It's gonna' happen, so what's your solution?

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,704
Reaction score
4,853
Points
113
This thread isn't about whether we like the expansion to 96 or not. We've been there, done that. Let's keep this thread to what you think should happen with the NCAA Tournament in its new format. It's going to 96. Whether it happens next year or a few years down the road is the only thing to be determined. I think we should take Doug Gottlieb's advice; let's accept it, stop the complaining and move on. The NCAA's decision is "in the barn" so to speak.

Here's what I would like to see happen. What actually happens likely will be quite different. In the event expansion is immediate, I'll use the 2011 calendar as a guide. My thrust is to put as much emphasis on the regular season as possible.

(1) Award automatic bids to all regular season champions (31 automatics). This assures that the best team from each conference -- over the long haul -- has a spot in the tournament. In the event of a tie(s) for a regular season championship, the automatic bid would be determined by each conference's pre-specified tie-breaker, i.e. head to head, record vs. teams in the tie, etc. For example, this season Ohio State would have been the Big Ten's regular season champion, even though it tied with Purdue and Michigan State.

(1A) Speaking as a Big Ten fan, with the new tournament format there is no reason not to go to a full round-robin regular season format (20 conference games). This would ensure a true Big Ten regular season champion, as well as two additional "games of real interest" in the event some schools decide to "creampuff" their nonconference schedule even more.

(2) Award automatic bids to the tournament champion of all conferences holding a conference tournament. (The Ivy League would have to decide if it wants a tournament in order to assure the potential for a second bid.) Let's assume for now the Ivy League would hold firm to its principles and only determine a regular season champ. That would give us anywhere from 0 to 30 additional automatics.

(3) That would leave the Selection Committee to select anywhere from 35 to 65 at-larges. Obviously, for every conference that has a different regular season and tournament champion, it would decrease the number of at-large spots available to the Selection Committee.

Now, next year's Big Ten/NCAA Tournament calendar, as I would like to see it. ...

March 10-13
Big Ten Tournament, Indianapolis (automatic bid to winner)

March 13
Selection Sunday (96 teams)

Tuesday, March 15
First-Round Games (Round of 96): 16 games at 4 "higher seed" sites (doubleheader at each site). Games in the first round would pit: #9 vs. #24; #10 vs. #23; #11 vs. #22; #12 vs. #21; #13 vs. #20; #14 vs. #19; #15 vs. #18; and #16 vs. #17 in each of the four regions.

Wednesday, March 16
First-Round Games (Round of 96): 16 games at 4 "higher seed" sites (doubleheader at each site). The #9, #10, #11 and #12 seeds would host a lower seed while serving as a host for the first two days of the tournament, with an additional game played at each site. This would mean only 8 games in the 95-game tournament would have a "true" home team and a "true" road team. The remaining 87 games would be true neutral sites.

Thursday, March 17
Second-Round Games (Round of 64): 16 games (Denver, Tampa, Tucson, Washington DC). This would get the tournament where we're accustomed to having it, 64 teams standing on the first Thursday of the tournament. This is where the top 8 seeds in each region would be joined by the 32 winners from Tuesday/Wednesday. If there's "time off" to be taken from work, these would be the two days to "come up with flu-like symptoms."

Friday, March 18
Second-Round Games (Round of 64): 16 games (Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Tulsa).

Saturday, March 19
Third-Round Games (Round of 32): 8 games (Denver, Tampa, Tucson, Washington DC).

Sunday, March 20
Third-Round Games (Round of 32): 8 games (Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Tulsa).

Thursday, March 24
Sweet 16: 4 games (Anaheim, New Orleans).

Friday, March 25
Sweet 16: 4 games (Newark, San Antonio).

Saturday, March 26
Elite 8: 2 games (Anaheim, New Orleans).

Sunday, March 27
Elite 8: 2 games (Newark, San Antonio).

Saturday, April 2/Monday, April 4 (3 games)
Final 4 (Houston)
 

I think you are correct about it happening, I wish it wouldn't. You have some pretty good ideas. The only thing I don't like it taking Doug Gottleib's advice, I prefer not to listen to him.
 

For what it's worth, Gottlieb is against expanding the tournament. I just think he's moved along to the "acceptance" stage sooner than some of us, myself included.
 

I agree with you that opening round games need to be on Tuesday/Wednesday of Week One. However, I think they should be played at the first round sites. No need to have to ask those early round teams to travel twice within two days of each other. I mean that's a nightmore...fly on Monday, play on Tuesday, fly on Wednesday, play on Thursday. No thanks. Get them to the site, its an NCAA tourney game, let them play and stay. Go TUE/THU/SAT and WED/FRI/SUN from opening round venues.

