NCAA Tournament
A couple weeks ago I wrote about how the basketball team could still make the tournament and not to give up on the season. I laid out a 5 step plan and unfortunately I feel like I jinxed the whole season. We really needed to win 1 game in that recent 3 game slide and of course we should of beat the badgers, manny misses the purdue game, and we all saw Tuesday night's heartbreaker. I do think making the tournament is still possible, but they better win the next 6 games to even have a chance of making a significant run in the BTT.
This might sound homerish, but I have been thinking about this for a long time. The NCAA Tournament needs to be expanded. Not to the 96 or 128 that everyone is talking about, but to 72. By expanding the tournament to 72 it will do a couple things, make the 1st round more competitive, give the really small schools (i.e. Vermont, Binghamton, Manhattan etc) a chance at playing more than 1 game, it also will allow more mid majors the opportunity to get in the tournament, and finally it will make sure that the "best 64" make it to that first weekend.
The idea would be to seed the teams 1-18 much they way the seeding is currently done today. Seeds 15-18 in every region would be involved in a play in game held on Tuesday night before the tournament starts. This creates 8 games played at 4 sites, which could be done a couple of ways. The Tournament could reward the 15 seed of each region with homecourt, or they could choose pre-determined neutral sites much like the way it is now with the play-in game. The benefit to rewarding the 15 seed would be atmosphere, excitement and less travel costs for one team, but on the flip side a neutral court keeps the integrity of the tournament in tact. By expanding to 18 in each region and having these lower echelon teams (that usually just get pounded by the 1-2 seeds) play each other it will make the 1st round more competitive. The last 16 teams in the tournament are usually very similar, small schools out of a 1 bid conference that lack talent and size. By making them play each other it will create a survival of the fittest element out of these small schools while allowing them to experience the "win and advance" aspect of the tournament, and I believe the experience would make each of these teams better prepared for that traditional first round game.
By expanding the tournament, you simply move the bottom 16 automatic qualifiers down a couple lines and move more quality teams into the 13-14 seeds. The way the tournament is today, most of the "last teams in" are seeded in the 11-12 seeds. With this expansion you would have the "last teams in" seeded 13-14. This would make the 3-14 and 4-13 games much more competitive, which would create more of the cinderella story that the NCAA so deeply loves. The bottom line is that by expanding the tournament it would ensure that the best 64 are in the tournament through the process of selecting 7 more at large bids to get in the tournament.
Curious to hear what everyones thoughts are on this topic.
This might sound homerish, but I have been thinking about this for a long time. The NCAA Tournament needs to be expanded. Not to the 96 or 128 that everyone is talking about, but to 72. By expanding the tournament to 72 it will do a couple things, make the 1st round more competitive, give the really small schools (i.e. Vermont, Binghamton, Manhattan etc) a chance at playing more than 1 game, it also will allow more mid majors the opportunity to get in the tournament, and finally it will make sure that the "best 64" make it to that first weekend.
The idea would be to seed the teams 1-18 much they way the seeding is currently done today. Seeds 15-18 in every region would be involved in a play in game held on Tuesday night before the tournament starts. This creates 8 games played at 4 sites, which could be done a couple of ways. The Tournament could reward the 15 seed of each region with homecourt, or they could choose pre-determined neutral sites much like the way it is now with the play-in game. The benefit to rewarding the 15 seed would be atmosphere, excitement and less travel costs for one team, but on the flip side a neutral court keeps the integrity of the tournament in tact. By expanding to 18 in each region and having these lower echelon teams (that usually just get pounded by the 1-2 seeds) play each other it will make the 1st round more competitive. The last 16 teams in the tournament are usually very similar, small schools out of a 1 bid conference that lack talent and size. By making them play each other it will create a survival of the fittest element out of these small schools while allowing them to experience the "win and advance" aspect of the tournament, and I believe the experience would make each of these teams better prepared for that traditional first round game.
By expanding the tournament, you simply move the bottom 16 automatic qualifiers down a couple lines and move more quality teams into the 13-14 seeds. The way the tournament is today, most of the "last teams in" are seeded in the 11-12 seeds. With this expansion you would have the "last teams in" seeded 13-14. This would make the 3-14 and 4-13 games much more competitive, which would create more of the cinderella story that the NCAA so deeply loves. The bottom line is that by expanding the tournament it would ensure that the best 64 are in the tournament through the process of selecting 7 more at large bids to get in the tournament.
Curious to hear what everyones thoughts are on this topic.
January 31st, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
And people wonder why I think eight is a silly thought for a football tournament: IT ALWAYS GETS BIGGER. For $$$ purposes only.
For national title purposes, there's no reason at all to expand the tournament. It might make for a few more interesting opening round games, but ultimately it just punishes the better teams at the expense of the mediocre, NIT-level ones.
What I wouldn't mind seeing is expansion to 68 so there can be four play-in games instead of just one. For symmetry's sake more than anything. I think we'll see at least one more play-in game in the coming years because of the Great West Conference.
January 31st, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
If you're not selected to play in the tournament at the size it is now, you're not going to win. Period. The point of the playoff isn't to give everyone warm fuzzies, it's to conclusively determine a national champion in as few games as possible.
January 31st, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
I'm sorry, but 65 teams seems like just enough. I like the fact that teams have to earn their way in.
January 31st, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^
It will "give the really small schools (i.e. Vermont, Binghamton, Manhattan etc) a chance at playing more than 1 game."
