I’m torn when it comes to tournament expansion. I’m sympathetic to the power leagues whose name recognition and large fan bases is what drives the value of the tournament yet they are forced to subsidize the weak. I’m also sympathetic to the mid-majors who actually try to put together good basketball yet are limited to 1 bid and often see their members go to inferior tournaments while other leagues who’s autobid program is of considerably lesser quality go dancing.

72, with the 8 lowest autobids and 8 lowest at larges seems like what we will inevitably end up with but I wish their was a set number of at large bids reserved for leagues outside the power conferences.

(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'.

People would watch more if there are a lot more underdogs in the tournament. Bringing in undeserving losers in the P4 would just water the tournament down which would make the underdogs win more games against the P4 schools.

80 teams in NCAA tournament. Top 12 seeds have the first round bye. Seed 13A vs 13B, 14A vs 14B, 15A vs 15B, 16A vs 16B on the first round.

The losers on the first round also move to NIT. NIT also select another 16 teams most regular season conference champions to compete 32 team tournament. If there are more than 16 champions qualified for NIT, additional playoff games could be held.

(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.

Look at the MWC? They have 6 teams that are in the 68 based right now, and a 7th could get to 20 wins as well. They have more schools worthy to be in there, and SWAC, MEAC, NEC do not. Unless the P4 conferences are looking to expand with more schools to grab the best football and basketball programs like rading the MWC, A10, Big East, etc?

(03-05-2024 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(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.

Considering it'd be spread over at least 2 days and that half of all "play-in" round teams would be from minor conferences and wouldn't travel very well, hotel rooms wouldn't be something that's too much of a problem for Dayton. And if it did become a problem, people could stay in Cincinnati or Cincinnati's Ohio suburbs if it became too much of an issue, an inconvenience for certain but also a solution.

(03-05-2024 12:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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'm guessing you mean teams with a losing record in conference. It's against the rules for a team with a losing overall record to be selected for the NCAA Tournament.

(03-05-2024 01:11 PM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  

(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.

I'm sure you missed the memo of change for the NIT, that now grants automatic bids to multiple P6 teams to counteract the proposed Fox postseason tournament.

I'm also sure someone beat me to this correction, so I'm sure you know this point by now. In the words of the Notorious B.I.G. "if you don't know, now ya know."

(03-05-2024 04:41 PM)DavidSt 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'.

People would watch more if there are a lot more underdogs in the tournament. Bringing in undeserving losers in the P4 would just water the tournament down which would make the underdogs win more games against the P4 schools.

Eh, I don't hate your point but I think they need to find a happy medium. Having no-name teams or even some name teams (such as A-10 or MWC teams) in the play-in round is not what the P5 or for certain the networks want. They should want marquee matchups, a David-Goliath matchup (as far as conferences go at least), maybe one straggler of a mid/low-major vs. mid/low-major squaring off and of course the 16-seed and maybe 15-seed play-in games.

The networks would HATE IT if they had a primetime game of UNC-Greensboro vs. Wyoming game followed by a Merrimack vs. Miss. Valley State game and then in the night session, a Delaware vs. UC-Riverside game followed by a Maryland-Eastern Shore vs. Northwestern State game. The purpose of any expansion is to make money and that means at least some majors, at least that'd be the hope. Not saying the suits should pressure/bully the committee into taking less deserving teams but the idea is to have a good number of them fill those slots, or else, why expand?

(03-05-2024 08:17 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:41 PM)DavidSt 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'.

People would watch more if there are a lot more underdogs in the tournament. Bringing in undeserving losers in the P4 would just water the tournament down which would make the underdogs win more games against the P4 schools.

Eh, I don't hate your point but I think they need to find a happy medium. Having no-name teams or even some name teams (such as A-10 or MWC teams) in the play-in round is not what the P5 or for certain the networks want. They should want marquee matchups, a David-Goliath matchup (as far as conferences go at least), maybe one straggler of a mid/low-major vs. mid/low-major squaring off and of course the 16-seed and maybe 15-seed play-in games.

The networks would HATE IT if they had a primetime game of UNC-Greensboro vs. Wyoming game followed by a Merrimack vs. Miss. Valley State game and then in the night session, a Delaware vs. UC-Riverside game followed by a Maryland-Eastern Shore vs. Northwestern State game. The purpose of any expansion is to make money and that means at least some majors, at least that'd be the hope. Not saying the suits should pressure/bully the committee into taking less deserving teams but the idea is to have a good number of them fill those slots, or else, why expand?

