So with the buzz of a potential appetite for a 16 team CFP (we haven't even started 12 yet, hold up y'all, let 12 play out first), I noticed arguments for college football that networks don't want games overlapping each other in the CFP, and fans don't want the regular season watered-down to irrelevance like college basketball. With a 12 team CFP, there's incentives for getting a bye for the top 4 seeds (champs), a home game for the next 4 teams, and then making the CFP for the final 4 teams in. It'll keep teams fighting late in the season who know they're in the CFP, but can still improve or secure their standing or risk dropping down or out. It also increases the stakes for CCGs, which should gather more fan interest, and, for conferences, more guaranteed money.

For college basketball, it appears they have gone past the point of no return like many pro leagues, but have they? Is there a way to come back without significantly reducing the number of teams that participate in march madness? A way to bring back some relevance to the regular season and conference tournaments? I think there could be. Currently, all conferences hold tournaments after the regular season and many offer incentives for the better performing teams like home court advantage or byes in their tournament. While offering teams home court games during march madness is highly unlikely, is it too crazy to consider offering teams byes for march madness? Expansion seems off the table for now even to 72 teams, so why not consider restructuring the bracket?

I wouldn't change how teams make march madness, but would restructure the bracket for just the 1st weekend of the tournament. Consider how the old Big East conducted their 16 team conference tournaments, and how the ACC and A-10, and soon the B1G and SEC, conduct their conference tournaments with 15-16 teams. I would do that similarly:
- 1-4 seeds get a double bye into the Round of 32
- 5-7 seeds get a single bye into the now Round of 48
- 8-17 seeds play each other in the now Round of 68

Ideally, using byes for march madness would add incentive during the regular season not only for conference tournaments, but now march madness. Losses may have more consequences than before while top 25 matchups will ideally have more importance and could increase casual fan interest.

In terms of broadcasting games, the idea is instead of stacking 4 games on each other 4 times a day for the 1st 2 days of the tournament, spread them out over 6 days to provide more exposure for games early on in the tournament.

Tuesday-Wednesday - Round of 68:
- 8-17, 9-16, 10-15, 11-14, and 12-13 matchups
- 10 games per day using a 2-3-3-2 broadcast format (early afternoon, late afternoon, evening, late evening)
Thursday-Friday - Round of 48:
- 8-17 and 9-16 winners play each other
- The other 12 winners from Round of 68 play 5-7 seeds
- 8 games per day with 2 games solo during the afternoon, 3 games in the early evening, 3 in the late evening (same broadcast format as current round of 32)
- Alternatively, could use 2-2-2-2 broadcast format
Saturday-Sunday - Round of 32:
- 16 winners from Round of 48 play 1-4 seeds
- 8 matchups per day, same broadcast format as current Round of 32

The remainder of the tournament would not be altered, and there wouldn't be reseeding. With the games spread out over 6 days instead of 4 days and providing more exposure, the theory is that games will gather higher viewership and be worth more than currently, thus, earning conferences more money in the tournament. The 8 selected hosts for the 1st week would host 6-7 games total during all 3 rounds (4 hosts would pick up a game lost from the First Four). This way, all teams stay in 1 city throughout the week and keep travel costs limited.

For the mid-major conferences, yes there would be a more difficult path to winning a championship likely playing 7 games instead of 6, but:
#1 It'll be easier to earn units money for their conference in theory playing an 8-12 seed team followed by a 5-9 seed team instead of a 1-5 seed right out the gate (excluding bottom 4 conferences).
#2 We've already seen a few teams from the First Four make a run to the Elite Eight and Final Four who would've had to play 7 games to make the championship so it's in theory still very possible to see cinderellas go on a run for the championship.

It might also seem crazy suggesting teams playing up to 3 games in 5 days to some (probably not many on here), we do have conference tournaments that have teams playing up to 5 games in 5-6 days so this wouldn't be anything new to teams, and occasionally, we do see a team or 2 do that in their conference tournament just to make march madness.

For the major conferences and multi-bid leagues, it'd be an easier path for their best teams to win the championship with an extra 2-5 days of rest and playing 1-2 fewer games than the rest of the field. With the incentive of byes, the regular season value should increase earning them more money before the postseason begins, which should also be worth more money. Maybe another incentive that could boost their conference tournaments is (potentially breaking KISS here) offer the top 8-12 conference tournament champions a guaranteed bye into at least the round of 48 (depends on overall ranking). The incentive of a bye in college football seems like it could be a positive for the value of CCGs so why not do the same for conference tournaments where the full revenue stays within the conference? Spelling it out as simple as possible:
- All 32 Conference Tournament Champs get an autobid into March Madness
- Top 10 Conference Tournament Champs earn at least a single bye
- Top 36 At-Large Teams qualify for March Madness
- Top 18 At-Large Teams earn at least a single bye
- Top 16 Overall Teams earn a double bye

Now if that was too complicated and kept as the top 28 overall earning at least a single bye, I'd be okay with that, but that may give conference tournaments for the major conferences and multi-bid leagues a boost of fan interest and revenue knowing the winner not only qualifies, but likely gets at least a bye.

