Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
Author Message
utpotts Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,443
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Toledo
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Post: #21
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(02-22-2021 10:46 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  
(02-04-2021 11:01 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  
(02-04-2021 10:55 AM)indianasniff Wrote:  I just want Toledo in the dance. Been so long and they are playing so well. A lot of good teams of gotten knocked out in MAC tourney in past. Maybe this is finally the year


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are setting up well for an at-large, if they don't stumble in the regular season.

Toledo is playing really well but the odds they get an-large are miniscule with them lacking a big non-conference win. The MAC isn't bad but you need a resume like UB a few years ago to even have a chance, and lose in the championship game at the tourney Cleveland to not get the auto-bid.

Toledo had to beat Michigan back in December for even a thought at an at-large bid.
02-23-2021 08:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BKTopper Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 958
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 30
I Root For: WKU
Location: Who knows these days
Post: #22
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
We should add WKU to the watchlist. If the Hilltoppers don't win CUSAT, then I've read/heard:
EITHER
1.) The Tops get a 12 seed at large bid
2.) First 4 out, so they get a 1 seed in the 16-team one location NIT

CUSA doesn't get a lot of love from the tourney committee but the top half of the conference's NET rankings are pretty good this season.

WKU has wins over Alabama, Rhode Island, Memphis, Northern Iowa. 4 losses on the season (WVU, Louisville, Charlotte, LaTech). The game at Houston this Thursday might help, probably not though.

Plus also Charles Bassey in addition as well
02-23-2021 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
freshtop Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,735
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 64
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #23
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(02-23-2021 10:31 AM)BKTopper Wrote:  We should add WKU to the watchlist. If the Hilltoppers don't win CUSAT, then I've read/heard:
EITHER
1.) The Tops get a 12 seed at large bid
2.) First 4 out, so they get a 1 seed in the 16-team one location NIT

CUSA doesn't get a lot of love from the tourney committee but the top half of the conference's NET rankings are pretty good this season.

WKU has wins over Alabama, Rhode Island, Memphis, Northern Iowa. 4 losses on the season (WVU, Louisville, Charlotte, LaTech). The game at Houston this Thursday might help, probably not though.

Plus also Charles Bassey in addition as well

If WKU can beat Houston then they are part of the at-large discussion. As it stands now, our NET rating is terrible and we would be NIT bound if we don't win the conference.
02-25-2021 09:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,972
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1762
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #24
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(02-02-2021 02:33 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I feel like Covid has really hurt SLU's chance at getting an at-large. They've got like zero margin for error at this point.

Covid has hurt a lot of teams in other ways. They miss a couple games and come back and lose a game they shouldn't.
02-25-2021 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WhoseHouse? Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,452
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 194
I Root For: UH
Location:
Post: #25
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(02-25-2021 10:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-02-2021 02:33 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I feel like Covid has really hurt SLU's chance at getting an at-large. They've got like zero margin for error at this point.

Covid has hurt a lot of teams in other ways. They miss a couple games and come back and lose a game they shouldn't.

No doubt the pause can hurt any team but I don't think anyone got derailed more than SLU. At the end of December they were widely considered the 2nd or 3rd best mid-major team (behind the Zags and Houston if you consider the American mid-major). Then they went got shutdown for an entire month. I think the worst part of the whole deal was that they were the only team in their conference that got shut down for that duration, meaning all of the teams they were playing were still in form. Just a tough break, in a tough year. In a normal year they would have been able to carry their early success over into conference play more easily and build momentum. Now they're 4-4 in conference with basically zero shot at an at-large.
(This post was last modified: 02-25-2021 05:27 PM by WhoseHouse?.)
02-25-2021 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FMRocket Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,144
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 37
I Root For: UT Blue & Gold
Location: Perrysburg, Ohio
Post: #26
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(02-23-2021 08:22 AM)utpotts Wrote:  
(02-22-2021 10:46 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  
(02-04-2021 11:01 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  
(02-04-2021 10:55 AM)indianasniff Wrote:  I just want Toledo in the dance. Been so long and they are playing so well. A lot of good teams of gotten knocked out in MAC tourney in past. Maybe this is finally the year


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are setting up well for an at-large, if they don't stumble in the regular season.