If they go that way, then I think we'll see this:

1) Conference tourneys ending on Saturday.
2) Selection Sunday becomes Selection Saturday.

With starting games on Tuesday - that extra day will help. There is a ton of logistical/last minute work needed to be finalized. Teams would find out Sunday at 5pm and have to fly out Monday. That is too short. An extra day is more than helpful. Also allows fans an extra day to make travel plans should their team play in the opening round.

Totally agree with you...Big Ten MUST go to full round robin now. Nothing to be scared of.
 

SelectionSunday said:
(1) Award automatic bids to all regular season champions (31 automatics). This assures that the best team from each conference -- over the long haul -- has a spot in the tournament. In the event of a tie(s) for a regular season championship, the automatic bid would be determined by each conference's pre-specified tie-breaker, i.e. head to head, record vs. teams in the tie, etc. For example, this season Ohio State would have been the Big Ten's regular season champion, even though it tied with Purdue and Michigan State.
Click to expand...

Here's a "problem" with awarding the automatic bid to the regular season champion: There is no incentive for this team to "try" to win the conference tournament. In fact, playing multiple games could be counter-productive.

Yes, I understand seeding in the NCAA tournament can be/is influenced by conference tournament results.

One other thing I notice? Michigan State doesn't ever do much in the conference tournament and seems to do quite well in the NCAAs. I don't think Izzo really gives a rats ass about the Big Ten tourney and he chooses to ready his team for the real tournament.

Also, consider a 6-11 team winning the Big Ten tourney. Under your plan (and the consensus speculation, I might add), "Iowa" would face playing 7 games in 11 days (in order to advance). Doesn't leave much time for attending class. Which, obviously, the powers-that-be don't care about.
 


Good point about moving the selection show to Saturday. I hadn't thought of that. The most intriguing thing to me is what they'll do with the pre-determined (first/second-round, regional) sites. They have some tough decisions to make.
 

Due to the fact that any input I have to the expansion is NIL...I will drink beer and take what happens. And I will still enjoy the best sporting event on TV.
 

"There is no incentive for this team to 'try' to win the conference tournament."

That's something I've struggled with as well. Then we're getting into "integrity of the game"-type issues. In the 1-bid leagues especially, the conference clearly is better off having a different team win the conference tournament.
 

SelectionSunday said:
The most intriguing thing to me is what they'll do with the pre-determined (first/second-round, regional) sites. They have some tough decisions to make.
Click to expand...

Yup. This is going to require the sites for the first weekend to be re-bid. I'm sure some sites can do it, but not every arena is either willing or able to lock out six (possibly seven) consecutive days from their calendar.
 



SS,
I don't like the regular season champion from small school conferences getting a bid. If a team wins both the reg and post season bids, does that conference only get 1 bid then? If so, I don't think it really matters because a team that already has its bid to the tournament will not have as much to play for in the league tournament. In turn, it will most likely not win the tournament thus making it a 2-bid league. Reg. season champions had a tough enough time winning their league tournaments this year. (weren't there a couple of #1 seeds losing to #8 seeds?) I think the expansion helps the little schools get to the tournament more than it will be helping the big schools get at-larges if the reg. season champ gets an auto bid.
 

The conference tournament issue for the smaller conferences already exists to some degree. You could see it in the motivation in the Utah State-NMSU game this year. There was basically financial incentive for Utah State to lose and get the league another bid (though they were a lot closer to the cut line then many thought.) Similarly, it would have behooved Butler purely from a financial standpoint to lose and get the Horizon two bids, etc.

However, giving automatic bids to both regular and tournament champions will definately destroy the integrity of the tournament in all of the smaller conferencs. The only way to rectify it is to give the regular season champion incentive NOT to take a dive by granting a bye to any team that wins both. I don't think that would go over well with the big boys.

Finally, the conference tournaments in the major conferences become a joke. Do you really want the Gophers exhausting themselves playing 4 games in 4 days this year if they're in anyway and have to turn around and play Tuesday? Heck no. It behooves them to lose to PSU right away and rest. That will be the case for virtually every major conference team that's a lock (which will now be most of them) but especially those that haven't secured a bye. Now I suppose a certain # will be on the 'bye line' (the new bubble line) and those will be the ones that put the most effort into the tournament. But still, I'd rather see the Big 10 go to 20 conference games and forget the tournament.

