200+ teams seems pretty ambitious considering the first bracket busters was only 10-20 teams.

If you do 200+ there's going to be a lot of disappointed teams that get match-ups that won't help there tournament profile.

10 to 20 of the top pre-season teams would work better and don't have it in February when you're deep into the conference schedule. Mid to late January is late enough. After the NFL has given up the Monday night time slot.

(10-20-2022 01:05 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  200+ teams seems pretty ambitious considering the first bracket busters was only 10-20 teams.

If you do 200+ there's going to be a lot of disappointed teams that get match-ups that won't help there tournament profile.

10 to 20 of the top pre-season teams would work better and don't have it in February when you're deep into the conference schedule. Mid to late January is late enough. After the NFL has given up the Monday night time slot.

It was going to be merit-based (quadrants, I think). So you'd have been paired with someone roughly in your weight class.

The later you have it, the better you're able to group teams (in theory).

(10-20-2022 01:05 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  200+ teams seems pretty ambitious considering the first bracket busters was only 10-20 teams.

If you do 200+ there's going to be a lot of disappointed teams that get match-ups that won't help there tournament profile.

Sure, but those teams are playing teams in the same category. The point is to match up bubble teams against bubble teams. If you need to beat Kansas or Gonzaga or Villanova or Baylor to be ON the bubble, that's kind of your fault.

I expect they'd line the participants up by RPI or NET or some proprietary formula with the same purpose and put them in groups of 3. If you're Santa Clara and you're mad that you're playing Drake and Lipscomb instead of Belmont and FGCU, that's mostly on your scheduling and performance.

Quote:10 to 20 of the top pre-season teams would work better and don't have it in February when you're deep into the conference schedule. Mid to late January is late enough. After the NFL has given up the Monday night time slot.

Is the mid-major conference season that crucial a thing that you can't break from conference play for a week? Although the Monday Night Football timeslot isn't a bad idea.

Commissioners and ADs were predominantly for it.

It's coaches who are chickenshit. They want the most risk-adverse schedule possible.

(10-20-2022 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Is the mid-major conference season that crucial a thing that you can't break from conference play for a week? Although the Monday Night Football timeslot isn't a bad idea.

Is this for Mid-Majors only? I thought it was to match up over performing mid majors with P5 teams.

If it's only mid-majors, then by all means schedule it in late February even early March.

(10-20-2022 01:35 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Is the mid-major conference season that crucial a thing that you can't break from conference play for a week? Although the Monday Night Football timeslot isn't a bad idea.

Is this for Mid-Majors only? I thought it was to match up over performing mid majors with P5 teams.

If it's only mid-majors, then by all means schedule it in late February even early March.

It's mid-majors only. Specifically, not the BCS leagues. Not gonna have the mudfight today over whether the A-10, American, MWC, WCC are mid-major. Not today, thanks.

With Pauga's help, the pitch has been sent to the 26 leagues outside of the six biggest conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC). The six biggest leagues are not involved for practical reasons: 20-game leagues schedules, rigid TV contracts, and a sense that they wouldn't embrace this outside-the-box concept, as it wouldn't stand to benefit many teams in those leagues the way that it would for all others.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-bold-new-college-basketball-flex-scheduling-model-that-would-bring-big-nonconference-games-into-february/

(10-20-2022 01:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 01:35 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Is the mid-major conference season that crucial a thing that you can't break from conference play for a week? Although the Monday Night Football timeslot isn't a bad idea.

Is this for Mid-Majors only? I thought it was to match up over performing mid majors with P5 teams.

If it's only mid-majors, then by all means schedule it in late February even early March.

It's mid-majors only. Specifically, not the BCS leagues. Not gonna have the mudfight today over whether the A-10, American, MWC, WCC are mid-major. Not today, thanks.

With Pauga's help, the pitch has been sent to the 26 leagues outside of the six biggest conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC). The six biggest leagues are not involved for practical reasons: 20-game leagues schedules, rigid TV contracts, and a sense that they wouldn't embrace this outside-the-box concept, as it wouldn't stand to benefit many teams in those leagues the way that it would for all others.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-bold-new-college-basketball-flex-scheduling-model-that-would-bring-big-nonconference-games-into-february/

This link will work (yours has two http at the beginning)

Bold new college flex schedule

(10-20-2022 01:29 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Commissioners and ADs were predominantly for it.

It's coaches who are chickenshit. They want the most risk-adverse schedule possible.

And should be penalized accordingly.

(10-20-2022 01:29 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Commissioners and ADs were predominantly for it.

It's coaches who are chickenshit. They want the most risk-adverse schedule possible.

Is there a more a paranoid, self-serving group in the country?

OK, except for politicians?

Not sure I see how this is good for college basketball. If you take all the one bid conferences and have them play OOC games in February, you will still get exactly the same teams in the NCAAT that you would have gotten if you don't do this. The conference tournament winners will get invited no matter how well or badly they performed in this experiment. So, what's the point?

(10-20-2022 04:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  Not sure I see how this is good for college basketball. If you take all the one bid conferences and have them play OOC games in February, you will still get exactly the same teams in the NCAAT that you would have gotten if you don't do this. The conference tournament winners will get invited no matter how well or badly they performed in this experiment. So, what's the point?

I think the idea is you'll get another GMU, who got in in large part because of their bracket buster win against Wichita

(10-20-2022 07:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 04:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  Not sure I see how this is good for college basketball. If you take all the one bid conferences and have them play OOC games in February, you will still get exactly the same teams in the NCAAT that you would have gotten if you don't do this. The conference tournament winners will get invited no matter how well or badly they performed in this experiment. So, what's the point?

I think the idea is you'll get another GMU, who got in in large part because of their bracket buster win against Wichita

Right. To see what I could see, I took the RPI's from last year, assumed that everybody but the BCS leagues was part of it. I went down the list, making groups of 3. Gonzaga (WCC) and St Mary's (WCC) were in the top 3, so I bumped St Mary's down to the next group. (Which solved the problem the second group having Colorado State and San Diego State).

The first three triads were all in the tournament in 2022.
But the next triad was Boise STate-VCU-North Texas. Boise STate was in the tournament. VCU was not, North Texas was not.

North Texas was a nothing-special 23-7, best OOC wins probably UMass and @Wichita. 2-seed in the NIT. Win a game against Boise State or VCU, they're on the bubble. Win both, and maybe they're an at-large. VCU, similar situation. 22-10, a 3-seed in the NIT. Best OOC win was a .500 Syracuse team.

Next triad would be St Bonaventure, Wyoming (in) and Iona. Bonnies had a win over Boise State already, ended up unseeded in the NIT? Not sure even sweeping Wyoming and Iona send them to the Dance, but who knows.

Iona was the MAAC regular season champ. Nothing special on their schedule. Wins over Wyoming and St Bonaventure probably don't get them an at-large.

(10-20-2022 07:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 04:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  Not sure I see how this is good for college basketball. If you take all the one bid conferences and have them play OOC games in February, you will still get exactly the same teams in the NCAAT that you would have gotten if you don't do this. The conference tournament winners will get invited no matter how well or badly they performed in this experiment. So, what's the point?

I think the idea is you'll get another GMU, who got in in large part because of their bracket buster win against Wichita

That presumes there will be teams from multi-bid conferences participating in this. If you are a mid-major conference (which I would define as between the P6 and the 20-22 one-bid conferences) there's not much in this for you. You aren't getting any boost by beating a team from a low major conference (which is most of D-I), you aren't getting a boost by getting more games against P6 teams (who aren't participating) and you risk embarrassment if your teams lose to a low-major.

If you are just trying to sort out which mid-major teams are deserving of at-large bids, why not just have this event involve six mid-major conferences? A low major team with a NET of 150+ isn't going to get an at-large bid just by winning one game against a mid-major team.

(10-20-2022 07:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 04:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  Not sure I see how this is good for college basketball. If you take all the one bid conferences and have them play OOC games in February, you will still get exactly the same teams in the NCAAT that you would have gotten if you don't do this. The conference tournament winners will get invited no matter how well or badly they performed in this experiment. So, what's the point?

I think the idea is you'll get another GMU, who got in in large part because of their bracket buster win against Wichita

Great recall. They also met again in the Sweet 16.

We've actually had 2 Final Four teams get in because of BracketBusters. 2011 VCU also beat fellow bubble team Wichita.

We've also gotten some fairly hyped tv matchups out of this. Top-15 Southern Illinois @ Butler in 2007, Top-20 Saint Mary's @ undefeated Murray St in 2012, etc.

College basketball is so much more fun with BracketBusters.

(10-20-2022 08:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 07:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 04:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  Not sure I see how this is good for college basketball. If you take all the one bid conferences and have them play OOC games in February, you will still get exactly the same teams in the NCAAT that you would have gotten if you don't do this. The conference tournament winners will get invited no matter how well or badly they performed in this experiment. So, what's the point?

I think the idea is you'll get another GMU, who got in in large part because of their bracket buster win against Wichita

Right. To see what I could see, I took the RPI's from last year, assumed that everybody but the BCS leagues was part of it. I went down the list, making groups of 3. Gonzaga (WCC) and St Mary's (WCC) were in the top 3, so I bumped St Mary's down to the next group. (Which solved the problem the second group having Colorado State and San Diego State).

The first three triads were all in the tournament in 2022.
But the next triad was Boise STate-VCU-North Texas. Boise STate was in the tournament. VCU was not, North Texas was not.

North Texas was a nothing-special 23-7, best OOC wins probably UMass and @Wichita. 2-seed in the NIT. Win a game against Boise State or VCU, they're on the bubble. Win both, and maybe they're an at-large. VCU, similar situation. 22-10, a 3-seed in the NIT. Best OOC win was a .500 Syracuse team.

Next triad would be St Bonaventure, Wyoming (in) and Iona. Bonnies had a win over Boise State already, ended up unseeded in the NIT? Not sure even sweeping Wyoming and Iona send them to the Dance, but who knows.

Iona was the MAAC regular season champ. Nothing special on their schedule. Wins over Wyoming and St Bonaventure probably don't get them an at-large.

Remember, the groupings have to be of 4. If you do triads, then you need 3 separate gamedays with 1/3 of the teams not playing on the weekend (everyone wants to play on the weekend).

Groups of 4 also allow you to have 2 teams from the same conference since they wouldn't play each other (they'd just play the other 2 teams in the group).

(10-21-2022 06:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  That presumes there will be teams from multi-bid conferences participating in this. If you are a mid-major conference (which I would define as between the P6 and the 20-22 one-bid conferences) there's not much in this for you. You aren't getting any boost by beating a team from a low major conference (which is most of D-I), you aren't getting a boost by getting more games against P6 teams (who aren't participating) and you risk embarrassment if your teams lose to a low-major.

If you are just trying to sort out which mid-major teams are deserving of at-large bids, why not just have this event involve six mid-major conferences? A low major team with a NET of 150+ isn't going to get an at-large bid just by winning one game against a mid-major team.

In theory, the point of this is that the name brand is mitigated because you're grouping teams close in NET (or RPI or something).

You aren't trying to get the teams with the worst rankings in, they're just playing another team roughly their strength, which is worth doing because it helps (them all) schedule 2 more "good" games with teams roughly at their level (like objectively) and because you need everyone to do it to make it an event and because you don't always know who is going to be good in a given year.

The other piece is that it's more data to hopefully help the seeding process (they're banking on this helping to get higher seeds, which it hopefully would do, but it could just as well lower some seeds for some auto-bids, which is fine).

(10-20-2022 07:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 04:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  Not sure I see how this is good for college basketball. If you take all the one bid conferences and have them play OOC games in February, you will still get exactly the same teams in the NCAAT that you would have gotten if you don't do this. The conference tournament winners will get invited no matter how well or badly they performed in this experiment. So, what's the point?

I think the idea is you'll get another GMU, who got in in large part because of their bracket buster win against Wichita

Except you only get a bracket buster win against Wichita if they agree to play you. Why would they - or any other school in one of the top ten conferences? Those conferences are going to opt out because there is no upside for them - only a downside.

(10-21-2022 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 07:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 04:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  Not sure I see how this is good for college basketball. If you take all the one bid conferences and have them play OOC games in February, you will still get exactly the same teams in the NCAAT that you would have gotten if you don't do this. The conference tournament winners will get invited no matter how well or badly they performed in this experiment. So, what's the point?

I think the idea is you'll get another GMU, who got in in large part because of their bracket buster win against Wichita

Except you only get a bracket buster win against Wichita if they agree to play you. Why would they - or any other school in one of the top ten conferences? Those conferences are going to opt out because there is no upside for them - only a downside.

They're also getting a change at another quality win. It won't necessarily be a big name win, but the NET/RPI/New ranking would be in their ballpark. That could really help with seeding (or in a year when they aren't a locked in at-large).

And if conferences 7-10 all sign on, the top teams would likely draw each other (which would be good) or the rotating top teams from elsewhere (which would be good).

The A10 and the AAC would never do this. I highly doubt Gonzaga would either. They want to be viewed with the Big East and P5. So you would need the MVC, and MWC as the biggest buy in as well as the rest of the WCC. If you can't get those 3 it's going to be tough to get the CAA, SoCon, CUSA and other top mid major leagues