https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-sp...59682.html

"In a meeting in Washington D.C. on Jan. 25, commissioners of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and, yes, even the Pac-12 opened dialogue with Baker about their wish to examine NCAA tournament expansion."

"However, discussions between the commissioners and NCAA go beyond the topic of revenue and also include the growing wish for more access in the form of at-large spots. In the meeting with Baker, commissioners were transparent about their desire for more access in a 68-team field that includes 32 automatic qualifying spots — 27 of which go to non-power leagues."

Let me begin by saying I am against NCAA tournament expansion and wished the field went back to 64. Now let's get back to reality.

This is about money. The P4 want more bids to get more tournament credits. My guess is that after compromises the field will be expanded to 72. That will keep the integrity of the bracket alive while still allowing more P4 (and Big East) teams in the field.

If it goes to 72, I hope that four of the eight play-in games are between at-large teams so that there are good games to watch on Tuesday and Wednesday.

However, my bet is that the P4 will remove credits from play-in game wins and put the bottom sixteen conference winners into the First Eight for the 15 and 16 seeds.

An obvious fix is to stop giving 16-seed play-in winners a 2nd unit.

I agree 72 is most likely, with outside chance of 80. Play the second First Eight site at Hinkle. If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

Just shift the play in games around would be the easiest answer. Make play in games at large only. You then expand to 72. That adds what 4 more play in games? The at large teams are most likely going to be P4 or high end conferences. You simply shift the 1 bid leagues to the bottom portion of the brackets.

(03-03-2024 06:49 PM)46566 Wrote:  Just shift the play in games around would be the easiest answer. Make play in games at large only. You then expand to 72. That adds what 4 more play in games? The at large teams are most likely going to be P4 or high end conferences. You simply shift the 1 bid leagues to the bottom portion of the brackets.

The networks want Cinderellas, but they also want less of those 25-32 conference teams. Any expansion will proportionately cull some of those teams out.

(03-03-2024 06:49 PM)46566 Wrote:  Just shift the play in games around would be the easiest answer. Make play in games at large only. You then expand to 72. That adds what 4 more play in games? The at large teams are most likely going to be P4 or high end conferences. You simply shift the 1 bid leagues to the bottom portion of the brackets.

That's not going to happen. Your proposal would result in two less at-larges starting in the Round of 64. The P4 + Big East will block that.

(03-03-2024 06:53 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:49 PM)46566 Wrote:  Just shift the play in games around would be the easiest answer. Make play in games at large only. You then expand to 72. That adds what 4 more play in games? The at large teams are most likely going to be P4 or high end conferences. You simply shift the 1 bid leagues to the bottom portion of the brackets.

That's not going to happen. Your proposal would result in two less at-larges starting in the Round of 64. The P4 + Big East will block that.

Absolutely right. More likely we see first four all bottom teams than that crap.

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  An obvious fix is to stop giving 16-seed play-in winners a 2nd unit.

I agree 72 is most likely, with outside chance of 80. Play the second First Eight site at Hinkle. If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

I agree with 72 teams. If it's 80 teams, I like the idea that Frank has brought up in the past that the top 24 champs + top 24 at-large teama earn a bye to the main round and the bottom 8 champs (16 seeds) and bottom 24 at-large teams (9-11 seeds) compete to enter the main 64 team round. I think he proposed it for competitive reasons, but it could probably be used for the P4 + BE earning more units/money.

(03-03-2024 07:16 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  An obvious fix is to stop giving 16-seed play-in winners a 2nd unit.

I agree 72 is most likely, with outside chance of 80. Play the second First Eight site at Hinkle. If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

I agree with 72 teams. If it's 80 teams, I like the idea that Frank has brought up in the past that the top 24 champs + top 24 at-large teama earn a bye to the main round and the bottom 8 champs (16 seeds) and bottom 24 at-large teams (9-11 seeds) compete to enter the main 64 team round. I think he proposed it for competitive reasons, but it could probably be used for the P4 + BE earning more units/money.

80 is too large. 72 is the last train stop before the tournament changes to something that is completely different.

(03-03-2024 07:22 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 07:16 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  An obvious fix is to stop giving 16-seed play-in winners a 2nd unit.

I agree 72 is most likely, with outside chance of 80. Play the second First Eight site at Hinkle. If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

I agree with 72 teams. If it's 80 teams, I like the idea that Frank has brought up in the past that the top 24 champs + top 24 at-large teama earn a bye to the main round and the bottom 8 champs (16 seeds) and bottom 24 at-large teams (9-11 seeds) compete to enter the main 64 team round. I think he proposed it for competitive reasons, but it could probably be used for the P4 + BE earning more units/money.

80 is too large. 72 is the last train stop before the tournament changes to something that is completely different.

I agree, but do the power that be agree?

(03-03-2024 07:28 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 07:22 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 07:16 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  An obvious fix is to stop giving 16-seed play-in winners a 2nd unit.

I agree 72 is most likely, with outside chance of 80. Play the second First Eight site at Hinkle. If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

I agree with 72 teams. If it's 80 teams, I like the idea that Frank has brought up in the past that the top 24 champs + top 24 at-large teama earn a bye to the main round and the bottom 8 champs (16 seeds) and bottom 24 at-large teams (9-11 seeds) compete to enter the main 64 team round. I think he proposed it for competitive reasons, but it could probably be used for the P4 + BE earning more units/money.

80 is too large. 72 is the last train stop before the tournament changes to something that is completely different.

I agree, but do the power that be agree?

Possibly. They gain 4 at-large spots. Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered. 72= pigs. 80= hogs.

