Idea for future NCAA Tournament.

[PhilSimms11]

8 play-in games. That's what it's called. It's not the opening round or any of that crap. It's not part of the NCAA tournament until there are 64 teams. All at-larges, no automatics. That means your UMBCs and LIU-Brooklyns, etc. are already in at the 14-15-16 seeds. You could have 2 play-in games for each region. Here's a rough sketch for the 2018 tournament...

(9)--Alabama (19-15) vs Oklahoma St (19-14)
(9)--St Mary's (28-5) vs USC (23-11)
(10)--Notre Dame (20-14) vs Marquette (19-13)
(10)--Louisville (20-13) vs Butler (20-13)
(12)--St Bonaventure (25-7) vs Middle Tennessee (24-7)
(12)--Syracuse (21-13) vs UCLA (21-10)
(13)--Nebraska (22-10) vs Vermont (27-7)
(13)--Western Kentucky (24-10) vs Boise St (23-8)

Granted, most of these teams were not in this year's field of 68, but this is just an example.

 

[Ojb81]

 

[Myles]

8 play-in games. That's what it's called. It's not the opening round or any of that crap. It's not part of the NCAA tournament until there are 64 teams. All at-larges, no automatics. That means your UMBCs and LIU-Brooklyns, etc. are already in at the 14-15-16 seeds. You could have 2 play-in games for each region. Here's a rough sketch for the 2018 tournament...

(9)--Alabama (19-15) vs Oklahoma St (19-14)
(9)--St Mary's (28-5) vs USC (23-11)
(10)--Notre Dame (20-14) vs Marquette (19-13)
(10)--Louisville (20-13) vs Butler (20-13)
(12)--St Bonaventure (25-7) vs Middle Tennessee (24-7)
(12)--Syracuse (21-13) vs UCLA (21-10)
(13)--Nebraska (22-10) vs Vermont (27-7)
(13)--Western Kentucky (24-10) vs Boise St (23-8)

Granted, most of these teams were not in this year's field of 68, but this is just an example.

Not a bad idea.

 

[SteelersPride]

 

[rmilia1]

I prefer you take the conference RPI and take the bottom 16 leagues ( nearly all of which every year will be one bid leagues ) and have the 16 trams frpm those leagues play in the play ins. Go back to 64 teams. That frees up 4 more at large bids and makes the first round much more interesting as you'll get some really good matchups . Plus it will inspire better scheduling for mid to low major teams as their league RPI would matter

 

[CycleandJazz]

I prefer you take the conference RPI and take the bottom 16 leagues ( nearly all of which every year will be one bid leagues ) and have the 16 trams frpm those leagues play in the play ins. Go back to 64 teams. That frees up 4 more at large bids and makes the first round much more interesting as you'll get some really good matchups . Plus it will inspire better scheduling for mid to low major teams as their league RPI would matter

I don't think low and mid major teams are avoiding scheduling high major teams, I think it's the other way around more often than not.

 

[rmilia1]

I don't think low and mid major teams are avoiding scheduling high major teams, I think it's the other way around more often than not.

I was speaking more to them playing each other and playing games VS leagues in that 6-15 range as opposed to D3 or D2 games you often see. That said there are many teams in low major who don't schedule very well at all. Even high mid major teams ( looking at you St Marys)

 

[JohnU]

I was speaking more to them playing each other and playing games VS leagues in that 6-15 range as opposed to D3 or D2 games you often see. That said there are many teams in low major who don't schedule very well at all. Even high mid major teams ( looking at you St Marys)

I don't think the games against the D2 and D3 teams are counted. Those are for the smaller schools to get a paycheck. The problem partly in the mid-majors is the historically black colleges in the South having to spend their first 12 games on the road because they can't make any money in conferences without TV contracts. Somebody has to play these teams and they will gladly hit the road, play anybody and take a 3-10 record into their conference season. Texas Southern played a killer road schedule their first 13 games and was a 19-loss team in the tournament.

I think forcing teams to fix their scheduling in the face of it being next to impossible is kind of like a non-funded mandate. Everybody would ideally get the schedule they want.

 

[rmilia1]

I don't think the games against the D2 and D3 teams are counted. Those are for the smaller schools to get a paycheck. The problem partly in the mid-majors is the historically black colleges in the South having to spend their first 12 games on the road because they can't make any money in conferences without TV contracts. Somebody has to play these teams and they will gladly hit the road, play anybody and take a 3-10 record into their conference season. Texas Southern played a killer road schedule their first 13 games and was a 19-loss team in the tournament.

I think forcing teams to fix their scheduling in the face of it being next to impossible is kind of like a non-funded mandate. Everybody would ideally get the schedule they want.

They're not counted but you could play games against teams that do count, preferably against other mid majors or majors. It's not impossible Texas Southern did it this year. You just have to be willing to do it

 

[JohnU]

They're not counted but you could play games against teams that do count, preferably against other mid majors or majors. It's not impossible Texas Southern did it this year. You just have to be willing to do it

I agree there are teams that could upgrade but all the same, playing these exhibitions aren't all that bad. It lets the teams get a feel for the season and lets the D3 outfits score a paycheck. I think they ought to stop playing those games after November or at worst, early December. Texas Southern and the others in that league are volunteers to be road kill. It's their only way to make any money. Those teams don't have TV contracts.

In any event, I think it's probably harder to upgrade with benefits than it seems. I do like the idea of the interconference challenges.

If I had a suggestion, I'd advise them to start the damned conference season sooner -- say 3 or 4 games in ... and mix in some other games later in the season.

 

[NolePride]

This is another issue where the NCAA will stay away from.

When they first went to 4 play-in games (68 teams)...their initial reaction was
to put 8 Conf Champs there from the bottom leagues. That was quickly voted
down by the General Membership, of which there are more smaller schools than
bigger schools.

They compromised. They had 4 small schools (who are conf champs) and 4 big
schools that are at-large.

The small schools will never budge on that. I believe like them. I believe that
no conf champ should have to be in a play-in game. Just put the at-large there.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

This is another issue where the NCAA will stay away from.

When they first went to 4 play-in games (68 teams)...their initial reaction was
to put 8 Conf Champs there from the bottom leagues. That was quickly voted
down by the General Membership, of which there are more smaller schools than
bigger schools.

They compromised. They had 4 small schools (who are conf champs) and 4 big
schools that are at-large.

The small schools will never budge on that. I believe like them. I believe that
no conf champ should have to be in a play-in game. Just put the at-large there.

The NCAA doesn’t give a flying fuck about the small schools, do they? They’d rather repeatedly put the large school teams that cheat to recruit the best players and still underachieve against 25+ win schools from a mid major conference that can’t garner any attention from bigger schools to fill their non conference schedule.

 

[Ron G]

I don't think low and mid major teams are avoiding scheduling high major teams, I think it's the other way around more often than not.

Great point, how easy do you think it will be for Loyola of Chicago to schedule any Power Five schools going forward. And when they are 25-5 and lose the conference championship game they will not be invited because of a weak RPI. People will say , why did they not schedule more big schools.
The logic this year for keeping St. Mary's out was weak RPI. They were 26 and 5 (I think). If they were 21 and 10 , with road losses to Duke, Virginia, Villanova, Michigan St. and Kentucky, they would have gotten in.
That seems to be the logic for at large teams with 18-12 records.

 

[NolePride]

The NCAA doesn’t give a flying fuck about the small schools, do they? They’d rather repeatedly put the large school teams that cheat to recruit the best players and still underachieve against 25+ win schools from a mid major conference that can’t garner any attention from bigger schools to fill their non conference schedule.

I don't think they care about them, but they do cater to their vote. They have to, they can outvote the
big schools on the floor.

You know, they are quick to say that more than half the leagues are one-bid leagues. (Conf Champ)
I can somewhat deal with that, but I still believe that there should be other leagues with a limit
on how many they get in. Two-b id league or four-bid league. Maybe no league gets more than
5 bids.

Vermont should have gotten in as an at-large. They were more deserving than Alabama

 

[Deep Creek]

I don't think they care about them, but they do cater to their vote. They have to, they can outvote the
big schools on the floor.

You know, they are quick to say that more than half the leagues are one-bid leagues. (Conf Champ)
I can somewhat deal with that, but I still believe that there should be other leagues with a limit
on how many they get in. Two-b id league or four-bid league. Maybe no league gets more than
5 bids.

Vermont should have gotten in as an at-large. They were more deserving than Alabama

It is silly to play an entire conference schedule to eliminate only 4-5 teams from the tournament. Part of the everyone gets a trophy mentality. JMO

 

[JohnU]

The mid-majors could also reduce the number of conference games from 18 to 12 and force teams to go looking for games. It's pretty easy to knock the Power 5 (6) for this but sometimes I think the middies could do more to help themselves. It's not like all of them are stuck in Backwater, Ala., without a gym or a TV contract. I don't see the NCAA spending much effort upgrading the whole package but rather sealing off the rights and privileges of the top 20 or 30 programs.

 

[CycleandJazz]

The mid-majors could also reduce the number of conference games from 18 to 12 and force teams to go looking for games. It's pretty easy to knock the Power 5 (6) for this but sometimes I think the middies could do more to help themselves. It's not like all of them are stuck in Backwater, Ala., without a gym or a TV contract. I don't see the NCAA spending much effort upgrading the whole package but rather sealing off the rights and privileges of the top 20 or 30 programs.

That assumes that they are not already doing that. Numerous high major coaches have openly admitted over the years that they don’t want to risk a loss to a mid major on the road because their fans won’t understand and the young players on the team might, well, play like young players do sometimes. It’s not like we have to guess which side of this is putting up the most resistance.

 

[JohnU]

That assumes that they are not already doing that. Numerous high major coaches have openly admitted over the years that they don’t want to risk a loss to a mid major on the road because their fans won’t understand and the young players on the team might, well, play like young players do sometimes. It’s not like we have to guess which side of this is putting up the most resistance.

Yeah, I agree ... all we see is what we get and I can imagine the scheduling process is a couple of nerds in a closed room with spreadsheets and Rolodex (I almost typed Rolex!) files trying to match up things.

Indiana State got 90K to go to IU this year -- and kicked the shit out of IU (first game of the year) ... so there's that point that IU couldn't sweep under the rug.

I do know that at Evansville, where they are trying to replace their coach, beef up attendance AND make the program interesting for recruits, there are a lot of dots to connect. The middies also like to win some games early to look legit, which means taking on Georgia AT&T and Texas Mid-Western/Austin-Dallas Campus ... which draws air into the fieldhouse.

Then again, you can't just call somebody up and demand they start a 4-year home and home with you because you're a "natural" rival. The problem is that a chunk of D-1 basketball doesn't support itself very well. We look at the NCAA's and think ... wow, what crowds.

Middies going on the road to UK or Duke or Kansas get their clocks cleaned (usually) but they get paid for it

To that end, there's another thread here about the NIT that makes a lot more sense when we consider all these nuances. All these "yabbits" don't override the premise that the system needs to be tweaked and that there are ways of doing it. Really, how do the P-5 conferences get hurt by improving the whole package?

 

[Deep Creek]

Really, how do the P-5 conferences get hurt by improving the whole package?

I don't think the P-5 conferences really give a damn about improving it. Their football deals generate more than enough money to fund the other programs well beyond what others can. That wealth position allows them to entice the poorer programs with money to come to them instead of risk playing an away game. Same as they do in football. My school has made a lot of money going to the biggies to get slaughtered.

 

[JohnU]

I don't think the P-5 conferences really give a damn about improving it. Their football deals generate more than enough money to fund the other programs well beyond what others can. That wealth position allows them to entice the poorer programs with money to come to them instead of risk playing an away game. Same as they do in football. My school has made a lot of money going to the biggies to get slaughtered.

For sure, the historically black colleges in the southern states play their entire non-conf schedule on the road.