They've stated thier intention not to start the tournament until Thursday, so your schedule, while the one I'd prefer, likely won't happen. I predict they'll play the 1st two rounds at the opening round sites Thursday-Sunday and the Round of 32 through the Elite 8 and the regional sites the following Tuesday-Sunday.

If they want to increase regular season incentive, in addition to the byes, all 1st round games should be played at home site of the higher seed. Much as the NIT is. Then proceed with the 64 team tournament as normal. This would increase the incentive of being the 'first 64' since you would either get a bye or a home game.
 

howeda7 said:
It behooves them to lose right away and rest. That will be the case for virtually every major conference team that's a lock.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Couldn't the same be said for any number of teams every year? Take this year for example. None of the following took your advice about losing and resting:

Duke was an NCAA lock, yet won the ACC Tourney AND is playing for the national title.
Butler was an NCAA lock, yet won the Horizon Tourney AND is playing for the national title.
West Virginia was an NCAA lock, yet won the Big East Tourney AND made the Final Four.
Kentucky was an NCAA lock, yet won the SEC Tourney and got a #1 seed.
Northern Iowa was an NCAA lock, yet won the MVC Tourney and made the Sweet 16.
Ohio State was an NCAA lock, yet won the Big Ten Tourney.
Kansas was an NCAA lock, yet won the Big 12 Tourney.

Why, if the field is expanded to 96 do you think they'll now not try as hard in conference tourneys?? Do you think they'll just start losing on purpose? I think you underestimate the prestige that these coaches and players crave in being a conference tourney champ, etc. You don't get to this level of play without pride taking over. You want to cut down the nets.
 

I don't know what I think about the regular season winner or the conference tournament winner getting an automatic bid....I would still like to only see one or the other. However, what about have the first round of games (64 teams) play at the home sight of the higher seeded team and move then into the tournament as usual with 64 teams?
 



tjgopher said:
Why do you say that? Couldn't the same be said for any number of teams every year? Take this year for example. None of the following took your advice about losing and resting:

Duke was an NCAA lock, yet won the ACC Tourney AND is playing for the national title.
Butler was an NCAA lock, yet won the Horizon Tourney AND is playing for the national title.
West Virginia was an NCAA lock, yet won the Big East Tourney AND made the Final Four.
Kentucky was an NCAA lock, yet won the SEC Tourney and got a #1 seed.
Northern Iowa was an NCAA lock, yet won the MVC Tourney and made the Sweet 16.
Ohio State was an NCAA lock, yet won the Big Ten Tourney.
Kansas was an NCAA lock, yet won the Big 12 Tourney.

Why, if the field is expanded to 96 do you think they'll now not try as hard in conference tourneys?? Do you think they'll just start losing on purpose? I think you underestimate the prestige that these coaches and players crave in being a conference tourney champ, etc. You don't get to this level of play without pride taking over. You want to cut down the nets.
Click to expand...

Naturally, many of the top teams still win, they're just better. But if they lose, do they really care? Was Syracuse all broken up about losing in the quarter-finals? I doubt it. Did it cost them a #1 seed? No.

Even so, I don't think it's so much the top teams that this will effect. But if you're stuck in no-man's land where you're safely in, but can't get a bye, and therefore know you have to turn around and play on Tuesday or Wednesday, are you really going to run your starters 35 minutes a game trying to win your conference tournament? The Gophers this year are the perfect example. You can bust your rear trying to win the BTT only to be so exhaused that you get blown out in your Opening Round game on Tuesday, or you can take it easy, lose in the 1st or second round and rest. Which are you going to choose? Most teams will choose the rest.
If they go ahead and start the tournament on Thursday this is less of an issue.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the major-conference tournaments as it is. Going to 96 will only make it worse. As it is, the main intrigue is watching the 5/6/7 seeds as they scrap for the last at-large bids. Now that will shift to the 9/10 seeds. Ooh, can Michigan make a run and get above .500 to make the NCAA's? Pass. I'd rather have the two additional regular season games.
 

howeda7 said:
Naturally, many of the top teams still win, they're just better. But if they lose, do they really care? Was Syracuse all broken up about losing in the quarter-finals? I doubt it. Did it cost them a #1 seed? No.

