Do not expand the NCAA Tournament. ... but if you insist, an open mind came up with this

[SelectionSunday]

Full disclosure: I'm opposed to any expansion of the NCAA Tournament field but have accepted it's likely to expand to 76 starting next season. In the interests of being open-minded, instead of complaining about it (what I usually do), I'm offering up an alternative solution (cough, cough) that might surprise you. I say let's just go right to 96, a nice and tidy first round of the bottom 64 teams playing on the weekend currently used for major conference tournaments. 32 losers, 32 winners, and presto, we'd be at the usual 64 teams for the traditional Round of 64 Thursday/Friday extravaganza.

Though I know the Power 5 conferences (most specifically the Big Ten & SEC) would continue to rig the system/NET (read: tournament) as much as humanly possible to gobble up as many bids at-large bids as they can, the bottom line is this proposal would guarantee more mid- and low-majors get their shot. Yes, it likely means it becomes much harder for them to become true "Cinderellas" (getting to at least the Round of 32), but that opportunity will still exist, and for more of them.

So here goes, some general parameters/assumptions for a 96-team field:

1. The regular season starts a week or two earlier to allow for the extra weekend needed for the tournament. The NCAA already has announced teams can schedule 32 games starting next season (currently 31), so I wouldn't be surprised if a lengthened regular season already is in the works.

2. Instead of the current set number of 37, I propose a "floating" number of at-large bids every season. To that end, all regular season and conference tournament champions from the 31 conferences receive an automatic bid. That means there would be anywhere from 34 at-large bids (if every conference produced two different champions) to 65 (if the same team wins both).

For this exercise using last season's results, my sample "Field of 96" (to follow) has 45 automatic qualifiers, as 14 conferences had two different champions (28 teams) while the other 17 conferences produced a double-champion. That leaves us to dole out 51 at-large bids. Note, I used last season's NCAA Tournament selectees and final NET rankings to determine seeding.

3. For the bracket, I'm going with a straight "S" curve using the NET rankings. In real life, the committee will seed the teams 1-96. Unlike the bracketing rules that currently exist, teams can play a conference foe at any time, so we'd have to get used to more same-conference matchups in the first couple rounds. The "BYU rule" would remain, meaning the Cougars wouldn't be slotted for any Friday-Sunday sites.

4. For the new first round (Round of 96): Send 8 teams each to the sites of the highest 8 seeded teams not automatically seeded into the second round (Round of 64). This rewards "S curve" seeds 33-40 (essentially the #16 seeds) by giving them a home game, but at the same time means only the bottom 8 (the #24 seeds) are forced to play a true road game. That's reasonable. Then play a full slate of games on Saturday & Sunday with afternoon & evening sessions at each site and presto, we're down to 64.

5. The main thing I'm trying to figure out is how to incentivize winning both the regular season and conference tournament championships. My cynical side wonders if teams (especially from traditional 1- or 2-bid leagues) that win the regular-season championship (#1 seed in conference tourney) won't "bust it" for the conference tournament knowing they're already "in". Maybe they do the "load management" nonsense like the NBA does and rest players? And we know darn well conferences will pursue any avenue they can to get an extra "piece of the pie" into the NCAA Tournament. The only reasonable thing I can come up with is the NCAA rewarding teams that win both with a significant financial reward. March Madness produces a sh*tload of cash for member schools & it's now the Wild, Wild West anyways, so it shouldn't be that hard to find the money.

Enough of my rambling, here's a reasonable facsimile of what a 96-team tournament would look like using last year's field and the above parameters. An * denotes automatic qualifier.

THE FIELD = 45 Automatic Bids, 51 At-Larges
East Regional (1st Round/Round of 96)
@ Georgia
#64 San Francisco vs. #65 North Texas; winner plays #1 *Duke
#96 *Saint Francis @ #33 Georgia; winner plays #32 UConn
#49 *Memphis vs. #80 *Wofford; winner plays #16 Missouri
#48 Vanderbilt vs. #81 *Robert Morris; winner plays #17 Illinois
@ Arkansas
#57 Santa Clara vs. #72 *Akron; winner plays #8 *Gonzaga
#89 *Quinnipiac @ # 40 Arkansas; winner plays #25 BYU
#56 *Drake vs. #73 *Grand Canyon; winner plays #9 Iowa State
#41 Ohio State vs. #88 *Southeast Missouri State; winner plays #24 Louisville

West Regional (1st Round/Round of 96)
@ North Carolina
#61 Pitt vs. #68 George Mason; winner plays #4 *Florida
#93 *American @ #36 North Carolina; winner plays #29 Oregon
#52 San Diego State vs. #77 *Northern Colorado; winner plays #13 *Saint John's
#45 Xavier vs. #84 *Towson; winner plays #20 Kansas
@ Utah State
#60 *Liberty vs. #69 *Yale; winner plays #5 Tennessee
#92 *Southern U @ #37 Utah State; winner plays #28 Ole Miss
#53 Northwestern vs. #76 *Utah Valley; winner plays #12 Arizona
#44 Boise State vs. #85 *Omaha; winner plays #21 *Saint Mary's

South Regional (1st Round/Round of 96)
@ Mississippi State
#63 Iowa vs. #66 Penn State; winner plays #2 *Auburn
#95 *Alabama State @ #34 Mississippi State; winner plays #31 *VCU
#50 Cincinnati vs. #79 *South Alabama; winner plays #15 Wisconsin
#47 *Colorado State vs. #82 *Bryant; winner plays #18 Texas A&M
@ Texas
#58 *McNeese vs. #71 *Lipscomb; winner plays #7 Texas Tech
#90 *Bucknell @ #39 Texas; winner plays #26 Marquette
#55 Villanova vs. #74 *Troy; winner plays #10 Maryland
#42 *New Mexico vs. #87 *Norfolk State; winner plays #23 *Michigan