It depends on what you mean by "more underdogs". If you mean more teams from what are now 1-bid leagues (22 of them), then there won't be any significant increase in the number of people who will watch an expanded tournament. If you mean more teams from the four non-power multi-bid leagues (MWC, A10, AAC, WCC) maybe there's a modest increase, but still trivial to the networks.

If there are more P5 schools going forward that play on Tuesday and Wednesday evening, that may be something ESPN would pay more for.

Over the past five tournaments, the P6 averaged 36.4 bids per tournament. In addition, there were 26 autobids for all other conferences. That leaves 5.6 at-large bids for all non-power leagues. Going forward, if the (now) P5 have the same percentage of their teams in the tournament, there would only be room for 4 at-large teams from the 4 mid-majors.

An expansion to 72 teams would double the number of at-large bids the mid-majors could hope to compete for (8 of them). Maybe some of those would go to more P5 teams, but it's still something the non-power leagues should be lobbying for.

(03-06-2024 08:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:17 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:41 PM)DavidSt 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'.

People would watch more if there are a lot more underdogs in the tournament. Bringing in undeserving losers in the P4 would just water the tournament down which would make the underdogs win more games against the P4 schools.

Eh, I don't hate your point but I think they need to find a happy medium. Having no-name teams or even some name teams (such as A-10 or MWC teams) in the play-in round is not what the P5 or for certain the networks want. They should want marquee matchups, a David-Goliath matchup (as far as conferences go at least), maybe one straggler of a mid/low-major vs. mid/low-major squaring off and of course the 16-seed and maybe 15-seed play-in games.

The networks would HATE IT if they had a primetime game of UNC-Greensboro vs. Wyoming game followed by a Merrimack vs. Miss. Valley State game and then in the night session, a Delaware vs. UC-Riverside game followed by a Maryland-Eastern Shore vs. Northwestern State game. The purpose of any expansion is to make money and that means at least some majors, at least that'd be the hope. Not saying the suits should pressure/bully the committee into taking less deserving teams but the idea is to have a good number of them fill those slots, or else, why expand?

It depends on what you mean by "more underdogs". If you mean more teams from what are now 1-bid leagues (22 of them), then there won't be any significant increase in the number of people who will watch an expanded tournament. If you mean more teams from the four non-power multi-bid leagues (MWC, A10, AAC, WCC) maybe there's a modest increase, but still trivial to the networks.

If there are more P5 schools going forward that play on Tuesday and Wednesday evening, that may be something ESPN would pay more for.

Over the past five tournaments, the P6 averaged 36.4 bids per tournament. In addition, there were 26 autobids for all other conferences. That leaves 5.6 at-large bids for all non-power leagues. Going forward, if the (now) P5 have the same percentage of their teams in the tournament, there would only be room for 4 at-large teams from the 4 mid-majors.

An expansion to 72 teams would double the number of at-large bids the mid-majors could hope to compete for (8 of them). Maybe some of those would go to more P5 teams, but it's still something the non-power leagues should be lobbying for.

We can directly see who would have been in those at-large play-in games with the “first four out” announced by the committee in recent years:

2023 - Oklahoma State, Rutgers, UNC, Clemson
2022 - Dayton, Oklahoma, SMU, Texas A&M
2021 - Louisville, Colorado State, SLU, Ole Miss
2020 - COVID cancellation
2019 - UNC-Greensboro, Alabama, TCU, Indiana
2018 - Baylor, St. Mary’s, Notre Dame, USC

I’m not sure if the committee officially announced the first four out prior to 2018 - this is as far back as I can find anything.

Out of 20 teams, the breakdown by tier:
14 P5 teams
5 high major teams (A-10/AAC/MWC/WCC)
1 mid-major team (Southern)

3 of the years featured a true top tier basketball brand name (UNC, Louisville, Indiana) and every year had at least one P5 school that otherwise has a huge fan base (e.g. Clemson, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Alabama, Ole Miss, Notre Dame, USC). One of the high major teams will be moving up to the power conferences (SMU).

