https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...pansion-24

""It's the crown jewel of all of our championships," Phillips told ESPN. "There's nothing that really duplicates it, on both sides, on the men's side and the women's side. So you have to be respectful of not messing it up, either, and understand it's in a really good, healthy place. But you also have to continue to be progressive, and I try to think about those things in that way.

"I'm a believer that the [automatic qualifiers] and winning a championship matters. It should matter. I'm not interested in reducing the AQs. I'm just not. But I'm also committed to making sure those that deserve to get into a tournament should. ... You're trying to balance the access across Division I. Making sure the AQs remain there for conferences. They need that. They need that for the financial piece of it, they need it for the emotional piece of it, to be part of it, etc. But you also have a group that at the highest level is clamoring for more access for their teams. That just leads itself to discussion of, we need to take a holistic perspective and review of college basketball and the tournament.""


I personally believe that the tournament should go back to 64 teams and about 90 teams should not be in Division 1 anymore, but neither of those things are likely to happen.

It appears to me that between Sankey (SEC) and Phillips (ACC) this is starting to slowly move down the tracks. My guess is that we will end up with a 72-team field with a First Eight with four of the games in Dayton and the other four elsewhere.

(10-14-2022 07:10 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...pansion-24

""It's the crown jewel of all of our championships," Phillips told ESPN. "There's nothing that really duplicates it, on both sides, on the men's side and the women's side. So you have to be respectful of not messing it up, either, and understand it's in a really good, healthy place. But you also have to continue to be progressive, and I try to think about those things in that way.

"I'm a believer that the [automatic qualifiers] and winning a championship matters. It should matter. I'm not interested in reducing the AQs. I'm just not. But I'm also committed to making sure those that deserve to get into a tournament should. ... You're trying to balance the access across Division I. Making sure the AQs remain there for conferences. They need that. They need that for the financial piece of it, they need it for the emotional piece of it, to be part of it, etc. But you also have a group that at the highest level is clamoring for more access for their teams. That just leads itself to discussion of, we need to take a holistic perspective and review of college basketball and the tournament.""


I personally believe that the tournament should go back to 64 teams and about 90 teams should not be in Division 1 anymore, but neither of those things are likely to happen.

It appears to me that between Sankey (SEC) and Phillips (ACC) this is starting to slowly move down the tracks. My guess is that we will end up with a 72-team field with a First Eight with four of the games in Dayton and the other four elsewhere.

If there are 8 first round games, why not just have one game at each of the 8 regional sites? I would heartily support having the sixteen lowest ranked teams playing in the first round on Tuesday and Wednesday. Seed #57 plays #72, #58 plays #71, etc.

I think 72 would be fine if they made these adjustments.

1) Invite the 4 highest rated conference champions not in the committees regular field. This takes care of those 25 win champs that get left out.

2) Return the 16 seed to its normal seed line and give all 16's first round games against #1 teams.

If it's a "crown jewel" according to Philips-------Why tinker and change? This same line of thinking is like the people who genetically engineer corn and wheat for just a bushel more an acre-- then when you eat that for years-- it destroys your gut function.

(10-14-2022 07:28 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I think 72 would be fine if they made these adjustments.

1) Invite the 4 highest rated conference champions not in the committees regular field. This takes care of those 25 win champs that get left out.

2) Return the 16 seed to its normal seed line and give all 16's first round games against #1 teams.

I am for both of those.

If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

(10-15-2022 08:16 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

Yes, that what I proposed in Post #2 above. What that does is guarantee the one-bid conference champs 8 first round wins instead of the 2 they are currently guaranteed. Those 8 still get to play the top seeds in their bracket in the second round, assuring the David vs Goliath matchups some feel gives the tournament its charm and broad appeal. And, first round winners and their fans don't have to then travel to a different site on short notice.

It's possible - maybe even likely - that the four additional spots in the tournament will go to P6 teams. That's not an outcome I would like to see, preferring that mid-major conferences like the AAC, A10 MVC and others be better represented. One way to do that would be to require that all at-large teams have at least a .500 record within their own conference.

I wonder if the NCAA tourney would ever consider expanding some of the late rounds to a Best 2 of 3 format.

For example, if they expanded the final to a Best 2 out of 3 format,that could be played Mon-Wed, adding 1 or 2 more games that the 2 finalist would need to play.

Later they could expand the semi-finals to Best 2 out of 3, to be played from Thur-Sat. Adding another 1 to 2 games.

This format could affect attendence though. The final 4 might have to go back to normal arenas instead of giant domes.

(10-15-2022 08:16 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

They should go one way or the other on it.

Having two play-ins that are 16/17 and two that are 11/12 doesn't make sense.

(10-15-2022 08:16 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

They’re not doing that - it’s going to continue to be a balance between the the lowest seeds playing each other and the last at-larges playing each other. Those at-larges are generally the power conference teams, which is what makes the opening round event more valuable for TV.

K.I.S.S. Expand to 72 by simply just doing the exact same thing as they are doing now for all 4 regions.

I’m not sure why there’s some distaste for Dayton, either. They keep putting the games there because people actually buy the tickets there and watch even those 16 vs. 16 games. That’s not happening in big markets. Don’t mess with success. In fact, that is my motto for the NCAA Tournament overall. It’s fine to tinker to add a few more teams, but drastic changes should be abhorrent to anyone that actually loves this event (which is the vast majority of America).

(10-15-2022 08:16 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

I don't believe TV would like that format. They want some brand schools (P6) playing in those round 0 games.

(10-15-2022 08:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:16 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

I don't believe TV would like that format. They want some brand schools (P6) playing in those round 0 games.

The value that those first round games, which currently have P6 teams playing, is an insignificant part of the total that CBS and TNT pay for tournament broadcast rights. Those are games that are farmed out to other minor networks anyway. Adding the 10th or 11th place Big Ten Team doesn't add to the national appeal. It will still be mostly the fans of those schools who will be tuning in.

I doubt that any expansion of the field would change the amount TV networks will bid for the NCAAT.

(10-15-2022 08:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:16 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

They’re not doing that - it’s going to continue to be a balance between the the lowest seeds playing each other and the last at-larges playing each other. Those at-larges are generally the power conference teams, which is what makes the opening round event more valuable for TV.

K.I.S.S. Expand to 72 by simply just doing the exact same thing as they are doing now for all 4 regions.

I’m not sure why there’s some distaste for Dayton, either. They keep putting the games there because people actually buy the tickets there and watch even those 16 vs. 16 games. That’s not happening in big markets. Don’t mess with success. In fact, that is my motto for the NCAA Tournament overall. It’s fine to tinker to add a few more teams, but drastic changes should be abhorrent to anyone that actually loves this event (which is the vast majority of America).

Frank if they did do a 15/18 and 16/17 setup the smaller conferences would like that because they would earn an additional NCAA unit if they can defeat a peer conference champion.

That does radically change the outcomes of the tournament because a 13 seed would now be a 15 seed and in a play-in.

If they instead made a rule where they would give the Top 4 seeds traditional first round matchps.

1/18
2/17
3/16
4/15

Then make seeds 14/11 compete in the play-in regardless if they won their conference or not wouldn't disrupt the tournament flow too much. Then the extra unit money goes to the P6 and high mid majors.

I’m a fan of letting letting in the top 4 champs who wouldn’t have made the 68 team field to bring things up to 72.

(10-15-2022 09:12 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:16 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

I don't believe TV would like that format. They want some brand schools (P6) playing in those round 0 games.

The value that those first round games, which currently have P6 teams playing, is an insignificant part of the total that CBS and TNT pay for tournament broadcast rights. Those are games that are farmed out to other minor networks anyway. Adding the 10th or 11th place Big Ten Team doesn't add to the national appeal. It will still be mostly the fans of those schools who will be tuning in.

I doubt that any expansion of the field would change the amount TV networks will bid for the NCAAT.

In the cases of the B1G they have massive alumni bases watching those games.

Unit income is a sticking point. 16/17 and 11/12 if they win pick up a second unit for an appearance. If the 4 highest regular season champs are added to the field to make it 72 that is already giving mid majors 4 more units. It might make sense then to go 14/11 with the play-in to preserve P6 income.

(10-15-2022 09:26 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 09:12 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:16 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

I don't believe TV would like that format. They want some brand schools (P6) playing in those round 0 games.

The value that those first round games, which currently have P6 teams playing, is an insignificant part of the total that CBS and TNT pay for tournament broadcast rights. Those are games that are farmed out to other minor networks anyway. Adding the 10th or 11th place Big Ten Team doesn't add to the national appeal. It will still be mostly the fans of those schools who will be tuning in.

I doubt that any expansion of the field would change the amount TV networks will bid for the NCAAT.

In the cases of the B1G they have massive alumni bases watching those games.

Unit income is a sticking point. 16/17 and 11/12 if they win pick up a second unit for an appearance. If the 4 highest regular season champs are added to the field to make it 72 that is already giving mid majors 4 more units. It might make sense then to go 14/11 with the play-in to preserve P6 income.

It never set well with me that the winners of those opening games got a unit. Losers of that game should get a unit as if they appeared in the round of 64 but winners should get the benefit of getting an extra unit for being mediocre.

Why should a 15 seed make less money than a 16 seed who had to beat a school just to make the round of 64? It pretty much incentivizes being one of the worst 4 conferences.

(10-15-2022 09:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It never set well with me that the winners of those opening games got a unit. Losers of that game should get a unit as if they appeared in the round of 64 but winners should get the benefit of getting an extra unit for being mediocre.

Why should a 15 seed make less money than a 16 seed who had to beat a school just to make the round of 64? It pretty much incentivizes being one of the worst 4 conferences.

I definitely agree with this. Maybe the extra money goes towards travel and lodging expenses for two extra days but you shouldn't benefit from "sucking" and schools shouldn't get credit for a "victory".

I'm on record saying all opening games should be at large and they don't count as the tournament, you don't make the tournament until the round of 64. Unfortunately the precedent was set when they expanded to 65, they didn't want to take away an at large bid so they added this setup and the low majors found the loophole.

(10-15-2022 09:12 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:16 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

I don't believe TV would like that format. They want some brand schools (P6) playing in those round 0 games.

The value that those first round games, which currently have P6 teams playing, is an insignificant part of the total that CBS and TNT pay for tournament broadcast rights. Those are games that are farmed out to other minor networks anyway. Adding the 10th or 11th place Big Ten Team doesn't add to the national appeal. It will still be mostly the fans of those schools who will be tuning in.

I doubt that any expansion of the field would change the amount TV networks will bid for the NCAAT.

It doesn’t mean that Turner (who broadcasts the First Four games) doesn’t want them. Those are two additional nights of games with name brand teams in elimination games where everyone in America has to remind themselves that truTV exists as a channel.

These aren’t just “only the fan bases of the teams playing are watching” games: the better matchups draw very good viewership numbers:

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/en...First-Four

(10-15-2022 12:31 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 09:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It never set well with me that the winners of those opening games got a unit. Losers of that game should get a unit as if they appeared in the round of 64 but winners should get the benefit of getting an extra unit for being mediocre.

Why should a 15 seed make less money than a 16 seed who had to beat a school just to make the round of 64? It pretty much incentivizes being one of the worst 4 conferences.

I definitely agree with this. Maybe the extra money goes towards travel and lodging expenses for two extra days but you shouldn't benefit from "sucking" and schools shouldn't get credit for a "victory".

I'm on record saying all opening games should be at large and they don't count as the tournament, you don't make the tournament until the round of 64. Unfortunately the precedent was set when they expanded to 65, they didn't want to take away an at large bid so they added this setup and the low majors found the loophole.

The additional credit was the enticement to get the conferences to agree to the First Four in the first place. I don’t have an issue with it. As a pure fan, I like having two additional days of tournament games that don’t involve just the low-seeded sacrificial lambs.

(10-15-2022 08:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:16 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  If they go to 72 just seed them 1-18 and have the opening round be 15/18 and 16/17. I also agree they should be on Tuesday/Wednesday at the first round sites. Sorry, Dayton.

They’re not doing that - it’s going to continue to be a balance between the the lowest seeds playing each other and the last at-larges playing each other. Those at-larges are generally the power conference teams, which is what makes the opening round event more valuable for TV.

K.I.S.S. Expand to 72 by simply just doing the exact same thing as they are doing now for all 4 regions.

I’m not sure why there’s some distaste for Dayton, either. They keep putting the games there because people actually buy the tickets there and watch even those 16 vs. 16 games. That’s not happening in big markets. Don’t mess with success. In fact, that is my motto for the NCAA Tournament overall. It’s fine to tinker to add a few more teams, but drastic changes should be abhorrent to anyone that actually loves this event (which is the vast majority of America).

I think I agree with Frank here.

This really is a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

If they want to go to 72, cool. I think 80 would be fine too.

Keep it simple.