(03-05-2024 11:52 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  72 teams is 18 per region, so the 15-18 seeds can play each other in Round 0. Perhaps it's too many for Dayton, just play the games on the higher seed's home court on Tuesday. 76 is 19, so the 14-19 seeds could do so. Either of those would make a million times more sense than putting 16 seeds directly into the tournament proper while making 11 seeds play each other in Dayton.

Previously, the P5+Big East had less power and were not able to pull that off. But maybe now, with the threat of a breakaway, they can finally push the play-in games to a half share and only for seeds 15-18.

(03-05-2024 11:52 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:12 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  So expand just enough to let in a few more undeserving cartel schools

I for one am shocked

Pardon me, sir, but your bias is showing. I know this because of two key words: undeserving and cartel. I get it. Your favorite team has not yet earned a spot in one of the conferences which have vastly greater resources than your own.

I'm not sure how you define "deserving", but I suspect you believe that any conference champion, no matter how strong or weak their team is, is "deserving". There is a reason why every conference champion is invited to the tournament, but it isn't because they are deserving. They are invited for largely political reasons, and because they bring a small number of additional eyeballs to the tournament.

For those reasons, the more powerful and well-resourced conferences have traditionally subsidized the weaker and poorer ones. That subsidy isn't an obligation or a duty. So to ask them to increase their subsidy may be asking too much. Just sayin'.

Cartel member detected. We're making a list of you Power School guys.

On a more serious note:

72 teams is 18 per region, so the 15-18 seeds can play each other in Round 0. Perhaps it's too many for Dayton, just play the games on the higher seed's home court on Tuesday. 76 is 19, so the 14-19 seeds could do so. Either of those would make a million times more sense than putting 16 seeds directly into the tournament proper while making 11 seeds play each other in Dayton.

The committee, with the pressures, will have their favorite bubble teams to place. Enjoy watching Syracuse.

(03-05-2024 11:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 11:02 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I would assume this would add additional 16/16 and 12/12 play-in games? If so, this could bump down 2/4 conference championship winners (likely from the SWAC, Big South, MEAC, Northeast, etc.), and allow for 2-4 additional high-majors that would have been considered first-four out, no?

March Madness does not need to be touched, but have come to terms with the reality that other changes are undoubtedly on the way.

Yeah I think that's what would happen.

If we went to 72 teams using bracketville from today-
4 extra teams would be Utah, Iowa, Wake Forest, Providence
4 extra teams going to Dayton as 16's would be Sam Houston, South Dakota St, Quinnipiac, and Little Rock.

If there were four more games in the Early 8 Round, and they are all played in Dayton, there would have to be two 2-game sessions on each of the two days. Would the networks want the afternoon sessions to be the 15-16 seeds and the evening games the 12-13 seeds?

(03-05-2024 12:00 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 11:52 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  72 teams is 18 per region, so the 15-18 seeds can play each other in Round 0. Perhaps it's too many for Dayton, just play the games on the higher seed's home court on Tuesday. 76 is 19, so the 14-19 seeds could do so. Either of those would make a million times more sense than putting 16 seeds directly into the tournament proper while making 11 seeds play each other in Dayton.

Previously, the P5+Big East had less power and were not able to pull that off. But maybe now, with the threat of a breakaway, they can finally push the play-in games to a half share and only for seeds 15-18.

I don’t think they’ll just have all of the lowest seeds in the play-in round. It’s not that the power conferences are being altruistic, but rather the only way expansion works is for the TV networks to pay more money and the only way that they’re paying more money is for power conference at-large teams to be involved in the play-in round.

I’m a little confused as to why 76 teams would be an option, but not 80. It seems like it should either be 72 or 80 if there’s expansion (as that would be an equal distribution of additional bids in each region). 76 seems like a weird figure that sounds like a “compromise” but has the same structural issues as going to 80. At least 72 is a straight-forward extension of what exists for 2 regions and applies it to all 4 regions in the bracket. (Of course, the powers that be in college sports seem to love weird compromises, as evidenced by the CFP expansion discussion.)

(03-05-2024 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO the tournament is already large enough, no need to expand any further.

Of course if there is $$$ in it, they will do it. But competitively, it is already larger than it need be (I'm fine with that, btw).

