Here’s how you can setup the schedule so no one plays during the workday at any point in the Tournament - and also guarantee each game from the Sweet 16 onward its own exclusive timeslot.

Thursday/Friday night - First Four

Saturday/Sunday - 1st Round

Monday/Tuesday - 2nd Round
- Split all 8 games each night as a DH’er on the 4 channels
630/9 TBS
7/930 CBS
730/10 TNT
8/1030 TruTV

Saturday/Sunday - Sweet 16
- Quadrupleheaders (1/330/7/930)

Monday/Tuesday - Elite 8
- Doubleheaders (7/930)

Saturday - Final 4

Monday - NCG

for comparison this is the schedule going forward for S16/E8 this year:
NCAAT SWEET 16 TIP TIMES for Saturday, March 27. (All S16 games at Hinkle Fieldhouse or Bankers Life Fieldhouse.)

1. 2:30 (CBS)
2. 5:00 (CBS)
3. 7:15 (TBS)
4. 9:45 (TBS)

NCAA SWEET 16 TIP TIMES for Sunday, March 28.
1. 2:00 (CBS)
2. 4:45 (CBS)
3. 7:00 (TBS)
4. 9:30 (TBS)

NCAA ELITE EIGHT TIP TIMES for Monday, March 29. (All games from here on out at Lucas Oil Stadium.)
1. 7:00 (CBS)
2. 9:45 (CBS)

NCAA ELITE EIGHT TIP TIMES for Tuesday, March 30:
1. 7:00 (TBS)
2. 9:45 (TBS)

(03-20-2021 06:34 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(03-20-2021 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Don’t forget an important consideration for a normal non-pandemic year: NCAA Tournament sites want to maximize traveling tourists. That generally points to a why a Thursday through Sunday schedule for the first weekend is optimal. Going to Friday to Monday like this year is a possible substitute setup - you can get travelers to stay overnight from Sunday to Monday. Tuesday and Wednesday are the worst days to have games when you’re trying to maximize tourism dollars, though. Call me old fashioned, but I liked the “normal” NCAA Tournament schedule better. I understand that it works this year because everything is all in one metro area, but that’s not going to be the case in the future.

I agree on the first weekend. And I was only thinking TV, that the 2nd round is more compelling than the first. But you are very correct about the need to take care of your host cities. Like a Bowl game, you come a day early on Wednesday, and no matter what your school does you stay through the weekend, check out the town and perhaps some of the parks and other natural attractions in the area (I live in the West and most cities out here have awesome mountains, deserts or coastline nearby). And of course I'll be in the gym watching as many games as I can.

But the second weekend is the one that should be tweaked. It's less the holiday of the first weekend, more down to business. TV numbers likely matter more, as the viewership cranks up. Getting all 8 games of the 3rd round individual slots on Saturday and Sunday I think outweighs the host city aspect. Maybe I'm wrong and those four cities pay enormous fees, but I suspect better TV viewership is greater value.

I think the regional semifinal/final sites actually do expect a lot of tourism even more than the first/second round sites. This is why cities that have domes that host regional finals will usually use them instead of their respective NBA arenas (see New Orleans using the Superdome for their regional semifinal/final games next year) - they’re expecting much bigger crowds. There’s definitely a higher bar for the NCAA to be able to host those games compared to the first weekend in terms of facilities and hotel rooms. It’s arguably the biggest neutral site event of any sport that’s available to large markets that don’t have domes or not located in a warm weather location like NYC and Chicago. Remember that clinching a spot in the Final Four is often the biggest event in sports history for most schools, so that’s a powerful draw for fan bases, too.

I would take a different approach, and change the makeup of the tournament field. One of my biggest gripes is that too many P6 teams get invites, crowding out potential bids for mid-major teams that are as deserving of a bid as the most mediocre power conference at large teams.

I would reduce the field from 68 to 64, and limit the number of schools from any conference to five, including its champion. Without playin games, the first round of 64 could be spread over four days, 8 games per day. The Tues-Wed winners would play their second round on Saturday and the Thurs-Fri winners play Sunday. The top four seeds in each region would draw the Tuesday/Thursday slots, giving them the benefit of the extra day off between the first two rounds.

