***Fixed Little Rock Duplicate**
This is my 1st Thread so be gentle.
I personally hate the ambiguity of having a panel debate who should get in and who shouldn’t using arbitrary arguments.For example, Michigan was 4-11 vs. Top 100 teams. This totally ignores that most of those loses were vs Top 25 teams! Should we really be punished for losing to a great team?
So I came up with a theory.
Why don’t we use a Point System (like the NHL) for wins and losses…how would that look?
Basics (Using RPI)
Win vs. Top 25 = +6 points
Loss vs. Top 25 = -1 points
Win vs. 26-100 = +3 points
Loss vs. 26-100 = -3 points
Win vs 101+ = +1 point
Loss vs. 101+ = - 6 points
**Reward Great Wins and Punish Horrible Losses
I also wanted to reward winning your tournament, so if you win your conference tournament, you are bumped up 1 seed.
So how does this look? (I’m using images in hopes that my formatting isn’t horrible)
Green = Conference Tournament Champ & 1 Seed Bump
Red = Downward Seed Bump (due to Green Bump)
I personally love this, but I’m someone that likes math to solve problems vs. gut feelings.
Also, since I’m God in this scenario, I’ll add a bonus rule:
Each team selects what region they are in from 16th seed going up (with the highest Seed Score going first).
This would mean that Kansas, for instance, would get to select which #1 seed region they would like, followed by Oregon, then UNC, then MSU after they see what each bracket looks like. This would let them choose their path to the final four.
I'd also be happy to post my excel file if anyone would like to dig into the math.