Looking at the “first four out” group, that’s actually pretty attractive for the TV networks if we’re going by brand names to add onto the play-in games.

Personally I would go back to 64

(03-06-2024 08:54 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Personally I would go back to 64

I know that this is the reflex sentiment from a lot of people, but we all need to get over it.

This is America - playoffs that make money NEVER get smaller.

and going back 2012-17 the NIT #1 seeds-
NIT 1 seeds
17 Syracuse, Illinois St, Cal, Iowa
16 St Bonaventure, S Carolina, Valpo, Monmouth
15 Old Dominion, Richmond, Temple, Colorado St
14 SMU, St John's, Florida St, Minnesota
13 Kentucky, So Miss, Alabama, Virginia
12 Washington, Tennessee, Seton Hall, Arizona

14 P5 teams
6 high major teams (MVC,A10,AAC)
4 mid major teams (Horizon, MAAC, Sun Belt)

Again, very attractive teams.

(03-06-2024 08:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 08:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:17 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  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'.

People would watch more if there are a lot more underdogs in the tournament. Bringing in undeserving losers in the P4 would just water the tournament down which would make the underdogs win more games against the P4 schools.

Eh, I don't hate your point but I think they need to find a happy medium. Having no-name teams or even some name teams (such as A-10 or MWC teams) in the play-in round is not what the P5 or for certain the networks want. They should want marquee matchups, a David-Goliath matchup (as far as conferences go at least), maybe one straggler of a mid/low-major vs. mid/low-major squaring off and of course the 16-seed and maybe 15-seed play-in games.

The networks would HATE IT if they had a primetime game of UNC-Greensboro vs. Wyoming game followed by a Merrimack vs. Miss. Valley State game and then in the night session, a Delaware vs. UC-Riverside game followed by a Maryland-Eastern Shore vs. Northwestern State game. The purpose of any expansion is to make money and that means at least some majors, at least that'd be the hope. Not saying the suits should pressure/bully the committee into taking less deserving teams but the idea is to have a good number of them fill those slots, or else, why expand?

It depends on what you mean by "more underdogs". If you mean more teams from what are now 1-bid leagues (22 of them), then there won't be any significant increase in the number of people who will watch an expanded tournament. If you mean more teams from the four non-power multi-bid leagues (MWC, A10, AAC, WCC) maybe there's a modest increase, but still trivial to the networks.

If there are more P5 schools going forward that play on Tuesday and Wednesday evening, that may be something ESPN would pay more for.

Over the past five tournaments, the P6 averaged 36.4 bids per tournament. In addition, there were 26 autobids for all other conferences. That leaves 5.6 at-large bids for all non-power leagues. Going forward, if the (now) P5 have the same percentage of their teams in the tournament, there would only be room for 4 at-large teams from the 4 mid-majors.

An expansion to 72 teams would double the number of at-large bids the mid-majors could hope to compete for (8 of them). Maybe some of those would go to more P5 teams, but it's still something the non-power leagues should be lobbying for.

We can directly see who would have been in those at-large play-in games with the “first four out” announced by the committee in recent years:

2023 - Oklahoma State, Rutgers, UNC, Clemson
2022 - Dayton, Oklahoma, SMU, Texas A&M
2021 - Louisville, Colorado State, SLU, Ole Miss
2020 - COVID cancellation
2019 - UNC-Greensboro, Alabama, TCU, Indiana
2018 - Baylor, St. Mary’s, Notre Dame, USC

I’m not sure if the committee officially announced the first four out prior to 2018 - this is as far back as I can find anything.

Out of 20 teams, the breakdown by tier:
14 P5 teams
5 high major teams (A-10/AAC/MWC/WCC)
1 mid-major team (Southern)

3 of the years featured a true top tier basketball brand name (UNC, Louisville, Indiana) and every year had at least one P5 school that otherwise has a huge fan base (e.g. Clemson, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Alabama, Ole Miss, Notre Dame, USC). One of the high major teams will be moving up to the power conferences (SMU).

Looking at the “first four out” group, that’s actually pretty attractive for the TV networks if we’re going by brand names to add onto the play-in games.

Personally, I think the limited number of additional valuable TV time slots on Tuesday and Wednesday, coupled with the logistical issues that more than four games a day would create, argues in favor of only expanding to 72. Travel for the 16 play-in teams could be eased by placing them at one of the Round of 64 sites instead of in Dayton. Place 9 teams at each of 8 sites, with one of them going home after their first game loss.

(03-06-2024 10:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  Personally, I think the limited number of additional valuable TV time slots on Tuesday and Wednesday, coupled with the logistical issues that more than four games a day would create, argues in favor of only expanding to 72.

100%. They can easily shift the 16 vs 16 games to the morning/early afternoon and the "real" games to the evening with 72. You're right, it just works better all around, and will greatly increase viewership of the play-in games if there are 2 evening games worth watching.

I do think a second host city is best for ratings, so that the two evening games can be staggered. If you have a TruTV game and a game on TNT an hour later, that probably makes the most compelling TV, rather than playing the games back to back and getting very late into the evening for most folks. It'll also feel more like March "madness" with the two "real" games going simultaneously, which is sorely lacking in the current PIG format.

(03-06-2024 10:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 08:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 08:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:17 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  People would watch more if there are a lot more underdogs in the tournament. Bringing in undeserving losers in the P4 would just water the tournament down which would make the underdogs win more games against the P4 schools.

Eh, I don't hate your point but I think they need to find a happy medium. Having no-name teams or even some name teams (such as A-10 or MWC teams) in the play-in round is not what the P5 or for certain the networks want. They should want marquee matchups, a David-Goliath matchup (as far as conferences go at least), maybe one straggler of a mid/low-major vs. mid/low-major squaring off and of course the 16-seed and maybe 15-seed play-in games.

The networks would HATE IT if they had a primetime game of UNC-Greensboro vs. Wyoming game followed by a Merrimack vs. Miss. Valley State game and then in the night session, a Delaware vs. UC-Riverside game followed by a Maryland-Eastern Shore vs. Northwestern State game. The purpose of any expansion is to make money and that means at least some majors, at least that'd be the hope. Not saying the suits should pressure/bully the committee into taking less deserving teams but the idea is to have a good number of them fill those slots, or else, why expand?

It depends on what you mean by "more underdogs". If you mean more teams from what are now 1-bid leagues (22 of them), then there won't be any significant increase in the number of people who will watch an expanded tournament. If you mean more teams from the four non-power multi-bid leagues (MWC, A10, AAC, WCC) maybe there's a modest increase, but still trivial to the networks.

If there are more P5 schools going forward that play on Tuesday and Wednesday evening, that may be something ESPN would pay more for.

Over the past five tournaments, the P6 averaged 36.4 bids per tournament. In addition, there were 26 autobids for all other conferences. That leaves 5.6 at-large bids for all non-power leagues. Going forward, if the (now) P5 have the same percentage of their teams in the tournament, there would only be room for 4 at-large teams from the 4 mid-majors.

An expansion to 72 teams would double the number of at-large bids the mid-majors could hope to compete for (8 of them). Maybe some of those would go to more P5 teams, but it's still something the non-power leagues should be lobbying for.

We can directly see who would have been in those at-large play-in games with the “first four out” announced by the committee in recent years:

2023 - Oklahoma State, Rutgers, UNC, Clemson
2022 - Dayton, Oklahoma, SMU, Texas A&M
2021 - Louisville, Colorado State, SLU, Ole Miss
2020 - COVID cancellation
2019 - UNC-Greensboro, Alabama, TCU, Indiana
2018 - Baylor, St. Mary’s, Notre Dame, USC

I’m not sure if the committee officially announced the first four out prior to 2018 - this is as far back as I can find anything.

Out of 20 teams, the breakdown by tier:
14 P5 teams
5 high major teams (A-10/AAC/MWC/WCC)
1 mid-major team (Southern)

3 of the years featured a true top tier basketball brand name (UNC, Louisville, Indiana) and every year had at least one P5 school that otherwise has a huge fan base (e.g. Clemson, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Alabama, Ole Miss, Notre Dame, USC). One of the high major teams will be moving up to the power conferences (SMU).

Looking at the “first four out” group, that’s actually pretty attractive for the TV networks if we’re going by brand names to add onto the play-in games.