Toledo is playing really well but the odds they get an-large are miniscule with them lacking a big non-conference win. The MAC isn't bad but you need a resume like UB a few years ago to even have a chance, and lose in the championship game at the tourney Cleveland to not get the auto-bid.

Toledo had to beat Michigan back in December for even a thought at an at-large bid.

I think a win over Xavier would have gone a long way... The close losses to X, Akron, and Bradley coupled with that lousy outing against Ball State did not help ... Otherwise, Toledo would be sitting at 22-2...
(This post was last modified: 02-25-2021 07:36 PM by FMRocket.)
02-25-2021 07:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JSchmack Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 11
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 0
I Root For: chaos
Location:
Post: #27
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
1. The term "Mid-Major" exists to describe "Conferences that might only get one bid if the regular season champ wins the conference tournament, but would probably get two if there's an upset" because all the talking heads needed quick way to say THAT on the air thousands of times during Championship Week.

2. Drawing the line to put conferences is tiers, like "Major, but now Power" should not be done between the American and Atlantic 10.

If you look at AT-LARGES only, per year over the last 5 years:
2.0 American (10 total)
1.8 Atlantic 10 (9 total)

0.8 Mountain West (4 total)
0.4 Missouri Valley (2 total)
0.4 WCC teams that aren't Gonzaga (2 total)
0.2 OVC (1 total)
0.2 A-Sun (1)

0.0 all others

It's clear where you should group the A-10 and AAC relative to the MWC, MVC, WCC, OVC and ASun (and C-USA and CAA).


However, it's also clear that those groups of non-P5 conferences should be conspiring together to get as many NCAA bids as possible and cut into the myth of BCS superiority.
02-26-2021 07:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,799
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 585
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #28
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
As of today, Lunardi's bracket has six mid-major at large teams (seed in parentheses):

Houston (3)
BYU (7)
Loyola-Chicago (9)
VCU (10)
Boise State (10)
Colorado State (12)

The Mountain West is the only mid-major conference with 2 at-large teams in his bracket. Richmond (A10) is in his first four out and Utah State (MWC) in the next four out. So unlike last year, this doesn't look like a great year for mid-majors.
02-26-2021 08:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,233
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 452
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #29
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
ASUN at-large bid? Huh?

A10 needs to improve its conference ranking to be grouped even with the AAC. AAC stays consistent in the top-7 and has outranked a P5 league while the A10 bounces between 8th and 11th.

AAC - 7/6/7/7
A10 - 11/10/8/9

At-large argument doesn’t tell the whole story as the A10’s at-larges are artificially inflated by bid steals (SLU, Davidson, etc.)

A10’s at-larges make it better than MWC/WCC/MVC for sure, but the conference needs to rank better as a whole to be put even with the AAC — the AAC isn’t placing 8th/9th/10th/11th every year like the A10 is.

There are major programs (Dayton, SLU, VCU) within the A10, but the league is predominantly mid-major programs.
02-26-2021 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,926
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 207
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #30
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
As I have noted countless times on this board, there are major programs affiliated with "less-than-major" leagues. Gonzaga and Houston, for example and using this year, are major to high-major programs by every metric other than conference affiliation.

No sane and knowledgeable college hoops fan would describe, for example, Northwestern a "major to high-major program" and, for example, Dayton a "mid-major" program. One would either be a troll or a clueless boob to do so.
02-26-2021 10:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,189
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 135
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #31
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(02-26-2021 08:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  As of today, Lunardi's bracket has six mid-major at large teams (seed in parentheses):

Houston (3)
BYU (7)
Loyola-Chicago (9)
VCU (10)
Boise State (10)
Colorado State (12)

The Mountain West is the only mid-major conference with 2 at-large teams in his bracket. Richmond (A10) is in his first four out and Utah State (MWC) in the next four out. So unlike last year, this doesn't look like a great year for mid-majors.

My question would be what would happen to Bonnie if it failed to win AQ? At the 11 line, that’s not safe at all.

I push hard on this, but I’m intrigued yet wary with NET, because there appears to be a schism between major and non-major within it. If a major has a good NET value, does it not only mean their security for a bid but also a good indicator of where they’ll seed? Meanwhile, we have someone like LUC...at times a top 10 NET squad (now 12), and they are in the 7-10 stew (and now a 9).

But we’re supposed to believe every top NET 40 team is in and seeds pretty close to their spot.

RPI was ripped apart because folks (like the majors and their talking heads) cried non-major shenanigans when those not like them scored well. NET replaces it, over-stresses SOS, and non-majors still look like they’re on the most shakiest of grounds, despite the fact that it tilts so obviously well toward majors and their conferences.

Getting in will be one hurdle. Then you have to deal with the bias and television influence on how teams will seed. Like, what happens if Duke or Michigan State slip in? How that factors into “protecting” top seeds but there possibly being a bias toward the name on the jersey?
Yesterday 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,799
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 585
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #32
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(Yesterday 09:22 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(02-26-2021 08:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  As of today, Lunardi's bracket has six mid-major at large teams (seed in parentheses):

Houston (3)
BYU (7)
Loyola-Chicago (9)
VCU (10)
Boise State (10)
Colorado State (12)

The Mountain West is the only mid-major conference with 2 at-large teams in his bracket. Richmond (A10) is in his first four out and Utah State (MWC) in the next four out. So unlike last year, this doesn't look like a great year for mid-majors.

My question would be what would happen to Bonnie if it failed to win AQ? At the 11 line, that’s not safe at all.

I push hard on this, but I’m intrigued yet wary with NET, because there appears to be a schism between major and non-major within it. If a major has a good NET value, does it not only mean their security for a bid but also a good indicator of where they’ll seed? Meanwhile, we have someone like LUC...at times a top 10 NET squad (now 12), and they are in the 7-10 stew (and now a 9).

But we’re supposed to believe every top NET 40 team is in and seeds pretty close to their spot.

RPI was ripped apart because folks (like the majors and their talking heads) cried non-major shenanigans when those not like them scored well. NET replaces it, over-stresses SOS, and non-majors still look like they’re on the most shakiest of grounds, despite the fact that it tilts so obviously well toward majors and their conferences.

Getting in will be one hurdle. Then you have to deal with the bias and television influence on how teams will seed. Like, what happens if Duke or Michigan State slip in? How that factors into “protecting” top seeds but there possibly being a bias toward the name on the jersey?

Shakier still is Wichita State, which Lunardi has in the field as the AAC's AQ team, despite their #68 NET ranking. If Houston were to win their tournament (their NET is #6, Massey #6 and Sagarin #7) which seems more likely, the Shockers probably wouldn't make the cut, leaving the AAC as a one-bid league this year.

There is a reason that the power/major conferences dominate the at-large selections. They have better teams. The only way that changes is if the NCAA decides to put more mid-major teams in the tournament by some sort of affirmative action. For example, they could require that all at-large entries have a winning record in their conference. That way you could get more teams in from outside the P6 conferences that are good, but not necessarily better than some P6 teams left behind.

I'd guess if you are one of the P6 conferences, you don't want that, and if you are one of the next four or five strongest conferences you do.
Yesterday 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,878
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 67
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #33
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
I still don't understand the NET and I don't know how many basketball minds out there understand it other than the NCAA and I think they probably like it that way so they can put teams in they want. At least the NCAA updates their NET rankings daily now. I use a site called WarrenNolan.com. They still calculate RPI rankings and can do it in real time but can't with the NET. The RPI is easier to understand. The NET seems to be less biased towards the power conferences. I love Penn State and the Big Ten is a beast this year but should a team that's 8-13 and lost a home game to Nebraska be ranked 50th out of 347 teams? Kentucky is also 8-13 and they play in the SEC and they're 63 and ahead of a 20-1 Winthrop team (70). In the RPI, Kentucky is 99 and Penn State is 122.

Then again, it really doesn't matter whether the NCAA uses the RPI or the NET if their main use of the NET isn't a team's actual NET ranking but using them for the Quads and determining "Quad 1 wins, etc". That only helps the power conferences that have tons of chances to play the top teams while teams like Loyola and VCU rarely get chances and most of the chances are away.
Yesterday 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,233
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 452
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #34
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(Yesterday 09:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(Yesterday 09:22 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(02-26-2021 08:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  As of today, Lunardi's bracket has six mid-major at large teams (seed in parentheses):

Houston (3)
BYU (7)
Loyola-Chicago (9)
VCU (10)
Boise State (10)
Colorado State (12)

The Mountain West is the only mid-major conference with 2 at-large teams in his bracket. Richmond (A10) is in his first four out and Utah State (MWC) in the next four out. So unlike last year, this doesn't look like a great year for mid-majors.

My question would be what would happen to Bonnie if it failed to win AQ? At the 11 line, that’s not safe at all.

I push hard on this, but I’m intrigued yet wary with NET, because there appears to be a schism between major and non-major within it. If a major has a good NET value, does it not only mean their security for a bid but also a good indicator of where they’ll seed? Meanwhile, we have someone like LUC...at times a top 10 NET squad (now 12), and they are in the 7-10 stew (and now a 9).

But we’re supposed to believe every top NET 40 team is in and seeds pretty close to their spot.

RPI was ripped apart because folks (like the majors and their talking heads) cried non-major shenanigans when those not like them scored well. NET replaces it, over-stresses SOS, and non-majors still look like they’re on the most shakiest of grounds, despite the fact that it tilts so obviously well toward majors and their conferences.

Getting in will be one hurdle. Then you have to deal with the bias and television influence on how teams will seed. Like, what happens if Duke or Michigan State slip in? How that factors into “protecting” top seeds but there possibly being a bias toward the name on the jersey?

Shakier still is Wichita State, which Lunardi has in the field as the AAC's AQ team, despite their #68 NET ranking. If Houston were to win their tournament (their NET is #6, Massey #6 and Sagarin #7) which seems more likely, the Shockers probably wouldn't make the cut, leaving the AAC as a one-bid league this year.

There is a reason that the power/major conferences dominate the at-large selections. They have better teams. The only way that changes is if the NCAA decides to put more mid-major teams in the tournament by some sort of affirmative action. For example, they could require that all at-large entries have a winning record in their conference. That way you could get more teams in from outside the P6 conferences that are good, but not necessarily better than some P6 teams left behind.

I'd guess if you are one of the P6 conferences, you don't want that, and if you are one of the next four or five strongest conferences you do.

Not for teams on the bubble. Lunardi did a study comparing P6 vs non-P6 on those bubble seedlines and non-P6 outperformed P6 teams by 10-15% over a range of years.

There’s a reason the Final 4 teams from the 11-line keep being George Mason, VCU, Loyola, etc.
Yesterday 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,189
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 135
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #35
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(Yesterday 10:26 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Then again, it really doesn't matter whether the NCAA uses the RPI or the NET if their main use of the NET isn't a team's actual NET ranking but using them for the Quads and determining "Quad 1 wins, etc". That only helps the power conferences that have tons of chances to play the top teams while teams like Loyola and VCU rarely get chances and most of the chances are away.

I personally think most of the Big Ten is overrated. The problem is a few teams got some decent wins in a very abbreviated non-conference and then they let loose on each other. NET balloons all within the Big Ten because all these schools, good or bad, playing each other and their respective schedules, elevates the lot.

Is Michigan good because of its non-conference games? Or its cruise control within the Big Ten? The latter assumes the Big Ten has amassed a respectable hide count in the non-conference. That’s not exactly true. Toss in parity, and something that’s always annoyed me about the Big Ten: flimsy road performance, and now everyone looks like a giant.

We’re looking at Rutgers, Minnesota, Maryland, Indiana, and Michigan State for their “good” wins within the conference. So? They sure are taking more lumps than others, even if some “good wins” sprinkle in there.

The problem with NET is that for a major conference team, that “bad loss” thing that used to follow RPI around is padded because SOS vaults NET. So, Drake losing to SIU looks dreadful. But, lose to Nebraska or Northwestern? Not so bad. Difference of a quad or so depending on where it’s played. We’re to assume those two B1G teams are much better. But why? RPI was imperfect for sure (I think the A10 had a way of ranking well there), but I think it did things better than NET.

Dare I suggest KenPom looks out of whack a bit, too? If you didn’t play someone even remotely good, no matter if you won or not, your number blows. Play good teams, and you’re up. I mean, Northwestern is 88 NET/72 KP...328 NCSOS. At 7-14? Really?

