great for the power conferences from a money standpoint (I can understand that the specific teams that get sent there are put at a disadvantage, but we all know that the money wins out here). If anything, they'll add 2 more at-large play-in games on top of that. When it comes to sports playoffs, it always about expansion, expansion and more expansion (even if fans claim that they want contraction).

(03-19-2014 10:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  the only change that's going to happen soon is they're going to move the play-in games to all the 16 seeds, instead of the last 4 bubble teams and worst 4 16's.

I could see them expanding the field with 2 more play-in games for the 16 seeds, but definitely don't think that they're getting rid of the bubble team games. Those have significantly increased the value of the "first round" (play-in games for the rest of us that aren't mentally challenged in naming conventions like the NCAA - only the NCAA can take things as simple as Division I-A and Division I-AA along with what we all know is the true first round of the NCAA Tournament and confuse the heck out of everyone) and allows more power conference teams a greater chance to call themselves "bubble teams" later in the season (which keeps interest in their respective regular seasons and conference tournaments) along with ultimately giving them more at-large bids. The bubble team play-in games are great for the power conferences from a money standpoint (I can understand that the specific teams that get sent there are put at a disadvantage, but we all know that the money wins out here). If anything, they'll add 2 more at-large play-in games on top of that. When it comes to sports playoffs, it always about expansion, expansion and more expansion (even if fans claim that they want contraction).

Yeah could see going up to 72.

What I think has been interesting is at least first 3 years- a team has come out of Dayton and won a round of 64 game. VCU, USF, and La Salle. 2 to the sweet 16, and of course the final 4 run by VCU. NC State sure looked like they could do the same last night.

(03-19-2014 09:33 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Throw all of these bubble teams in a pre-NCAA tournament. Then the Final 4 or whatever from that play-in tourney should get the "last 4 in" spots in the big dance.

Have NC State and SMU decide it on the court, not by a committee...

Everyone already gets a last chance to make the dance via their respective conference tournaments (except for the Ivy League). We don't need extra superfluous games and devalue the regular season even further.

For a pool of 68 teams, there's nothing that needs to be changed with the NCAA Tournament selection. The process is about as good as it gets when you have to balance both objective and subjective measures.

These "superfluous games" began when they added the First Four...

Argument Fail.

Superfluous was when they expanded beyond 48.
If you can't finish above .500 in your conference and can't win a conference tourney, there are a lot of teams in your own conference that have proven they are better over a longer period than a 6 game run in March.

But we don't need to dump an 8-10 Big 10 team in order to bring in the 2nd place team from the SWAC.

I would like two small changes:

1. Hold play-in games at the same site where the winner will play on Thirsday or Friday. The play-in teams have it hard enough without an added day of travel.

2. Only a 1 seed should be able to play in their home state: year after year Duke is placed on a path to the Final Four without leaving North Carolina soil. Let them fly to Boise or wherever like everyone else. Hell there are plenty of jewelry dealers in those places who could use the "not a violation" business.

(03-20-2014 06:23 PM)Proud Bammer Wrote:  I would like two small changes:

1. Hold play-in games at the same site where the winner will play on Thirsday or Friday. The play-in teams have it hard enough without an added day of travel.

2. Only a 1 seed should be able to play in their home state: year after year Duke is placed on a path to the Final Four without leaving North Carolina soil. Let them fly to Boise or wherever like everyone else. Hell there are plenty of jewelry dealers in those places who could use the "not a violation" business.

Totally disagree. If you're a 4-seed or better, you deserve an advantage to extent that it's possible. It's one of the few incentives out there to play for during the regular season. What you're doing is going out of your way to *punish* Duke even though it has a 4-seed or better. Why should some random 8-seed or 12-seed get better consideration than a higher one? I hate Duke more ANY team ANYWHERE, but if they get better placement because they have a better seed, then that's MUCH fairer than making them schlep out to some random place and giving lower seeds greater advantages. I have little sympathy for the complaints of teams that have low seeds - if they have to face Duke in North Carolina, then so be it.