Now I think it's time to address the elephant in the room. Would restructuring the format hurt the appeal for march madness with the simplicity of the standard 64 team bracket (despite being 68 teams) that casual fans have grown to love and enjoy, seeing top 5 seeds get upset by 12-16 seeds, and being able to flip between 4 games instead of actually doing our jobs? That, I'm not sure of to be honest. I think the risk of damaging that is what will probably keep what I've suggested from ever occurring (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), but it's something that those in power of college basketball could consider if they're looking to improve the standing of the sport as a whole in the sports world (well at least the US) and take a page from college football and their own conference tournaments while of course, making more money, especially guaranteed money within conference. Let me know your thoughts.

(01-09-2023 07:25 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So with the buzz of a potential appetite for a 16 team CFP (we haven't even started 12 yet, hold up y'all, let 12 play out first), I noticed arguments for college football that networks don't want games overlapping each other in the CFP, and fans don't want the regular season watered-down to irrelevance like college basketball. With a 12 team CFP, there's incentives for getting a bye for the top 4 seeds (champs), a home game for the next 4 teams, and then making the CFP for the final 4 teams in. It'll keep teams fighting late in the season who know they're in the CFP, but can still improve or secure their standing or risk dropping down or out. It also increases the stakes for CCGs, which should gather more fan interest, and, for conferences, more guaranteed money.

For college basketball, it appears they have gone past the point of no return like many pro leagues, but have they? Is there a way to come back without significantly reducing the number of teams that participate in march madness? A way to bring back some relevance to the regular season and conference tournaments? I think there could be. Currently, all conferences hold tournaments after the regular season and many offer incentives for the better performing teams like home court advantage or byes in their tournament. While offering teams home court games during march madness is highly unlikely, is it too crazy to consider offering teams byes for march madness? Expansion seems off the table for now even to 72 teams, so why not consider restructuring the bracket?

I wouldn't change how teams make march madness, but would restructure the bracket for just the 1st weekend of the tournament. Consider how the old Big East conducted their 16 team conference tournaments, and how the ACC and A-10, and soon the B1G and SEC, conduct their conference tournaments with 15-16 teams. I would do that similarly:
- 1-4 seeds get a double bye into the Round of 32
- 5-7 seeds get a single bye into the now Round of 48
- 8-17 seeds play each other in the now Round of 68

Ideally, using byes for march madness would add incentive during the regular season not only for conference tournaments, but now march madness. Losses may have more consequences than before while top 25 matchups will ideally have more importance and could increase casual fan interest.

In terms of broadcasting games, the idea is instead of stacking 4 games on each other 4 times a day for the 1st 2 days of the tournament, spread them out over 6 days to provide more exposure for games early on in the tournament.

Tuesday-Wednesday - Round of 68:
- 8-17, 9-16, 10-15, 11-14, and 12-13 matchups
- 10 games per day using a 2-3-3-2 broadcast format (early afternoon, late afternoon, evening, late evening)
Thursday-Friday - Round of 48:
- 8-17 and 9-16 winners play each other
- The other 12 winners from Round of 68 play 5-7 seeds
- 8 games per day with 2 games solo during the afternoon, 3 games in the early evening, 3 in the late evening (same broadcast format as current round of 32)
- Alternatively, could use 2-2-2-2 broadcast format
Saturday-Sunday - Round of 32:
- 16 winners from Round of 48 play 1-4 seeds
- 8 matchups per day, same broadcast format as current Round of 32

The remainder of the tournament would not be altered, and there wouldn't be reseeding. With the games spread out over 6 days instead of 4 days and providing more exposure, the theory is that games will gather higher viewership and be worth more than currently, thus, earning conferences more money in the tournament. The 8 selected hosts for the 1st week would host 6-7 games total during all 3 rounds (4 hosts would pick up a game lost from the First Four). This way, all teams stay in 1 city throughout the week and keep travel costs limited.

For the mid-major conferences, yes there would be a more difficult path to winning a championship likely playing 7 games instead of 6, but:
#1 It'll be easier to earn units money for their conference in theory playing an 8-12 seed team followed by a 5-9 seed team instead of a 1-5 seed right out the gate (excluding bottom 4 conferences).
#2 We've already seen a few teams from the First Four make a run to the Elite Eight and Final Four who would've had to play 7 games to make the championship so it's in theory still very possible to see cinderellas go on a run for the championship.

It might also seem crazy suggesting teams playing up to 3 games in 5 days to some (probably not many on here), we do have conference tournaments that have teams playing up to 5 games in 5-6 days so this wouldn't be anything new to teams, and occasionally, we do see a team or 2 do that in their conference tournament just to make march madness.

For the major conferences and multi-bid leagues, it'd be an easier path for their best teams to win the championship with an extra 2-5 days of rest and playing 1-2 fewer games than the rest of the field. With the incentive of byes, the regular season value should increase earning them more money before the postseason begins, which should also be worth more money. Maybe another incentive that could boost their conference tournaments is (potentially breaking KISS here) offer the top 8-12 conference tournament champions a guaranteed bye into at least the round of 48 (depends on overall ranking). The incentive of a bye in college football seems like it could be a positive for the value of CCGs so why not do the same for conference tournaments where the full revenue stays within the conference? Spelling it out as simple as possible:
- All 32 Conference Tournament Champs get an autobid into March Madness
- Top 10 Conference Tournament Champs earn at least a single bye
- Top 36 At-Large Teams qualify for March Madness
- Top 18 At-Large Teams earn at least a single bye
- Top 16 Overall Teams earn a double bye

Now if that was too complicated and kept as the top 28 overall earning at least a single bye, I'd be okay with that, but that may give conference tournaments for the major conferences and multi-bid leagues a boost of fan interest and revenue knowing the winner not only qualifies, but likely gets at least a bye.

Now I think it's time to address the elephant in the room. Would restructuring the format hurt the appeal for march madness with the simplicity of the standard 64 team bracket (despite being 68 teams) that casual fans have grown to love and enjoy, seeing top 5 seeds get upset by 12-16 seeds, and being able to flip between 4 games instead of actually doing our jobs? That, I'm not sure of to be honest. I think the risk of damaging that is what will probably keep what I've suggested from ever occurring (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), but it's something that those in power of college basketball could consider if they're looking to improve the standing of the sport as a whole in the sports world (well at least the US) and take a page from college football and their own conference tournaments while of course, making more money, especially guaranteed money within conference. Let me know your thoughts.

Personally, I think your idea is fine from a pure competitive standpoint.

However, the bolded will be the issue because from a general fan interest standpoint, the simplicity of the bracket IS the tournament. It's everyone from the CEO to the person in the mailroom joining in the office pool because it's a clear, simple, straightforward bracket. The randomness IS the beauty where someone like me that watches college basketball games almost every night during the season can get destroyed in a pool to my daughter that just picks random teams.

I'm fairly certain that if you listed every single sporting event in America and asked the general public which one that they would LEAST want to change, it would be the NCAA Tournament by a massive margin. What makes the NCAA Tournament somewhat flawed from a pure standpoint of determining the national champion is also what makes it the most perfect sporting event from a TV viewer perspective out there. The main bracket structure isn't ever going to change for that reason.

(01-09-2023 08:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 07:25 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So with the buzz of a potential appetite for a 16 team CFP (we haven't even started 12 yet, hold up y'all, let 12 play out first), I noticed arguments for college football that networks don't want games overlapping each other in the CFP, and fans don't want the regular season watered-down to irrelevance like college basketball. With a 12 team CFP, there's incentives for getting a bye for the top 4 seeds (champs), a home game for the next 4 teams, and then making the CFP for the final 4 teams in. It'll keep teams fighting late in the season who know they're in the CFP, but can still improve or secure their standing or risk dropping down or out. It also increases the stakes for CCGs, which should gather more fan interest, and, for conferences, more guaranteed money.

For college basketball, it appears they have gone past the point of no return like many pro leagues, but have they? Is there a way to come back without significantly reducing the number of teams that participate in march madness? A way to bring back some relevance to the regular season and conference tournaments? I think there could be. Currently, all conferences hold tournaments after the regular season and many offer incentives for the better performing teams like home court advantage or byes in their tournament. While offering teams home court games during march madness is highly unlikely, is it too crazy to consider offering teams byes for march madness? Expansion seems off the table for now even to 72 teams, so why not consider restructuring the bracket?

I wouldn't change how teams make march madness, but would restructure the bracket for just the 1st weekend of the tournament. Consider how the old Big East conducted their 16 team conference tournaments, and how the ACC and A-10, and soon the B1G and SEC, conduct their conference tournaments with 15-16 teams. I would do that similarly:
- 1-4 seeds get a double bye into the Round of 32
- 5-7 seeds get a single bye into the now Round of 48
- 8-17 seeds play each other in the now Round of 68

Ideally, using byes for march madness would add incentive during the regular season not only for conference tournaments, but now march madness. Losses may have more consequences than before while top 25 matchups will ideally have more importance and could increase casual fan interest.

In terms of broadcasting games, the idea is instead of stacking 4 games on each other 4 times a day for the 1st 2 days of the tournament, spread them out over 6 days to provide more exposure for games early on in the tournament.

Tuesday-Wednesday - Round of 68:
- 8-17, 9-16, 10-15, 11-14, and 12-13 matchups
- 10 games per day using a 2-3-3-2 broadcast format (early afternoon, late afternoon, evening, late evening)
Thursday-Friday - Round of 48:
- 8-17 and 9-16 winners play each other
- The other 12 winners from Round of 68 play 5-7 seeds
- 8 games per day with 2 games solo during the afternoon, 3 games in the early evening, 3 in the late evening (same broadcast format as current round of 32)
- Alternatively, could use 2-2-2-2 broadcast format
Saturday-Sunday - Round of 32:
- 16 winners from Round of 48 play 1-4 seeds
- 8 matchups per day, same broadcast format as current Round of 32

The remainder of the tournament would not be altered, and there wouldn't be reseeding. With the games spread out over 6 days instead of 4 days and providing more exposure, the theory is that games will gather higher viewership and be worth more than currently, thus, earning conferences more money in the tournament. The 8 selected hosts for the 1st week would host 6-7 games total during all 3 rounds (4 hosts would pick up a game lost from the First Four). This way, all teams stay in 1 city throughout the week and keep travel costs limited.

For the mid-major conferences, yes there would be a more difficult path to winning a championship likely playing 7 games instead of 6, but:
#1 It'll be easier to earn units money for their conference in theory playing an 8-12 seed team followed by a 5-9 seed team instead of a 1-5 seed right out the gate (excluding bottom 4 conferences).
#2 We've already seen a few teams from the First Four make a run to the Elite Eight and Final Four who would've had to play 7 games to make the championship so it's in theory still very possible to see cinderellas go on a run for the championship.

It might also seem crazy suggesting teams playing up to 3 games in 5 days to some (probably not many on here), we do have conference tournaments that have teams playing up to 5 games in 5-6 days so this wouldn't be anything new to teams, and occasionally, we do see a team or 2 do that in their conference tournament just to make march madness.

For the major conferences and multi-bid leagues, it'd be an easier path for their best teams to win the championship with an extra 2-5 days of rest and playing 1-2 fewer games than the rest of the field. With the incentive of byes, the regular season value should increase earning them more money before the postseason begins, which should also be worth more money. Maybe another incentive that could boost their conference tournaments is (potentially breaking KISS here) offer the top 8-12 conference tournament champions a guaranteed bye into at least the round of 48 (depends on overall ranking). The incentive of a bye in college football seems like it could be a positive for the value of CCGs so why not do the same for conference tournaments where the full revenue stays within the conference? Spelling it out as simple as possible:
- All 32 Conference Tournament Champs get an autobid into March Madness
- Top 10 Conference Tournament Champs earn at least a single bye
- Top 36 At-Large Teams qualify for March Madness
- Top 18 At-Large Teams earn at least a single bye
- Top 16 Overall Teams earn a double bye

Now if that was too complicated and kept as the top 28 overall earning at least a single bye, I'd be okay with that, but that may give conference tournaments for the major conferences and multi-bid leagues a boost of fan interest and revenue knowing the winner not only qualifies, but likely gets at least a bye.

Now I think it's time to address the elephant in the room. Would restructuring the format hurt the appeal for march madness with the simplicity of the standard 64 team bracket (despite being 68 teams) that casual fans have grown to love and enjoy, seeing top 5 seeds get upset by 12-16 seeds, and being able to flip between 4 games instead of actually doing our jobs? That, I'm not sure of to be honest. I think the risk of damaging that is what will probably keep what I've suggested from ever occurring (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), but it's something that those in power of college basketball could consider if they're looking to improve the standing of the sport as a whole in the sports world (well at least the US) and take a page from college football and their own conference tournaments while of course, making more money, especially guaranteed money within conference. Let me know your thoughts.

Personally, I think your idea is fine from a pure competitive standpoint.

However, the bolded will be the issue because from a general fan interest standpoint, the simplicity of the bracket IS the tournament. It's everyone from the CEO to the person in the mailroom joining in the office pool because it's a clear, simple, straightforward bracket. The randomness IS the beauty where someone like me that watches college basketball games almost every night during the season can get destroyed in a pool to my daughter that just picks random teams.

I'm fairly certain that if you listed every single sporting event in America and asked the general public which one that they would LEAST want to change, it would be the NCAA Tournament by a massive margin. What makes the NCAA Tournament somewhat flawed from a pure standpoint of determining the national champion is also what makes it the most perfect sporting event from a TV viewer perspective out there. The main bracket structure isn't ever going to change for that reason.

Yeah, I figured this would up as "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but thought it might be good enough of an idea to at least propose knowing it's likely never going to happen.

(01-09-2023 08:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 07:25 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So with the buzz of a potential appetite for a 16 team CFP (we haven't even started 12 yet, hold up y'all, let 12 play out first), I noticed arguments for college football that networks don't want games overlapping each other in the CFP, and fans don't want the regular season watered-down to irrelevance like college basketball. With a 12 team CFP, there's incentives for getting a bye for the top 4 seeds (champs), a home game for the next 4 teams, and then making the CFP for the final 4 teams in. It'll keep teams fighting late in the season who know they're in the CFP, but can still improve or secure their standing or risk dropping down or out. It also increases the stakes for CCGs, which should gather more fan interest, and, for conferences, more guaranteed money.

For college basketball, it appears they have gone past the point of no return like many pro leagues, but have they? Is there a way to come back without significantly reducing the number of teams that participate in march madness? A way to bring back some relevance to the regular season and conference tournaments? I think there could be. Currently, all conferences hold tournaments after the regular season and many offer incentives for the better performing teams like home court advantage or byes in their tournament. While offering teams home court games during march madness is highly unlikely, is it too crazy to consider offering teams byes for march madness? Expansion seems off the table for now even to 72 teams, so why not consider restructuring the bracket?

I wouldn't change how teams make march madness, but would restructure the bracket for just the 1st weekend of the tournament. Consider how the old Big East conducted their 16 team conference tournaments, and how the ACC and A-10, and soon the B1G and SEC, conduct their conference tournaments with 15-16 teams. I would do that similarly:
- 1-4 seeds get a double bye into the Round of 32
- 5-7 seeds get a single bye into the now Round of 48
- 8-17 seeds play each other in the now Round of 68

Ideally, using byes for march madness would add incentive during the regular season not only for conference tournaments, but now march madness. Losses may have more consequences than before while top 25 matchups will ideally have more importance and could increase casual fan interest.

In terms of broadcasting games, the idea is instead of stacking 4 games on each other 4 times a day for the 1st 2 days of the tournament, spread them out over 6 days to provide more exposure for games early on in the tournament.

Tuesday-Wednesday - Round of 68:
- 8-17, 9-16, 10-15, 11-14, and 12-13 matchups
- 10 games per day using a 2-3-3-2 broadcast format (early afternoon, late afternoon, evening, late evening)
Thursday-Friday - Round of 48:
- 8-17 and 9-16 winners play each other
- The other 12 winners from Round of 68 play 5-7 seeds
- 8 games per day with 2 games solo during the afternoon, 3 games in the early evening, 3 in the late evening (same broadcast format as current round of 32)
- Alternatively, could use 2-2-2-2 broadcast format
Saturday-Sunday - Round of 32:
- 16 winners from Round of 48 play 1-4 seeds
- 8 matchups per day, same broadcast format as current Round of 32

The remainder of the tournament would not be altered, and there wouldn't be reseeding. With the games spread out over 6 days instead of 4 days and providing more exposure, the theory is that games will gather higher viewership and be worth more than currently, thus, earning conferences more money in the tournament. The 8 selected hosts for the 1st week would host 6-7 games total during all 3 rounds (4 hosts would pick up a game lost from the First Four). This way, all teams stay in 1 city throughout the week and keep travel costs limited.

For the mid-major conferences, yes there would be a more difficult path to winning a championship likely playing 7 games instead of 6, but:
#1 It'll be easier to earn units money for their conference in theory playing an 8-12 seed team followed by a 5-9 seed team instead of a 1-5 seed right out the gate (excluding bottom 4 conferences).
#2 We've already seen a few teams from the First Four make a run to the Elite Eight and Final Four who would've had to play 7 games to make the championship so it's in theory still very possible to see cinderellas go on a run for the championship.

It might also seem crazy suggesting teams playing up to 3 games in 5 days to some (probably not many on here), we do have conference tournaments that have teams playing up to 5 games in 5-6 days so this wouldn't be anything new to teams, and occasionally, we do see a team or 2 do that in their conference tournament just to make march madness.

For the major conferences and multi-bid leagues, it'd be an easier path for their best teams to win the championship with an extra 2-5 days of rest and playing 1-2 fewer games than the rest of the field. With the incentive of byes, the regular season value should increase earning them more money before the postseason begins, which should also be worth more money. Maybe another incentive that could boost their conference tournaments is (potentially breaking KISS here) offer the top 8-12 conference tournament champions a guaranteed bye into at least the round of 48 (depends on overall ranking). The incentive of a bye in college football seems like it could be a positive for the value of CCGs so why not do the same for conference tournaments where the full revenue stays within the conference? Spelling it out as simple as possible:
- All 32 Conference Tournament Champs get an autobid into March Madness
- Top 10 Conference Tournament Champs earn at least a single bye
- Top 36 At-Large Teams qualify for March Madness
- Top 18 At-Large Teams earn at least a single bye
- Top 16 Overall Teams earn a double bye

Now if that was too complicated and kept as the top 28 overall earning at least a single bye, I'd be okay with that, but that may give conference tournaments for the major conferences and multi-bid leagues a boost of fan interest and revenue knowing the winner not only qualifies, but likely gets at least a bye.

Now I think it's time to address the elephant in the room. Would restructuring the format hurt the appeal for march madness with the simplicity of the standard 64 team bracket (despite being 68 teams) that casual fans have grown to love and enjoy, seeing top 5 seeds get upset by 12-16 seeds, and being able to flip between 4 games instead of actually doing our jobs? That, I'm not sure of to be honest. I think the risk of damaging that is what will probably keep what I've suggested from ever occurring (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), but it's something that those in power of college basketball could consider if they're looking to improve the standing of the sport as a whole in the sports world (well at least the US) and take a page from college football and their own conference tournaments while of course, making more money, especially guaranteed money within conference. Let me know your thoughts.

Personally, I think your idea is fine from a pure competitive standpoint.

However, the bolded will be the issue because from a general fan interest standpoint, the simplicity of the bracket IS the tournament. It's everyone from the CEO to the person in the mailroom joining in the office pool because it's a clear, simple, straightforward bracket. The randomness IS the beauty where someone like me that watches college basketball games almost every night during the season can get destroyed in a pool to my daughter that just picks random teams.

I'm fairly certain that if you listed every single sporting event in America and asked the general public which one that they would LEAST want to change, it would be the NCAA Tournament by a massive margin. What makes the NCAA Tournament somewhat flawed from a pure standpoint of determining the national champion is also what makes it the most perfect sporting event from a TV viewer perspective out there. The main bracket structure isn't ever going to change for that reason.

But it has changed, from 32 to 64 to 65 to 68. So can it go to 96 as long as the bracket challenges start at 64?

(01-09-2023 04:22 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 08:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 07:25 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So with the buzz of a potential appetite for a 16 team CFP (we haven't even started 12 yet, hold up y'all, let 12 play out first), I noticed arguments for college football that networks don't want games overlapping each other in the CFP, and fans don't want the regular season watered-down to irrelevance like college basketball. With a 12 team CFP, there's incentives for getting a bye for the top 4 seeds (champs), a home game for the next 4 teams, and then making the CFP for the final 4 teams in. It'll keep teams fighting late in the season who know they're in the CFP, but can still improve or secure their standing or risk dropping down or out. It also increases the stakes for CCGs, which should gather more fan interest, and, for conferences, more guaranteed money.

For college basketball, it appears they have gone past the point of no return like many pro leagues, but have they? Is there a way to come back without significantly reducing the number of teams that participate in march madness? A way to bring back some relevance to the regular season and conference tournaments? I think there could be. Currently, all conferences hold tournaments after the regular season and many offer incentives for the better performing teams like home court advantage or byes in their tournament. While offering teams home court games during march madness is highly unlikely, is it too crazy to consider offering teams byes for march madness? Expansion seems off the table for now even to 72 teams, so why not consider restructuring the bracket?

I wouldn't change how teams make march madness, but would restructure the bracket for just the 1st weekend of the tournament. Consider how the old Big East conducted their 16 team conference tournaments, and how the ACC and A-10, and soon the B1G and SEC, conduct their conference tournaments with 15-16 teams. I would do that similarly:
- 1-4 seeds get a double bye into the Round of 32
- 5-7 seeds get a single bye into the now Round of 48
- 8-17 seeds play each other in the now Round of 68

Ideally, using byes for march madness would add incentive during the regular season not only for conference tournaments, but now march madness. Losses may have more consequences than before while top 25 matchups will ideally have more importance and could increase casual fan interest.

In terms of broadcasting games, the idea is instead of stacking 4 games on each other 4 times a day for the 1st 2 days of the tournament, spread them out over 6 days to provide more exposure for games early on in the tournament.

Tuesday-Wednesday - Round of 68:
- 8-17, 9-16, 10-15, 11-14, and 12-13 matchups
- 10 games per day using a 2-3-3-2 broadcast format (early afternoon, late afternoon, evening, late evening)
Thursday-Friday - Round of 48:
- 8-17 and 9-16 winners play each other
- The other 12 winners from Round of 68 play 5-7 seeds
- 8 games per day with 2 games solo during the afternoon, 3 games in the early evening, 3 in the late evening (same broadcast format as current round of 32)
- Alternatively, could use 2-2-2-2 broadcast format
Saturday-Sunday - Round of 32:
- 16 winners from Round of 48 play 1-4 seeds
- 8 matchups per day, same broadcast format as current Round of 32

The remainder of the tournament would not be altered, and there wouldn't be reseeding. With the games spread out over 6 days instead of 4 days and providing more exposure, the theory is that games will gather higher viewership and be worth more than currently, thus, earning conferences more money in the tournament. The 8 selected hosts for the 1st week would host 6-7 games total during all 3 rounds (4 hosts would pick up a game lost from the First Four). This way, all teams stay in 1 city throughout the week and keep travel costs limited.

For the mid-major conferences, yes there would be a more difficult path to winning a championship likely playing 7 games instead of 6, but:
#1 It'll be easier to earn units money for their conference in theory playing an 8-12 seed team followed by a 5-9 seed team instead of a 1-5 seed right out the gate (excluding bottom 4 conferences).
#2 We've already seen a few teams from the First Four make a run to the Elite Eight and Final Four who would've had to play 7 games to make the championship so it's in theory still very possible to see cinderellas go on a run for the championship.

It might also seem crazy suggesting teams playing up to 3 games in 5 days to some (probably not many on here), we do have conference tournaments that have teams playing up to 5 games in 5-6 days so this wouldn't be anything new to teams, and occasionally, we do see a team or 2 do that in their conference tournament just to make march madness.

For the major conferences and multi-bid leagues, it'd be an easier path for their best teams to win the championship with an extra 2-5 days of rest and playing 1-2 fewer games than the rest of the field. With the incentive of byes, the regular season value should increase earning them more money before the postseason begins, which should also be worth more money. Maybe another incentive that could boost their conference tournaments is (potentially breaking KISS here) offer the top 8-12 conference tournament champions a guaranteed bye into at least the round of 48 (depends on overall ranking). The incentive of a bye in college football seems like it could be a positive for the value of CCGs so why not do the same for conference tournaments where the full revenue stays within the conference? Spelling it out as simple as possible:
- All 32 Conference Tournament Champs get an autobid into March Madness
- Top 10 Conference Tournament Champs earn at least a single bye
- Top 36 At-Large Teams qualify for March Madness
- Top 18 At-Large Teams earn at least a single bye
- Top 16 Overall Teams earn a double bye

Now if that was too complicated and kept as the top 28 overall earning at least a single bye, I'd be okay with that, but that may give conference tournaments for the major conferences and multi-bid leagues a boost of fan interest and revenue knowing the winner not only qualifies, but likely gets at least a bye.

Now I think it's time to address the elephant in the room. Would restructuring the format hurt the appeal for march madness with the simplicity of the standard 64 team bracket (despite being 68 teams) that casual fans have grown to love and enjoy, seeing top 5 seeds get upset by 12-16 seeds, and being able to flip between 4 games instead of actually doing our jobs? That, I'm not sure of to be honest. I think the risk of damaging that is what will probably keep what I've suggested from ever occurring (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), but it's something that those in power of college basketball could consider if they're looking to improve the standing of the sport as a whole in the sports world (well at least the US) and take a page from college football and their own conference tournaments while of course, making more money, especially guaranteed money within conference. Let me know your thoughts.

Personally, I think your idea is fine from a pure competitive standpoint.

However, the bolded will be the issue because from a general fan interest standpoint, the simplicity of the bracket IS the tournament. It's everyone from the CEO to the person in the mailroom joining in the office pool because it's a clear, simple, straightforward bracket. The randomness IS the beauty where someone like me that watches college basketball games almost every night during the season can get destroyed in a pool to my daughter that just picks random teams.

I'm fairly certain that if you listed every single sporting event in America and asked the general public which one that they would LEAST want to change, it would be the NCAA Tournament by a massive margin. What makes the NCAA Tournament somewhat flawed from a pure standpoint of determining the national champion is also what makes it the most perfect sporting event from a TV viewer perspective out there. The main bracket structure isn't ever going to change for that reason.

But it has changed, from 32 to 64 to 65 to 68. So can it go to 96 as long as the bracket challenges start at 64?

That may be the key. Most people still think of it as a 64 team tournament and most brackets don't start until that point.

The 65th spot, and then the others to 68 are mostly ignored or dismissed. I don't think people like it, we just tolerate it (obviously other than the extra teams in and the city of Dayton I guess). No real people say "first four." And no matter how hard they try, "play in game" is still what everyone not under NCAA direct control says. I guess they'll probably make it stick eventually (if it hasn't changed by then).

So yeah, if you did whatever before the "real" 64, you might get by with the general public.

(01-09-2023 04:43 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 04:22 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 08:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 07:25 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So with the buzz of a potential appetite for a 16 team CFP (we haven't even started 12 yet, hold up y'all, let 12 play out first), I noticed arguments for college football that networks don't want games overlapping each other in the CFP, and fans don't want the regular season watered-down to irrelevance like college basketball. With a 12 team CFP, there's incentives for getting a bye for the top 4 seeds (champs), a home game for the next 4 teams, and then making the CFP for the final 4 teams in. It'll keep teams fighting late in the season who know they're in the CFP, but can still improve or secure their standing or risk dropping down or out. It also increases the stakes for CCGs, which should gather more fan interest, and, for conferences, more guaranteed money.

For college basketball, it appears they have gone past the point of no return like many pro leagues, but have they? Is there a way to come back without significantly reducing the number of teams that participate in march madness? A way to bring back some relevance to the regular season and conference tournaments? I think there could be. Currently, all conferences hold tournaments after the regular season and many offer incentives for the better performing teams like home court advantage or byes in their tournament. While offering teams home court games during march madness is highly unlikely, is it too crazy to consider offering teams byes for march madness? Expansion seems off the table for now even to 72 teams, so why not consider restructuring the bracket?

I wouldn't change how teams make march madness, but would restructure the bracket for just the 1st weekend of the tournament. Consider how the old Big East conducted their 16 team conference tournaments, and how the ACC and A-10, and soon the B1G and SEC, conduct their conference tournaments with 15-16 teams. I would do that similarly:
- 1-4 seeds get a double bye into the Round of 32
- 5-7 seeds get a single bye into the now Round of 48
- 8-17 seeds play each other in the now Round of 68

Ideally, using byes for march madness would add incentive during the regular season not only for conference tournaments, but now march madness. Losses may have more consequences than before while top 25 matchups will ideally have more importance and could increase casual fan interest.

In terms of broadcasting games, the idea is instead of stacking 4 games on each other 4 times a day for the 1st 2 days of the tournament, spread them out over 6 days to provide more exposure for games early on in the tournament.

Tuesday-Wednesday - Round of 68:
- 8-17, 9-16, 10-15, 11-14, and 12-13 matchups
- 10 games per day using a 2-3-3-2 broadcast format (early afternoon, late afternoon, evening, late evening)
Thursday-Friday - Round of 48:
- 8-17 and 9-16 winners play each other
- The other 12 winners from Round of 68 play 5-7 seeds
- 8 games per day with 2 games solo during the afternoon, 3 games in the early evening, 3 in the late evening (same broadcast format as current round of 32)
- Alternatively, could use 2-2-2-2 broadcast format
Saturday-Sunday - Round of 32:
- 16 winners from Round of 48 play 1-4 seeds
- 8 matchups per day, same broadcast format as current Round of 32

The remainder of the tournament would not be altered, and there wouldn't be reseeding. With the games spread out over 6 days instead of 4 days and providing more exposure, the theory is that games will gather higher viewership and be worth more than currently, thus, earning conferences more money in the tournament. The 8 selected hosts for the 1st week would host 6-7 games total during all 3 rounds (4 hosts would pick up a game lost from the First Four). This way, all teams stay in 1 city throughout the week and keep travel costs limited.

For the mid-major conferences, yes there would be a more difficult path to winning a championship likely playing 7 games instead of 6, but:
#1 It'll be easier to earn units money for their conference in theory playing an 8-12 seed team followed by a 5-9 seed team instead of a 1-5 seed right out the gate (excluding bottom 4 conferences).
#2 We've already seen a few teams from the First Four make a run to the Elite Eight and Final Four who would've had to play 7 games to make the championship so it's in theory still very possible to see cinderellas go on a run for the championship.

It might also seem crazy suggesting teams playing up to 3 games in 5 days to some (probably not many on here), we do have conference tournaments that have teams playing up to 5 games in 5-6 days so this wouldn't be anything new to teams, and occasionally, we do see a team or 2 do that in their conference tournament just to make march madness.

For the major conferences and multi-bid leagues, it'd be an easier path for their best teams to win the championship with an extra 2-5 days of rest and playing 1-2 fewer games than the rest of the field. With the incentive of byes, the regular season value should increase earning them more money before the postseason begins, which should also be worth more money. Maybe another incentive that could boost their conference tournaments is (potentially breaking KISS here) offer the top 8-12 conference tournament champions a guaranteed bye into at least the round of 48 (depends on overall ranking). The incentive of a bye in college football seems like it could be a positive for the value of CCGs so why not do the same for conference tournaments where the full revenue stays within the conference? Spelling it out as simple as possible:
- All 32 Conference Tournament Champs get an autobid into March Madness
- Top 10 Conference Tournament Champs earn at least a single bye
- Top 36 At-Large Teams qualify for March Madness
- Top 18 At-Large Teams earn at least a single bye
- Top 16 Overall Teams earn a double bye

Now if that was too complicated and kept as the top 28 overall earning at least a single bye, I'd be okay with that, but that may give conference tournaments for the major conferences and multi-bid leagues a boost of fan interest and revenue knowing the winner not only qualifies, but likely gets at least a bye.

Now I think it's time to address the elephant in the room. Would restructuring the format hurt the appeal for march madness with the simplicity of the standard 64 team bracket (despite being 68 teams) that casual fans have grown to love and enjoy, seeing top 5 seeds get upset by 12-16 seeds, and being able to flip between 4 games instead of actually doing our jobs? That, I'm not sure of to be honest. I think the risk of damaging that is what will probably keep what I've suggested from ever occurring (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), but it's something that those in power of college basketball could consider if they're looking to improve the standing of the sport as a whole in the sports world (well at least the US) and take a page from college football and their own conference tournaments while of course, making more money, especially guaranteed money within conference. Let me know your thoughts.

Personally, I think your idea is fine from a pure competitive standpoint.

However, the bolded will be the issue because from a general fan interest standpoint, the simplicity of the bracket IS the tournament. It's everyone from the CEO to the person in the mailroom joining in the office pool because it's a clear, simple, straightforward bracket. The randomness IS the beauty where someone like me that watches college basketball games almost every night during the season can get destroyed in a pool to my daughter that just picks random teams.

I'm fairly certain that if you listed every single sporting event in America and asked the general public which one that they would LEAST want to change, it would be the NCAA Tournament by a massive margin. What makes the NCAA Tournament somewhat flawed from a pure standpoint of determining the national champion is also what makes it the most perfect sporting event from a TV viewer perspective out there. The main bracket structure isn't ever going to change for that reason.

But it has changed, from 32 to 64 to 65 to 68. So can it go to 96 as long as the bracket challenges start at 64?

That may be the key. Most people still think of it as a 64 team tournament and most brackets don't start until that point.

The 65th spot, and then the others to 68 are mostly ignored or dismissed. I don't think people like it, we just tolerate it (obviously other than the extra teams in and the city of Dayton I guess). No real people say "first four." And no matter how hard they try, "play in game" is still what everyone not under NCAA direct control says. I guess they'll probably make it stick eventually (if it hasn't changed by then).

So yeah, if you did whatever before the "real" 64, you might get by with the general public.

Yeah - I think we'll eventually see expansion to 72 teams (making the play-in round into the "First Eight"), but don't believe there's much of any support for a full-fledged additional round going up to 96 (as that actually makes the regular season even *less* relevant, which defeats the OP's objective).

I remember a radio host saying this succinctly many years ago: the reason why the NCAA Tournament is so popular is that "you can fold it up and keep the whole event in your pocket" - meaning that you can print out a bracket on one sheet of paper and can carry it with you everywhere for 3 weeks. Now, granted, most of us probably just use an app on our phones to track our brackets now, but I think the core idea still holds: the accessibility of the NCAA Tournament is based on it being simultaneously incredibly simple in structure but also virtually impossible to predict all correctly from a mathematical standpoint. You can visualize the bracket and, if you print it out, literally just hold it in your hand and everyone from hard core sports fans to little kids can understand it.

So, I'm definitely on the "don't mess with a great thing" train here. I've alluded to this before elsewhere, but this forum probably contains more criticisms on the structure of the NCAA Tournament than the entire rest of the Internet combined. In the "real world", the NCAA Tournament is the sporting event that the general public LEAST wants to mess with whatsoever.

Great conversation topic.

Taking a venue perspective, if you are including the "Round of 68" with the regular sites, you might want to round up to 72 so that all 8 sites get an equal 9 teams (7 games). This eases the bidding process.

For a "clean" bracket you also likely want to avoid "seeds" beyond 16. This means duplicate seed numbers. If you have 10 teams your opening round, perhaps 12v12 and 13v13 are the two games with duplicate seeds

Here is a sample bracket with a nice balance of games played each round:
Opening Round
9v16
10v15
11v14
12v12
13v13
First Round
4v13
5v12
6v11
7v10
8v9
Second Round
1v8
2v7
3v6
4v5

(01-09-2023 05:06 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Great conversation topic.

Taking a venue perspective, if you are including the "Round of 68" with the regular sites, you might want to round up to 72 so that all 8 sites get an equal 9 teams (7 games). This eases the bidding process.

For a "clean" bracket you also likely want to avoid "seeds" beyond 16. This means duplicate seed numbers. If you have 10 teams your opening round, perhaps 12v12 and 13v13 are the two games with duplicate seeds

Here is a sample bracket with a nice balance of games played each round:
Opening Round
9v16
10v15
11v14
12v12
13v13
First Round
4v13
5v12
6v11
7v10
8v9
Second Round
1v8
2v7
3v6
4v5

I agree that going up to 72 or down to 64 would be better from a venue perspective, but since it didn't seem like there's not much interest in expansion at the moment, I stuck with 68 teams. With 72 teams, I think the bracket would more along the lines of this (below) unless I'm not understanding your bracket correctly (my numbers can be adjusted):

1st Seed Double Bye
8 vs. 17 (8th seed gets single bye with 64)
9 vs. 16

4th Seed Double Bye
5th Seed Single Bye
12 vs. 13

2nd Seed Double Bye
7 vs. 18 (7th seed gets single bye with 68)
10 vs. 15

3rd Seed Double Bye
6th Seed Single Bye
11 vs. 14