Personally, I think the limited number of additional valuable TV time slots on Tuesday and Wednesday, coupled with the logistical issues that more than four games a day would create, argues in favor of only expanding to 72. Travel for the 16 play-in teams could be eased by placing them at one of the Round of 64 sites instead of in Dayton. Place 9 teams at each of 8 sites, with one of them going home after their first game loss.

I agree - there’s really a point of diminishing returns going beyond 72 because each extra play-in game beyond that would realistically require overlapping game time windows and multiple sites.

I don’t think they would or should move anything from Dayton, though. They *really* support the First Four no matter who might be playing and you can’t just replicate that atmosphere elsewhere. They can play all games there (with separate afternoon and prime time sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday) and they can host it just fine.

(03-06-2024 11:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 10:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 08:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 08:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:17 PM)C2__ Wrote:  Eh, I don't hate your point but I think they need to find a happy medium. Having no-name teams or even some name teams (such as A-10 or MWC teams) in the play-in round is not what the P5 or for certain the networks want. They should want marquee matchups, a David-Goliath matchup (as far as conferences go at least), maybe one straggler of a mid/low-major vs. mid/low-major squaring off and of course the 16-seed and maybe 15-seed play-in games.

The networks would HATE IT if they had a primetime game of UNC-Greensboro vs. Wyoming game followed by a Merrimack vs. Miss. Valley State game and then in the night session, a Delaware vs. UC-Riverside game followed by a Maryland-Eastern Shore vs. Northwestern State game. The purpose of any expansion is to make money and that means at least some majors, at least that'd be the hope. Not saying the suits should pressure/bully the committee into taking less deserving teams but the idea is to have a good number of them fill those slots, or else, why expand?

It depends on what you mean by "more underdogs". If you mean more teams from what are now 1-bid leagues (22 of them), then there won't be any significant increase in the number of people who will watch an expanded tournament. If you mean more teams from the four non-power multi-bid leagues (MWC, A10, AAC, WCC) maybe there's a modest increase, but still trivial to the networks.

If there are more P5 schools going forward that play on Tuesday and Wednesday evening, that may be something ESPN would pay more for.

Over the past five tournaments, the P6 averaged 36.4 bids per tournament. In addition, there were 26 autobids for all other conferences. That leaves 5.6 at-large bids for all non-power leagues. Going forward, if the (now) P5 have the same percentage of their teams in the tournament, there would only be room for 4 at-large teams from the 4 mid-majors.

An expansion to 72 teams would double the number of at-large bids the mid-majors could hope to compete for (8 of them). Maybe some of those would go to more P5 teams, but it's still something the non-power leagues should be lobbying for.

We can directly see who would have been in those at-large play-in games with the “first four out” announced by the committee in recent years:

2023 - Oklahoma State, Rutgers, UNC, Clemson
2022 - Dayton, Oklahoma, SMU, Texas A&M
2021 - Louisville, Colorado State, SLU, Ole Miss
2020 - COVID cancellation
2019 - UNC-Greensboro, Alabama, TCU, Indiana
2018 - Baylor, St. Mary’s, Notre Dame, USC

I’m not sure if the committee officially announced the first four out prior to 2018 - this is as far back as I can find anything.

Out of 20 teams, the breakdown by tier:
14 P5 teams
5 high major teams (A-10/AAC/MWC/WCC)
1 mid-major team (Southern)

3 of the years featured a true top tier basketball brand name (UNC, Louisville, Indiana) and every year had at least one P5 school that otherwise has a huge fan base (e.g. Clemson, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Alabama, Ole Miss, Notre Dame, USC). One of the high major teams will be moving up to the power conferences (SMU).

Looking at the “first four out” group, that’s actually pretty attractive for the TV networks if we’re going by brand names to add onto the play-in games.

Personally, I think the limited number of additional valuable TV time slots on Tuesday and Wednesday, coupled with the logistical issues that more than four games a day would create, argues in favor of only expanding to 72. Travel for the 16 play-in teams could be eased by placing them at one of the Round of 64 sites instead of in Dayton. Place 9 teams at each of 8 sites, with one of them going home after their first game loss.

I agree - there’s really a point of diminishing returns going beyond 72 because each extra play-in game beyond that would realistically require overlapping game time windows and multiple sites.

I don’t think they would or should move anything from Dayton, though. They *really* support the First Four no matter who might be playing and you can’t just replicate that atmosphere elsewhere. They can play all games there (with separate afternoon and prime time sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday) and they can host it just fine.