Geez, I bet those SWAC and MEAC teams really appreciate having to be in a play-in game just to make the first weekend. This proposal would only mean there would be 8 play-in games instead of one. I am sure these teams would rather just be in the tournament in the first place. If the tourney expanded by 7 more teams, maybe 2 of them would be mid-majors. The other 5 would be also-rans from the power conferences. I see no reason at all to expand the tournament further.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^
"Geez, I bet those SWAC and MEAC teams really appreciate having to be in a play-in game just to make the first weekend."
I remember that the Oakland U coach was pretty psyched to play the play-in game. "We can say we won a game in the NCAA tournament!"
Also, Dayton is beautiful this time of year.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
The thing I don't like about the play-in game is that the small schools that lose the play-in game don't really feel like they even made it to the tournament. The reward for winning a conference tournament should be playing Kentucky or UConn, not Alabama A&M or Jacksonville State. If we're going to have more than 64 teams, like maybe 68, I'd like it if the last few at-large teams had the play-in games, so that they have to earn their way into the tournament. The losers can be the top four seeds in the NIT or something. You'd get a lot more interest in the play-in games, since you'd have schools like Boston College or Minnesota in them, and the games would matter, because the winner would have a chance in the next round. Plus, the people complaining about not getting in would have less to complain about. The only people who would be really upset would be the NIT, but maybe the losers of the four play-in games could be the top seeds in the NIT.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
Have four play in games with eight non-auto qualifiers, the winners of which are the four 12 seeds, keeping the 13-16 seeds for the auto qualifying conference winners from the smaller conferences. There is no reason a conference winner shouldn't get to play on the main weekend.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^
The #1 and #2 seeds deserve the opportunity to play these smaller teams. The NCAA tournament is one solid sporting event we can look forward to each year. 64 teams is enough! Joke.
Having four play in games sounds a little far fetched. Sorry man, don't agree with this one.
January 31st, 2010 at 6:28 PM ^
there should only be 64 teams. it is the perfect number. it is the number of spots on a checkerboard, the number of positions in the kama sutra, and the number of crayons in the big crayola box (with the built in sharpener)
January 31st, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^
Ever try picking 34 at-large teams near the end of the season? The last few slots are inevitably filled with teams whose resumes are horribly flawed (Arizona last year, who didn't beat a single Pomeroy top 100 team away from home). Making the tournament is supposed to be a reward, and expansion would cheapen it.
If anything, cut one team back and get rid of the play-in. The play-in loser doesn't feel like they were really even in the tournament, and I'm not sure that would even change with four or eight play-in games.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:25 AM ^
Michigan needs to win 7-8 of its next 10 games. It isn't likely. But it isn't impossible either.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:23 AM ^
the Big Ten tourney could be a godsend. For a couple reasons, despite frustrating losses, those that follow closely can attest that this team is getting its shit together, just not as quickly as necessary. But with the Big Ten tourney, if they can get this thing going at the right time, Michigan can win the Big Ten tourney. Seriously, if they are making threes at the right time, Michigan can beat anybody in the conference on a neutral court, no doubt in my mind.
If they don't win the BTT tourney, they could still take a far fetched bubble chance and make it reasonable. For the sake of argument, say they finish the season 17-13, wins over UConn, OSU, and we'll say Wiscy and Purdon't. That is not a tourney team, but then, wins in the opening round and quarterfinals of BTT, and say the second win is against a lower tier top 25 team. Close loss in the semis. Then were talking 19-14, five wins over ranked opponents, and a fifth or tied for sixth finish in the conference. Still unlikely, but at least there could be a reason to watch the selection show, right? Add a win the semis (another lower tier or even upper tier top 25 opponent) and a loss in the BTT tourney champ. game, 20-14, six wins over ranked opponents, star appeal and an impressive showing in last years tourney. Could be a "last in" scenario.
But first they have to win some games, impressively.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
How about a small expansion that allows for a series of Play In games for the last few teams on the Bubble.
Instead of the SWAC/MEAC play in game that Tuesday. How about, something like, 4 Play In Games between Bubble Teams. Winners then play each other in the 8/9 games.
Something akin to that, just off the top of my head.
Not a big fan of tourney expansion, but applying the playing games to teams on the final bubble may be a worthy idea to look into.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:02 PM ^
This idea (at-larges in the play-in) gets kicked around a lot, but I don't see it working. Putting the last-in teams into the 9-spots gives the 8 seeds a huge advantage (although they're still running into the 1s next round, so it may not matter). Throwing them in the 12-13 line (where they presumably belong) messes with the fairness of the early-round games there (I'm not entirely sure who's most advantaged by it, the teams who draw a play-in winner or the ones who don't, but I suspect that there are teams who'd rather be a 5 facing a play-in than a 4 facing an auto-bid.)
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
the suspense around Selection Sunday. I'll be curious what they can do to rebuild the hoopla around that.
If they must go this route, they should have some kind of play-in among the additional 32 (is it?) teams. If it's just more of the same with less attractive teams wtf.
(Apologies, there's lots of talk elsewhere about expansion as if it were a foregone conclusion; I thought I was responding to a thread about that. Assuming these thoughts still apply, tho.)
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^
"which would create more of the cinderella story that the NCAA so deeply loves".
I disagree. An occasional upset or improbable run is exciting for fans, but I want the best teams playing for it all. More teams = more dilution.
Comments