Agree. They’ve already significantly devalued the regular season

(03-05-2024 11:52 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:12 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  So expand just enough to let in a few more undeserving cartel schools

I for one am shocked

Pardon me, sir, but your bias is showing. I know this because of two key words: undeserving and cartel. I get it. Your favorite team has not yet earned a spot in one of the conferences which have vastly greater resources than your own.

I'm not sure how you define "deserving", but I suspect you believe that any conference champion, no matter how strong or weak their team is, is "deserving". There is a reason why every conference champion is invited to the tournament, but it isn't because they are deserving. They are invited for largely political reasons, and because they bring a small number of additional eyeballs to the tournament.

For those reasons, the more powerful and well-resourced conferences have traditionally subsidized the weaker and poorer ones. That subsidy isn't an obligation or a duty. So to ask them to increase their subsidy may be asking too much. Just sayin'.

Cartel member detected. We're making a list of you Power School guys.

On a more serious note:

72 teams is 18 per region, so the 15-18 seeds can play each other in Round 0. Perhaps it's too many for Dayton, just play the games on the higher seed's home court on Tuesday. 76 is 19, so the 14-19 seeds could do so. Either of those would make a million times more sense than putting 16 seeds directly into the tournament proper while making 11 seeds play each other in Dayton.

Part of the allure of a tournament invite is that there is something special about playing at a large, neutral site rather than just another game in a 2000 seat gym on campus. I just don't know if Dayton could handle having 16 teams and their fans show up all at the same time. That's a lot of hotel rooms for a relatively small city.

(03-05-2024 12:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:00 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 11:52 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  72 teams is 18 per region, so the 15-18 seeds can play each other in Round 0. Perhaps it's too many for Dayton, just play the games on the higher seed's home court on Tuesday. 76 is 19, so the 14-19 seeds could do so. Either of those would make a million times more sense than putting 16 seeds directly into the tournament proper while making 11 seeds play each other in Dayton.

Previously, the P5+Big East had less power and were not able to pull that off. But maybe now, with the threat of a breakaway, they can finally push the play-in games to a half share and only for seeds 15-18.

I don’t think they’ll just have all of the lowest seeds in the play-in round. It’s not that the power conferences are being altruistic, but rather the only way expansion works is for the TV networks to pay more money and the only way that they’re paying more money is for power conference at-large teams to be involved in the play-in round.

I’m a little confused as to why 76 teams would be an option, but not 80. It seems like it should either be 72 or 80 if there’s expansion (as that would be an equal distribution of additional bids in each region). 76 seems like a weird figure that sounds like a “compromise” but has the same structural issues as going to 80. At least 72 is a straight-forward extension of what exists for 2 regions and applies it to all 4 regions in the bracket. (Of course, the powers that be in college sports seem to love weird compromises, as evidenced by the CFP expansion discussion.)

80 is adding 12 more teams and most of those last 4 would probably be from 1 bid conferences or teams with losing records. Just because 76 divided by 4 is a prime number doesn’t make it a problem. You’ve got 12 games that can be done either 3 or 4 a day

I'd be ok with 72. just don't go beyond that number.

(03-05-2024 11:52 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:12 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  So expand just enough to let in a few more undeserving cartel schools

I for one am shocked

Pardon me, sir, but your bias is showing. I know this because of two key words: undeserving and cartel. I get it. Your favorite team has not yet earned a spot in one of the conferences which have vastly greater resources than your own.

I'm not sure how you define "deserving", but I suspect you believe that any conference champion, no matter how strong or weak their team is, is "deserving". There is a reason why every conference champion is invited to the tournament, but it isn't because they are deserving. They are invited for largely political reasons, and because they bring a small number of additional eyeballs to the tournament.

For those reasons, the more powerful and well-resourced conferences have traditionally subsidized the weaker and poorer ones. That subsidy isn't an obligation or a duty. So to ask them to increase their subsidy may be asking too much. Just sayin'.

Cartel member detected. We're making a list of you Power School guys.

On a more serious note:

72 teams is 18 per region, so the 15-18 seeds can play each other in Round 0. Perhaps it's too many for Dayton, just play the games on the higher seed's home court on Tuesday. 76 is 19, so the 14-19 seeds could do so. Either of those would make a million times more sense than putting 16 seeds directly into the tournament proper while making 11 seeds play each other in Dayton.

My guess is they keep it 1-16 with the 12s and 16s as play-ins at 72 teams. The play-ins would either be hosted by another city like Dayton does it or 4 or 8 cities of the opening 2 rounds hosting the Early Eight host to reduce travel.

(03-05-2024 10:32 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Wild idea, well the 1st part isn't, but 2nd part is.

1st part: reasonable enough
36 autobids and 36 at-large. P4 get 2 autobids.

2nd part: radical, won't happen
Regular season champ gets the 1 autobid. Conference tournament winner gets the other. In the case for the B1G, RS champ can play/host the 2 teams that miss the conference tourney as exhibition games to keep players fresh and give other players some playing time in the event of injuries during the NCAA Tourney (not required to play exhibition games) while 2-16 would participate in 15 team conference tourney for the 2nd autobid.

More likely, P4 conference tourneys would get split in 2 (maintaining ladder bracket) by either:
- conference standings
(1-4)-(5-8)-(9-12)-(13-16?)-17?-20?
(2-3)-(6-7)-(10-11)-(14-15)-18?-19?
or
- geography/pods (maybe played in 2 cities, but can still fit in 1 city for up to 5 days) with the 2 winners earning the autobids. The 2 winners can play each other for the championship, but not required.

But in every conference the "regular season champion" is not the actual conference champion; the conference champion is the winner of the conference tournament. It seems like you'd be penalizing the best regular season team by not letting them participate in the conference tournament and thereby actually win the league, even with the exhibition games, simply to ensure that the team with the best regular season record doesn't also win the conference tourney. Plus, 1-bid leagues are a thing and the regular season champs of those leagues get into the NIT if they don't win the conference tourneys. Likewise, the P4, to the extent there is such a thing in college basketball, don't need more than one autobid. The Big East, ACC, SEC, Big XII and probably the B1G will get multiple at large bids annually anyway.

(03-05-2024 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  Part of the allure of a tournament invite is that there is something special about playing at a large, neutral site rather than just another game in a 2000 seat gym on campus. I just don't know if Dayton could handle having 16 teams and their fans show up all at the same time. That's a lot of hotel rooms for a relatively small city.

That's why you use a second city further west. Have half of this round in Dayton, the other half somewhere further west such as Kansas City. The winners at the further west site can feed into first/second round sites west of the Mississippi.

(03-05-2024 01:17 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  Part of the allure of a tournament invite is that there is something special about playing at a large, neutral site rather than just another game in a 2000 seat gym on campus. I just don't know if Dayton could handle having 16 teams and their fans show up all at the same time. That's a lot of hotel rooms for a relatively small city.

That's why you use a second city further west. Have half of this round in Dayton, the other half somewhere further west such as Kansas City. The winners at the further west site can feed into first/second round sites west of the Mississippi.

Geography isn't really a factor anymore. The regional names are an anachronism. The first round in the west could be in Orlando.

(03-05-2024 01:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 01:17 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  Part of the allure of a tournament invite is that there is something special about playing at a large, neutral site rather than just another game in a 2000 seat gym on campus. I just don't know if Dayton could handle having 16 teams and their fans show up all at the same time. That's a lot of hotel rooms for a relatively small city.

That's why you use a second city further west. Have half of this round in Dayton, the other half somewhere further west such as Kansas City. The winners at the further west site can feed into first/second round sites west of the Mississippi.

Geography isn't really a factor anymore. The regional names are an anachronism. The first round in the west could be in Orlando.

He didn't mention the regions. He mentioned the sites. There are always 1st/2nd Round sites west of the Mississippi.

(03-05-2024 01:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 01:17 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  Part of the allure of a tournament invite is that there is something special about playing at a large, neutral site rather than just another game in a 2000 seat gym on campus. I just don't know if Dayton could handle having 16 teams and their fans show up all at the same time. That's a lot of hotel rooms for a relatively small city.

That's why you use a second city further west. Have half of this round in Dayton, the other half somewhere further west such as Kansas City. The winners at the further west site can feed into first/second round sites west of the Mississippi.

Geography isn't really a factor anymore. The regional names are an anachronism. The first round in the west could be in Orlando.

right but they have regional locations for the pods 1st two rounds. It's not like the entire east region is held in the east for 1st two rounds.

They could have Dayton feeding the eastern pods and then something like Denver feeding the western pods.

If there are 8 sub-regional sites for the first week, and 72 teams in the field, there would be 8 play-in (or first round if you prefer) games. If you just have one of those 8 games at each site, the winners could just stay there to compete in the next round.

(03-05-2024 12:00 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 11:52 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  72 teams is 18 per region, so the 15-18 seeds can play each other in Round 0. Perhaps it's too many for Dayton, just play the games on the higher seed's home court on Tuesday. 76 is 19, so the 14-19 seeds could do so. Either of those would make a million times more sense than putting 16 seeds directly into the tournament proper while making 11 seeds play each other in Dayton.

Previously, the P5+Big East had less power and were not able to pull that off. But maybe now, with the threat of a breakaway, they can finally push the play-in games to a half share and only for seeds 15-18.

No need to give them a half share. Give all 72 teams a full share, but only give winner shares for schools that win in the round of 64 or later.

(03-05-2024 11:25 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:51 AM)Porcine Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:12 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  So expand just enough to let in a few more undeserving cartel schools

I for one am shocked

Maybe the real plan is too eliminate all the loser 15/16 schools on Tuesday before the "real" tournament starts on Thursday.

I wont call them "loser" schools but I do wonder if the 16 over 1s recently plays a part as the big schools want to lower even further the chances of embarassment.

Loser is how the networks view them and they are the ones who cutting the checks. David vs. Goliath is the selling point because it's contractual. Goliath vs. Goliath pays more.

(03-05-2024 10:32 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Wild idea, well the 1st part isn't, but 2nd part is.

1st part: reasonable enough
36 autobids and 36 at-large. P4 get 2 autobids.

2nd part: radical, won't happen
Regular season champ gets the 1 autobid. Conference tournament winner gets the other. In the case for the B1G, RS champ can play/host the 2 teams that miss the conference tourney as exhibition games to keep players fresh and give other players some playing time in the event of injuries during the NCAA Tourney (not required to play exhibition games) while 2-16 would participate in 15 team conference tourney for the 2nd autobid.

More likely, P4 conference tourneys would get split in 2 (maintaining ladder bracket) by either:
- conference standings
(1-4)-(5-8)-(9-12)-(13-16?)-17?-20?
(2-3)-(6-7)-(10-11)-(14-15)-18?-19?
or
- geography/pods (maybe played in 2 cities, but can still fit in 1 city for up to 5 days) with the 2 winners earning the autobids. The 2 winners can play each other for the championship, but not required.

Totally pointless. The P4 doesn't need 2 auto-bids because every team they get appears in the top 3/4 of the bracket. If anything, you need to promise that the top 4 regular season champions who don't receive an autobid rated NET 30 and below get the autobid. That'll ensure a NET tricker who had a good season but failed to get a number of quality wins isn't left out.

Not that I'm really advocating the latter or think it'll happen. But if you add 4 auto-bids, that's what needs to happen.

Also, why would the B1G regular season champion be interested in hosting exhibitions games? You run the risk of having players get injured. Imagine if that were happened. Such games would be immeadiately scrapped.

(03-05-2024 10:39 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The P4/Big East don’t need special treatment or more autobids. In no point in history have they only received a single bid and they will never get just one bid.

*With the caveat that a former P# conference, the Pac, did receive 1-bid one season.

(03-05-2024 11:25 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:51 AM)Porcine Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:12 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  So expand just enough to let in a few more undeserving cartel schools

I for one am shocked

Maybe the real plan is too eliminate all the loser 15/16 schools on Tuesday before the "real" tournament starts on Thursday.

I wont call them "loser" schools but I do wonder if the 16 over 1s recently plays a part as the big schools want to lower even further the chances of embarassment.

Eliminating more 16's only enhances their chances of being embarrassed, since the worst of the 16 seeds are presumably eliminated, meaning the tougher of them remain in the bracket.