Agree on 72 and retaining just Dayton. It's a neat aspect of the tournament. I would change it to where play-in games are only at-larges. Conference AQs should get a "bye" into the Round of 64.

(03-06-2024 08:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 08:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:17 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  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'.

People would watch more if there are a lot more underdogs in the tournament. Bringing in undeserving losers in the P4 would just water the tournament down which would make the underdogs win more games against the P4 schools.

Eh, I don't hate your point but I think they need to find a happy medium. Having no-name teams or even some name teams (such as A-10 or MWC teams) in the play-in round is not what the P5 or for certain the networks want. They should want marquee matchups, a David-Goliath matchup (as far as conferences go at least), maybe one straggler of a mid/low-major vs. mid/low-major squaring off and of course the 16-seed and maybe 15-seed play-in games.

The networks would HATE IT if they had a primetime game of UNC-Greensboro vs. Wyoming game followed by a Merrimack vs. Miss. Valley State game and then in the night session, a Delaware vs. UC-Riverside game followed by a Maryland-Eastern Shore vs. Northwestern State game. The purpose of any expansion is to make money and that means at least some majors, at least that'd be the hope. Not saying the suits should pressure/bully the committee into taking less deserving teams but the idea is to have a good number of them fill those slots, or else, why expand?

It depends on what you mean by "more underdogs". If you mean more teams from what are now 1-bid leagues (22 of them), then there won't be any significant increase in the number of people who will watch an expanded tournament. If you mean more teams from the four non-power multi-bid leagues (MWC, A10, AAC, WCC) maybe there's a modest increase, but still trivial to the networks.

If there are more P5 schools going forward that play on Tuesday and Wednesday evening, that may be something ESPN would pay more for.

Over the past five tournaments, the P6 averaged 36.4 bids per tournament. In addition, there were 26 autobids for all other conferences. That leaves 5.6 at-large bids for all non-power leagues. Going forward, if the (now) P5 have the same percentage of their teams in the tournament, there would only be room for 4 at-large teams from the 4 mid-majors.

An expansion to 72 teams would double the number of at-large bids the mid-majors could hope to compete for (8 of them). Maybe some of those would go to more P5 teams, but it's still something the non-power leagues should be lobbying for.

We can directly see who would have been in those at-large play-in games with the “first four out” announced by the committee in recent years:

2023 - Oklahoma State, Rutgers, UNC, Clemson
2022 - Dayton, Oklahoma, SMU, Texas A&M
2021 - Louisville, Colorado State, SLU, Ole Miss
2020 - COVID cancellation
2019 - UNC-Greensboro, Alabama, TCU, Indiana
2018 - Baylor, St. Mary’s, Notre Dame, USC

I’m not sure if the committee officially announced the first four out prior to 2018 - this is as far back as I can find anything.

Out of 20 teams, the breakdown by tier:
14 P5 teams
5 high major teams (A-10/AAC/MWC/WCC)
1 mid-major team (Southern)

3 of the years featured a true top tier basketball brand name (UNC, Louisville, Indiana) and every year had at least one P5 school that otherwise has a huge fan base (e.g. Clemson, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Alabama, Ole Miss, Notre Dame, USC). One of the high major teams will be moving up to the power conferences (SMU).

Looking at the “first four out” group, that’s actually pretty attractive for the TV networks if we’re going by brand names to add onto the play-in games.

Good data.

My take from it is that, with regards to creating more opportunities for mid-majors as some have mentioned, this wouldn't have done much. Fully 70% of those extra bids would have gone to P5 teams, just 30% to the G5-type schools.

That doesn't bother me at all, btw, I don't agree with G5 fans who say the current tournament size hurts deserving G5 teams. As your data indicates, more P5 schools "just miss" than G5 or lower.

looking at bracketville site- the first 4 teams out as of yesterday this year were..... Utah, Iowa, Wake Forest, and Providence. Take WF out, and next team is Colorado.

(03-05-2024 07:51 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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'm guessing you mean teams with a losing record in conference. It's against the rules for a team with a losing overall record to be selected for the NCAA Tournament.

If we added 12, they might have to include P6 teams with overall losing records.
Rules can be changed just as the number of bids can be.