Midwest Regional (1st Round/Round of 96)
@ UC-San Diego
#62 *UC-Irvine vs. #67 Dayton; winner plays #1 *Houston
#94 *Mount Saint Mary's @ #35 *UC-San Diego; winner plays #30 Baylor
#51 West Virginia vs. #78 *Chattanooga; winner plays #14 Kentucky
#46 SMU vs. #83 *Montana; winner plays #19 Purdue
@ Creighton
#59 Nebraska vs. #70 *High Point; winner plays #6 Alabama
#91 *SIU-Edwardsville @ #38 Creighton; winner plays #27 UCLA
#54 Indiana vs. #75 *UNC-Wilmington; winner plays #11 *Michigan State
#43 Oklahoma vs. #86 *Central Connecticut; winner plays #22 Clemson

Last 4 At-Larges (with 2024-25 record)
#65 North Texas (27-9)
#66 Penn State (16-15)
#67 Dayton (23-11)
#68 George Mason (27-9)

Final Read: The 1st round absolutely has to be on home courts. That would add some flavor to the 1st round, like it does for the College Football Playoff. The 1st round could have a lot of duds, but it's glaring how much more competitive the tournament likely becomes on the first Thursday/Friday of the tournament. The downside is -- though we'd have a lot more mid- and low-majors in the field (good) -- it'll be more difficult to produce true Cinderellas that advance beyond the Round of 64 (bad).

Again, not an endorsement, but offering another option (along these lines) to consider.

 

[golfing18now]

How many dual winners of both the regular season and conference tournament do we typically see outside the top four or five conferences?

 

[SelectionSunday]

How many dual winners of both the regular season and conference tournament do we typically see outside the top four or five conferences?

I don't have any exact numbers but going off memory slightly below or slightly above half of the other 26 conferences is normal. Last season there were 14 double-champs from outside the Power 5.

Akron
Bryant
Drake
High Point
Liberty
Lipscomb
McNeese
Memphis
Norfolk State
Omaha
Robert Morris
UC-San Diego
VCU
Yale

 

[Zeppelin Gopher]

"1. The regular season starts a week or two earlier to allow for the extra weekend needed for the tournament. The NCAA already has announced teams can schedule 32 games starting next season (currently 31), so I wouldn't be surprised if a lengthened regular season already is in the works."

I appreciate the proposal and outside the box thinking, but this seems like the huge flaw in the plan. CBB starting in mid-late October am guessing is a nonstarter for the powers that be.

There are already too many weird/stupid scheduling of games early season. The cupcake games being forced to be played on a Sat (going up against your own school's football team and action across the country) and Sunday (full slate of NFL)...they get lost in the shuffle as is and this would only exacerbate the problem.

 

[SelectionSunday]

I appreciate the proposal and outside the box thinking, but this seems like the huge flaw in the plan. CBB starting in mid-late October am guessing is a nonstarter for the powers that be.

Thanks, appreciate your thoughts.

I would argue they already added playing more interesting exhibition games, so that ship has sailed as far as starting earlier. Skip exhibition/preseason games (like college football does) & just make those 2 games real ones.

 

[SomeGopherFan]

San Diego group is missing a game?

 

[golfing18now]

I don't have any exact numbers but going off memory slightly below or slightly above half of the other 26 conferences is normal. Last season there were 14 double-champs from outside the Power 5.

Akron
Bryant
Drake
High Point
Liberty
Lipscomb
McNeese
Memphis
Norfolk State
Omaha
Robert Morris
UC-San Diego
VCU
Yale

I think under the scenario you are talking about I would grant the dual winners automatic exemption into the top 32. Or maybe limit to the top 20 or 25 ranked NET conferences. These teams would then be on the 7 or 8 line in a typical 64 team format and face a 9 or 10 seed (a team they likely just bumped to day one) followed by a potential matchup with a 1 or 2.

I realize this doesn't rank the teams in the order of ability. But my issue with expansion has always been the dilution of the regular season and rewarding teams for mediocrity. It wouldn't bother me if the 8th place B1G conference finisher has to play an additional game under this scenario so that the list above can be rewarded for season long success. The eventual winner of the tournament is almost always in the tour four seed lines. This wouldn't change their path.

 

[SelectionSunday]

San Diego group is missing a game?

Thanks for the catch. I added it.

 

[SelectionSunday]

I think under the scenario you are talking about I would grant the dual winners automatic exemption into the top 32. Or maybe limit to the top 20 or 25 ranked NET conferences. These teams would then be on the 7 or 8 line in a typical 64 team format and face a 9 or 10 seed (a team they likely just bumped to day one) followed by a potential matchup with a 1 or 2.

I realize this doesn't rank the teams in the order of ability. But my issue with expansion has always been the dilution of the regular season and rewarding teams for mediocrity. It wouldn't bother me if the 8th place B1G conference finisher has to play an additional game under this scenario so that the list above can be rewarded for season long success. The eventual winner of the tournament is almost always in the tour four seed lines. This wouldn't change their path.

That was the other scenario I considered for rewarding the double winners, automatically among the top 32. I would actually prefer that, but just figured there’s zero chance the major schools would allow any mid- or low-majors to receive that perk.

 

[golf]

I like it. Especially including home court games.

I have previously proposed putting power conf teams in one bracket and low/mid conf teams in the other bracket.
They play it out in their respective bracket and then crossover when each bracket gets to round of 8.
The main attraction here is low/mid conf teams will be advancing, which is difficult with the current setup in this era of nil payments. The games in the early rounds will also be more competitive.

Unfortunately when I have proposed this nobody liked it except me.