To compensate for the reduction in P6 at larges, those teams would go to an enhanced 32 team NIT tournament. The 8 highest seeds would each host the first two games of the tournament at their home arena, and each of the 8 quarterfinalists would be awarded an NCAAT unit. If the excluded P6 teams are truly more deserving than their mid-major counterparts, they should emerge as quarterfinalists in the NIT. The total number of NCAAT units awarded would remain at its current 132 in this format.

In this format, the number of non-P6 at large entries would double from their typical 4 to 8. This year, of the four such at-large teams, two were in the playin game (Wichita and Drake). Actually, this year there were five because Utah State got the bid that the Ivy league forfeited by opting out of the tournament, but in a "normal" year that wouldn't be the case.

(03-21-2021 01:12 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Here’s how you can setup the schedule so no one plays during the workday at any point in the Tournament - and also guarantee each game from the Sweet 16 onward its own exclusive timeslot.

Thursday/Friday night - First Four

Saturday/Sunday - 1st Round

Monday/Tuesday - 2nd Round
- Split all 8 games each night as a DH’er on the 4 channels
630/9 TBS
7/930 CBS
730/10 TNT
8/1030 TruTV

Saturday/Sunday - Sweet 16
- Quadrupleheaders (1/330/7/930)

Monday/Tuesday - Elite 8
- Doubleheaders (7/930)

Saturday - Final 4

Monday - NCG

I like your plan better than mine

I’d maybe shift the start times for the 2nd round games a little earlier to make it easier on Eastern time zone.

(03-21-2021 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  I would take a different approach, and change the makeup of the tournament field. One of my biggest gripes is that too many P6 teams get invites, crowding out potential bids for mid-major teams that are as deserving of a bid as the most mediocre power conference at large teams.

I would reduce the field from 68 to 64, and limit the number of schools from any conference to five, including its champion. Without playin games, the first round of 64 could be spread over four days, 8 games per day. The Tues-Wed winners would play their second round on Saturday and the Thurs-Fri winners play Sunday. The top four seeds in each region would draw the Tuesday/Thursday slots, giving them the benefit of the extra day off between the first two rounds.

To compensate for the reduction in P6 at larges, those teams would go to an enhanced 32 team NIT tournament. The 8 highest seeds would each host the first two games of the tournament at their home arena, and each of the 8 quarterfinalists would be awarded an NCAAT unit. If the excluded P6 teams are truly more deserving than their mid-major counterparts, they should emerge as quarterfinalists in the NIT. The total number of NCAAT units awarded would remain at its current 132 in this format.

In this format, the number of non-P6 at large entries would double from their typical 4 to 8. This year, of the four such at-large teams, two were in the playin game (Wichita and Drake). Actually, this year there were five because Utah State got the bid that the Ivy league forfeited by opting out of the tournament, but in a "normal" year that wouldn't be the case.

Wow. Not a bad idea. I’m sure there are alternatives to the limit of 5, but the NIT credits is a nice substitute. It broadens the NCAAT field while still allowing Major conferences to keep their credits.

(03-21-2021 06:34 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  I would take a different approach, and change the makeup of the tournament field. One of my biggest gripes is that too many P6 teams get invites, crowding out potential bids for mid-major teams that are as deserving of a bid as the most mediocre power conference at large teams.

I would reduce the field from 68 to 64, and limit the number of schools from any conference to five, including its champion. Without playin games, the first round of 64 could be spread over four days, 8 games per day. The Tues-Wed winners would play their second round on Saturday and the Thurs-Fri winners play Sunday. The top four seeds in each region would draw the Tuesday/Thursday slots, giving them the benefit of the extra day off between the first two rounds.

To compensate for the reduction in P6 at larges, those teams would go to an enhanced 32 team NIT tournament. The 8 highest seeds would each host the first two games of the tournament at their home arena, and each of the 8 quarterfinalists would be awarded an NCAAT unit. If the excluded P6 teams are truly more deserving than their mid-major counterparts, they should emerge as quarterfinalists in the NIT. The total number of NCAAT units awarded would remain at its current 132 in this format.

In this format, the number of non-P6 at large entries would double from their typical 4 to 8. This year, of the four such at-large teams, two were in the playin game (Wichita and Drake). Actually, this year there were five because Utah State got the bid that the Ivy league forfeited by opting out of the tournament, but in a "normal" year that wouldn't be the case.

Wow. Not a bad idea. I’m sure there are alternatives to the limit of 5, but the NIT credits is a nice substitute. It broadens the NCAAT field while still allowing Major conferences to keep their credits.

This thread is about changing the NCAAT schedule, which had a lot to do with my suggestion about reducing the field to 64. If you are OK with the present 68 team format, you could still implement the rest, giving the mid-majors another four at large bids, giving them a total of 12. That would really broaden the NCAAT field, and the cost of the additional units could still stay the same by just reducing the value of each unit from $1.6 million to $1.5 million. On a per school basis, the difference to the P6 schools is minimal, while the best mid-major conferences would get a big cash boost.

(03-21-2021 08:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 06:34 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  I would take a different approach, and change the makeup of the tournament field. One of my biggest gripes is that too many P6 teams get invites, crowding out potential bids for mid-major teams that are as deserving of a bid as the most mediocre power conference at large teams.

I would reduce the field from 68 to 64, and limit the number of schools from any conference to five, including its champion. Without playin games, the first round of 64 could be spread over four days, 8 games per day. The Tues-Wed winners would play their second round on Saturday and the Thurs-Fri winners play Sunday. The top four seeds in each region would draw the Tuesday/Thursday slots, giving them the benefit of the extra day off between the first two rounds.

To compensate for the reduction in P6 at larges, those teams would go to an enhanced 32 team NIT tournament. The 8 highest seeds would each host the first two games of the tournament at their home arena, and each of the 8 quarterfinalists would be awarded an NCAAT unit. If the excluded P6 teams are truly more deserving than their mid-major counterparts, they should emerge as quarterfinalists in the NIT. The total number of NCAAT units awarded would remain at its current 132 in this format.

In this format, the number of non-P6 at large entries would double from their typical 4 to 8. This year, of the four such at-large teams, two were in the playin game (Wichita and Drake). Actually, this year there were five because Utah State got the bid that the Ivy league forfeited by opting out of the tournament, but in a "normal" year that wouldn't be the case.

Wow. Not a bad idea. I’m sure there are alternatives to the limit of 5, but the NIT credits is a nice substitute. It broadens the NCAAT field while still allowing Major conferences to keep their credits.

This thread is about changing the NCAAT schedule, which had a lot to do with my suggestion about reducing the field to 64. If you are OK with the present 68 team format, you could still implement the rest, giving the mid-majors another four at large bids, giving them a total of 12. That would really broaden the NCAAT field, and the cost of the additional units could still stay the same by just reducing the value of each unit from $1.6 million to $1.5 million. On a per school basis, the difference to the P6 schools is minimal, while the best mid-major conferences would get a big cash boost.

The P6 would walk away from the NCAA Tournament entirely than agree to this. There’s simply no reason why they would agree to this at all. Any proposal that suggest a reduction of a single penny to the power conferences is a de facto non-starter. There’s more of a chance of a separation of the power conferences entirely here, in which case the midmajors lose *everything* because a midmajor-only tournament is worthless from a TV perspective (which shows that the market is pricing the value of more power conference bids correctly).

Putting that aside, nothing gets smaller unless you want dollars to get smaller. That’s why the only debates about playoff contraction are on message boards like this one. In contrast, the only debates for the powers that be are about playoff *expansion* and if/when it happens. I could see more teams added to the play-in round, which would inherently open up more at-large slots, but there isn’t going to be some type of quota for midmajor teams.

Be careful for what you propose here because the power conferences can turn around and state, “Giving *all* of the at-large bids to the power conferences is waaaaaaay more valuable to the TV networks than even giving a couple to the AAC and MWC, much less the true midmajors. Instead, let’s have at-large bids go to the conferences that can garner the highest payouts just like the football bowl system! Why even bother having anything than the bare minimum of midmajors required?” That will end any discussion of additional midmajor at-large quotas pretty quickly.

(03-22-2021 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 08:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 06:34 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  I would take a different approach, and change the makeup of the tournament field. One of my biggest gripes is that too many P6 teams get invites, crowding out potential bids for mid-major teams that are as deserving of a bid as the most mediocre power conference at large teams.

I would reduce the field from 68 to 64, and limit the number of schools from any conference to five, including its champion. Without playin games, the first round of 64 could be spread over four days, 8 games per day. The Tues-Wed winners would play their second round on Saturday and the Thurs-Fri winners play Sunday. The top four seeds in each region would draw the Tuesday/Thursday slots, giving them the benefit of the extra day off between the first two rounds.

To compensate for the reduction in P6 at larges, those teams would go to an enhanced 32 team NIT tournament. The 8 highest seeds would each host the first two games of the tournament at their home arena, and each of the 8 quarterfinalists would be awarded an NCAAT unit. If the excluded P6 teams are truly more deserving than their mid-major counterparts, they should emerge as quarterfinalists in the NIT. The total number of NCAAT units awarded would remain at its current 132 in this format.

In this format, the number of non-P6 at large entries would double from their typical 4 to 8. This year, of the four such at-large teams, two were in the playin game (Wichita and Drake). Actually, this year there were five because Utah State got the bid that the Ivy league forfeited by opting out of the tournament, but in a "normal" year that wouldn't be the case.

Wow. Not a bad idea. I’m sure there are alternatives to the limit of 5, but the NIT credits is a nice substitute. It broadens the NCAAT field while still allowing Major conferences to keep their credits.

This thread is about changing the NCAAT schedule, which had a lot to do with my suggestion about reducing the field to 64. If you are OK with the present 68 team format, you could still implement the rest, giving the mid-majors another four at large bids, giving them a total of 12. That would really broaden the NCAAT field, and the cost of the additional units could still stay the same by just reducing the value of each unit from $1.6 million to $1.5 million. On a per school basis, the difference to the P6 schools is minimal, while the best mid-major conferences would get a big cash boost.

The P6 would walk away from the NCAA Tournament entirely than agree to this. There’s simply no reason why they would agree to this at all. Any proposal that suggest a reduction of a single penny to the power conferences is a de facto non-starter. There’s more of a chance of a separation of the power conferences entirely here, in which case the midmajors lose *everything* because a midmajor-only tournament is worthless from a TV perspective (which shows that the market is pricing the value of more power conference bids correctly).

Putting that aside, nothing gets smaller unless you want dollars to get smaller. That’s why the only debates about playoff contraction are on message boards like this one. In contrast, the only debates for the powers that be are about playoff *expansion* and if/when it happens. I could see more teams added to the play-in round, which would inherently open up more at-large slots, but there isn’t going to be some type of quota for midmajor teams.

Be careful for what you propose here because the power conferences can turn around and state, “Giving *all* of the at-large bids to the power conferences is waaaaaaay more valuable to the TV networks than even giving a couple to the AAC and MWC, much less the true midmajors. Instead, let’s have at-large bids go to the conferences that can garner the highest payouts just like the football bowl system! Why even bother having anything than the bare minimum of midmajors required?” That will end any discussion of additional midmajor at-large quotas pretty quickly.

The P6 walking away from the NCAA may well be where we are headed. In that case, the only question would be how many other schools/conferences would they want to take with them. They could easily choose not to invite 20 conferences without losing a nickel of the monetary value of the tournament.

A dicey question in my mind is how to deal with the lousy hoops conferences you want to cut loose from without cutting some FBS conferences, who you want as reliable buy game opponents in football.

(03-22-2021 10:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-22-2021 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 08:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 06:34 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  I would take a different approach, and change the makeup of the tournament field. One of my biggest gripes is that too many P6 teams get invites, crowding out potential bids for mid-major teams that are as deserving of a bid as the most mediocre power conference at large teams.