(03-03-2024 06:05 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-sp...59682.html

"In a meeting in Washington D.C. on Jan. 25, commissioners of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and, yes, even the Pac-12 opened dialogue with Baker about their wish to examine NCAA tournament expansion."

"However, discussions between the commissioners and NCAA go beyond the topic of revenue and also include the growing wish for more access in the form of at-large spots. In the meeting with Baker, commissioners were transparent about their desire for more access in a 68-team field that includes 32 automatic qualifying spots — 27 of which go to non-power leagues."

Let me begin by saying I am against NCAA tournament expansion and wished the field went back to 64. Now let's get back to reality.

This is about money. The P4 want more bids to get more tournament credits. My guess is that after compromises the field will be expanded to 72. That will keep the integrity of the bracket alive while still allowing more P4 (and Big East) teams in the field.

If it goes to 72, I hope that four of the eight play-in games are between at-large teams so that there are good games to watch on Tuesday and Wednesday.

However, my bet is that the P4 will remove credits from play-in game wins and put the bottom sixteen conference winners into the First Eight for the 15 and 16 seeds.

Agree. There will be 79 power league teams and 41 slots. So teams not in the top half of their league and below .500 in league play will be going.

(03-03-2024 06:53 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:49 PM)46566 Wrote:  Just shift the play in games around would be the easiest answer. Make play in games at large only. You then expand to 72. That adds what 4 more play in games? The at large teams are most likely going to be P4 or high end conferences. You simply shift the 1 bid leagues to the bottom portion of the brackets.

The networks want Cinderellas, but they also want less of those 25-32 conference teams. Any expansion will proportionately cull some of those teams out.

They just need to raise the cost to play (more scholarship dollars) and push out those conferences who are just not on the same level. Get rid of 5 to 10 conferences and there are 5 to 10 more slots.

68 is already at least 4 too many, we don't need more spots.

NCAA as usual focusing on the most important things.

(03-03-2024 07:45 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

68 is already at least 4 too many, we don't need more spots.

I agree but tell that to Sankey.

(03-03-2024 06:49 PM)46566 Wrote:  Just shift the play in games around would be the easiest answer. Make play in games at large only. You then expand to 72. That adds what 4 more play in games? The at large teams are most likely going to be P4 or high end conferences. You simply shift the 1 bid leagues to the bottom portion of the brackets.

I think that's the way to go, but sadly, the networks don't want that. There's a reason we've seen more power conference teams make the tourney over non-power conference teams.

Also, what bryanw said.

As usual, when this subject arises (as it does every year on this forum), fans of non-power conference teams (euphemistically called mid-majors) want to see only power conference teams in the play-in round, and fans of power conferences want to see only the bottom conference champs play in. Gee, I wonder why that is.

I'd put more of both power and non-power conference teams in the play-in round, but to do that you need to go all the way to 80. Four brackets of 20 teams each, with teams seeded #13-20 (regardless of what conference they represent) playing in on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Then I would increase the percentage of tournament revenues that are allocated based on tournament performance. Last year, that fund was only about $170K, roughly about 20% of the media contract. Increasing that percentage could more than pay for the 12 additional entries without taking anything away from the one-bid leagues.

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  An obvious fix is to stop giving 16-seed play-in winners a 2nd unit.

I agree 72 is most likely, with outside chance of 80. Play the second First Eight site at Hinkle. If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

Kinda where I'm at...72-80

(03-03-2024 06:56 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:53 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:49 PM)46566 Wrote:  Just shift the play in games around would be the easiest answer. Make play in games at large only. You then expand to 72. That adds what 4 more play in games? The at large teams are most likely going to be P4 or high end conferences. You simply shift the 1 bid leagues to the bottom portion of the brackets.

That's not going to happen. Your proposal would result in two less at-larges starting in the Round of 64. The P4 + Big East will block that.

Absolutely right. More likely we see first four all bottom teams than that crap.

My ideal number would be 72, with the First Four being all at-large teams, pushing the 16 seeds into the main bracket to play the #1 seeds. This would make the First Four more watchable and marketable to the networks. The current 16 vs 16 First Four game is worthless, but gives one of those schools/conferences a tournament unit. But, I agree: the Power 4 + Big East will block it. We'd be more likely to see an opening round of 15 and 16 seeds.

As someone mentioned here, play one First Four site in Dayton, and another one at Hinkle in Indianapolis. Or, to feed into West and Midwest brackets, play somewhere more central such as Denver or Kansas City.

As I've heard discussed on Sirius XM, the important thing to drive interest is to get the First Four onto the bracket that everyone fills out. If large numbers of people are picking the First Four, they'll watch it. Two more games and an expansion to 72 can do that.

(03-03-2024 07:16 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  An obvious fix is to stop giving 16-seed play-in winners a 2nd unit.

I agree 72 is most likely, with outside chance of 80. Play the second First Eight site at Hinkle. If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

I agree with 72 teams. If it's 80 teams, I like the idea that Frank has brought up in the past that the top 24 champs + top 24 at-large teama earn a bye to the main round and the bottom 8 champs (16 seeds) and bottom 24 at-large teams (9-11 seeds) compete to enter the main 64 team round. I think he proposed it for competitive reasons, but it could probably be used for the P4 + BE earning more units/money.

Yeah - that’s how I’d set up 80 teams (or something close to it).

If it’s 72 teams, I think that it’s simply going to be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 8 at-large teams. Anyone thinking that the First Four play-in is just going to be all at-large teams or all bottom conference champs isn’t looking at this correctly. That play-in round needs to be balanced (and they sure as heck aren’t sending the weakest conference champs automatically back to main bracket again).