I don’t know if you juat hand the non-major the bid, but there is a context problem within the major conferences and the metrics. Maybe in a season like this, you toss the metric and look at the total games played, games won, and win percentage and leave it at that.
Today 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,799
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 585
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #36
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(Today 09:42 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(Yesterday 10:26 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Then again, it really doesn't matter whether the NCAA uses the RPI or the NET if their main use of the NET isn't a team's actual NET ranking but using them for the Quads and determining "Quad 1 wins, etc". That only helps the power conferences that have tons of chances to play the top teams while teams like Loyola and VCU rarely get chances and most of the chances are away.

I personally think most of the Big Ten is overrated. The problem is a few teams got some decent wins in a very abbreviated non-conference and then they let loose on each other. NET balloons all within the Big Ten because all these schools, good or bad, playing each other and their respective schedules, elevates the lot.

Is Michigan good because of its non-conference games? Or its cruise control within the Big Ten? The latter assumes the Big Ten has amassed a respectable hide count in the non-conference. That’s not exactly true. Toss in parity, and something that’s always annoyed me about the Big Ten: flimsy road performance, and now everyone looks like a giant.

We’re looking at Rutgers, Minnesota, Maryland, Indiana, and Michigan State for their “good” wins within the conference. So? They sure are taking more lumps than others, even if some “good wins” sprinkle in there.

The problem with NET is that for a major conference team, that “bad loss” thing that used to follow RPI around is padded because SOS vaults NET. So, Drake losing to SIU looks dreadful. But, lose to Nebraska or Northwestern? Not so bad. Difference of a quad or so depending on where it’s played. We’re to assume those two B1G teams are much better. But why? RPI was imperfect for sure (I think the A10 had a way of ranking well there), but I think it did things better than NET.

Dare I suggest KenPom looks out of whack a bit, too? If you didn’t play someone even remotely good, no matter if you won or not, your number blows. Play good teams, and you’re up. I mean, Northwestern is 88 NET/72 KP...328 NCSOS. At 7-14? Really?

I don’t know if you juat hand the non-major the bid, but there is a context problem within the major conferences and the metrics. Maybe in a season like this, you toss the metric and look at the total games played, games won, and win percentage and leave it at that.

Or, as I posted earlier, require at large entries to have a winning record within their conference. I could live with that, but I doubt the B1G could.
Today 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,189
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 135
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #37
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
(Today 02:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  Or, as I posted earlier, require at large entries to have a winning record within their conference. I could live with that, but I doubt the B1G could.

Totally agreed. And really, any major conference has a beef with such snubs. The year with Kansas State limping into a spot with a sub-.500 conference record and god awful non-conference SOS.

Major conferences and schools clearly have their bias that they are totally, top to bottom, superior to those below, but their point stands about picking teams with good wins. It reflects in the committee room (and tv partners). The problem with the non-/mid-major field is often picking someone without a signature win. Minnesota, Michigan State, and Indiana have those wins, even with many more losses. Bonnie and VCU not so much...
Today 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,799
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 585
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #38
RE: 2021 At-Large Bids from Mid-Major Conferences
I suspect computer based rankings like KenPom and Sagarin are especially adversely affected by abbreviated seasons like this one.

I would like to see the selection committee's role reduced to deciding which region teams should be placed in, with discretion to change a team's seed up or down by one spot to facilitate more geographically sensible placements.

I would also like to see more teams from mid-major conferences get at large bids. To that end, I would like to see the following changes to the NCAAT:

Rank every team (and conference) by taking the average ranking of four services: Massey Composite, NET, Sagarin and KenPom (or pick others like them).

Require all at large teams to have at least a .500 record within their conference (including tournament games).

Each year rank the conferences using a three year rolling average of their composite ranking as determined above. During the week prior to the round of 64 have the champions of the bottom 16 conference so determined play down to four teams.

After these four teams have been determined, select the 44 at large teams based strictly on their composite rank and seed all 64 teams including the 20 conference champs by their current year's composite ranking as determined above.

I believe all these changes would put as many as 16-20 teams from mid-major conferences into the field, which in my view would make for a much more interesting tournament.
(This post was last modified: Today 03:22 PM by ken d.)
Today 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.