I would reduce the field from 68 to 64, and limit the number of schools from any conference to five, including its champion. Without playin games, the first round of 64 could be spread over four days, 8 games per day. The Tues-Wed winners would play their second round on Saturday and the Thurs-Fri winners play Sunday. The top four seeds in each region would draw the Tuesday/Thursday slots, giving them the benefit of the extra day off between the first two rounds.

To compensate for the reduction in P6 at larges, those teams would go to an enhanced 32 team NIT tournament. The 8 highest seeds would each host the first two games of the tournament at their home arena, and each of the 8 quarterfinalists would be awarded an NCAAT unit. If the excluded P6 teams are truly more deserving than their mid-major counterparts, they should emerge as quarterfinalists in the NIT. The total number of NCAAT units awarded would remain at its current 132 in this format.

In this format, the number of non-P6 at large entries would double from their typical 4 to 8. This year, of the four such at-large teams, two were in the playin game (Wichita and Drake). Actually, this year there were five because Utah State got the bid that the Ivy league forfeited by opting out of the tournament, but in a "normal" year that wouldn't be the case.

Wow. Not a bad idea. I’m sure there are alternatives to the limit of 5, but the NIT credits is a nice substitute. It broadens the NCAAT field while still allowing Major conferences to keep their credits.

This thread is about changing the NCAAT schedule, which had a lot to do with my suggestion about reducing the field to 64. If you are OK with the present 68 team format, you could still implement the rest, giving the mid-majors another four at large bids, giving them a total of 12. That would really broaden the NCAAT field, and the cost of the additional units could still stay the same by just reducing the value of each unit from $1.6 million to $1.5 million. On a per school basis, the difference to the P6 schools is minimal, while the best mid-major conferences would get a big cash boost.

The P6 would walk away from the NCAA Tournament entirely than agree to this. There’s simply no reason why they would agree to this at all. Any proposal that suggest a reduction of a single penny to the power conferences is a de facto non-starter. There’s more of a chance of a separation of the power conferences entirely here, in which case the midmajors lose *everything* because a midmajor-only tournament is worthless from a TV perspective (which shows that the market is pricing the value of more power conference bids correctly).

Putting that aside, nothing gets smaller unless you want dollars to get smaller. That’s why the only debates about playoff contraction are on message boards like this one. In contrast, the only debates for the powers that be are about playoff *expansion* and if/when it happens. I could see more teams added to the play-in round, which would inherently open up more at-large slots, but there isn’t going to be some type of quota for midmajor teams.

Be careful for what you propose here because the power conferences can turn around and state, “Giving *all* of the at-large bids to the power conferences is waaaaaaay more valuable to the TV networks than even giving a couple to the AAC and MWC, much less the true midmajors. Instead, let’s have at-large bids go to the conferences that can garner the highest payouts just like the football bowl system! Why even bother having anything than the bare minimum of midmajors required?” That will end any discussion of additional midmajor at-large quotas pretty quickly.

The P6 walking away from the NCAA may well be where we are headed. In that case, the only question would be how many other schools/conferences would they want to take with them. They could easily choose not to invite 20 conferences without losing a nickel of the monetary value of the tournament.

A dicey question in my mind is how to deal with the lousy hoops conferences you want to cut loose from without cutting some FBS conferences, who you want as reliable buy game opponents in football.

I've always been of the mind that it's really all or nothing: either just the P5 split off (and maybe adding the Big East for a P6 for basketball) or no one splits. The "halfway" split doesn't really serve much purpose. I think the idea for the P6 would be to create a close-ended exclusive platform that is more like the NFL/NBA than anything else - that's where the real revenue maximization opportunities come from.

Granted, I think that's why split is very difficult for the power leagues in practicality (although they would still certainly throw their weight around if the smaller leagues try to take more for football and/or basketball). A real split would be much more stark, blunt and exclusive than I think a lot of people want to believe. Putting aside state politics, many of the P5 schools are governed by boards of trustees that also have a fiduciary duty to non-power Division I schools (e.g. the University of California system). It's one thing for those boards to allow the flagships to make as much money as they can in their respective power conferences, but another thing entirely if those flagships straight up destroy the NCAA to the detriment of the non-power schools that they also control.