Even so, I don't think it's so much the top teams that this will effect. But if you're stuck in no-man's land where you're safely in, but can't get a bye, and therefore know you have to turn around and play on Tuesday or Wednesday, are you really going to run your starters 35 minutes a game trying to win your conference tournament? The Gophers this year are the perfect example. You can bust your rear trying to win the BTT only to be so exhaused that you get blown out in your Opening Round game on Tuesday, or you can take it easy, lose in the 1st or second round and rest. Which are you going to choose? Most teams will choose the rest.
If they go ahead and start the tournament on Thursday this is less of an issue.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the major-conference tournaments as it is. Going to 96 will only make it worse. As it is, the main intrigue is watching the 5/6/7 seeds as they scrap for the last at-large bids. Now that will shift to the 9/10 seeds. Ooh, can Michigan make a run and get above .500 to make the NCAA's? Pass. I'd rather have the two additional regular season games.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, I don't see anyone getting broken up over losing, that's sure. Although, that has always been the case for the upper tier teams, whether its a field of 64 or 96. As you said, like Syracuse. Or, Michigan State, for that matter. But, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't try, or that a Field of 96 changes much. Those middling major conference teams are still best suited to win a couple of games in the tourneys, as it could mean whether they get an NCAA bye or not. Even this year, for the Gophers, if they are Top 8, they avoid an opening round game in a Field of 96. If they beat OSU on Sunday, they might get the 8th seed (maybe).

I'm only a fan of the conference tourneys in that they are exciting and offer some excellent and exciting basketball. If they did away with them, I wouldn't be broken hearted.
 

SS, I like the idea of having the teams who will fall from 65-96 having the disadvantage of having to play 3 games in less than a week to make the sweet 16. This at least preserves some advantage of the original 64.

My only issue with your timeline is starting the tournament on the Tuesday after the selection show. I believe a lot of the interest in the NCAA tournament is due to office brackets and various other brackets/pools that causal observers participate in. I bet there is more talk in most places of work on that Monday-Thursday morning about college basketball(who's a sleeper, who's overrated, etc) than at any other time during the year.

I would guess that the NCAA would still like the tournament to begin on a Thursday to let the excitement build. Then again, I would guess that the NCAA would know that diluting their tournament and rendering the regular season meaningless would be bad for the game of college basketball.
 

EG#9 said:
SS, I like the idea of having the teams who will fall from 65-96 having the disadvantage of having to play 3 games in less than a week to make the sweet 16. This at least preserves some advantage of the original 64.

My only issue with your timeline is starting the tournament on the Tuesday after the selection show. I believe a lot of the interest in the NCAA tournament is due to office brackets and various other brackets/pools that causal observers participate in. I bet there is more talk in most places of work on that Monday-Thursday morning about college basketball(who's a sleeper, who's overrated, etc) than at any other time during the year.

I would guess that the NCAA would still like the tournament to begin on a Thursday to let the excitement build. Then again, I would guess that the NCAA would know that diluting their tournament and rendering the regular season meaningless would be bad for the game of college basketball.
Click to expand...

Actually, it would be 33-96 with the extra game. That alone will make those teams in the 7-10 seed range try very hard in the conference tournament, with the hopes of moving up into that coveted 8-seed. It used to be that there was not much a a difference between 7-10 seeds, but in a 96 team tournament, the 8-seed with the bye becomes an advantage.
 

Have 12 Regions With 8 Teams Each

Then give 4 byes and make the other 8 teams play each other.

Then 8 (4 winners & 4 byes), 4, 2, and 1 left standing.
 


I'd like to see the NCAA tournament start on Thursday like it normally does. Then follow the following schedule:

1st round - Thurs. (16 games)
1st round - Fri. (16 games)
2nd round - Sat. (16 games)
2nd round - Sun. (16 games)
3rd round - Thurs. (8 games)
3rd round - Fri. (8 games)
4th round - Sat. (4 games)
4th round - Sun. (4 games)
Elite Eight - Wed. (2 games)
Elite Eight - Thurs. (2 games)
Final Four - Sat. (2 games)
Champ. - Mon. (1 game)
Final Four site would become the Elite Eight site
 


Friend Of Tubby said:
Nope - 12 regions, 8 teams each. Everybody plays 1st round.
Click to expand...

So have everyone play the first round, and then 16 teams get a bye into the round of 32? That makes no sense. How would you determine which victorious teams get a bye? Since there have to be byes in a 96 team tournament - no way around it - you have to have them in the first round. Any other way would just be silly and nonsensical. Also, an odd number of regions (like 12) would never work because there is no way to go from 12 to 2 without incorporating double byes, pool play, etc.
 

With 12 regions with 8 teams in each region, you would have three wins to win the regional, and then you would be left with 12 teams. That would involve 4 of the 12 teams getting byes in the "not so sweet 12". Unworkable, and too much of an advantage at that stage. If they go to 96, we will see first round byes, which is standard for tournaments.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom