(01-31-2018 02:28 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-31-2018 02:17 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(01-31-2018 02:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  ...and eliminate the play in round. It is ridiculous.

Agreed on that portion, but I like the idea of giving the top eight seeds a bye. It allows 16 additional teams to make the field from the traditional 64 number (or 12 more in current terms) which would ensure that virtually the top 50 teams are likely to be in the tournament. Anything beyond that and then you're going to start seeing 16-15 teams getting at large bids, because of the conference they are from.

It's very difficult for non-power conference teams to penetrate the top 20 to 25 metrics, but we are often in that 35 to 50 range with some of our better programs that absolutely deserve to be in the tournament.

That is because they keep changing the evaluation criteria. Our better programs used to have no problem getting bids. That changed about 5 years ago when they essentially ditched the RPI and that is what needs to change back. I don't think watering it down even more will do much unless they made a .500 conference record a requirement, else they will be inviting bad P5 teams, and I don't think earning an 8 seed as opposed to a 9 is special enough to earn a bye. You could make a better argument for top 4 seed byes, but more often than not an 8 seed is going to be someone like Kansas State that finishes something like 18-12 (10-8). I don't think that warrants a bye.

128 teams in would water it down but only for one game. After that your back to 64 teams and all deserving teams are in and have been given a chance to advance. Not to mention the extra revenue from 64 games that go to the team and their conference. The smaller conferences need all the money they can get With the tv contracts becoming what they are. I know this idea may not be perfect but you have to start somewhere. The way it is now totally sucks if your not in a p5 conference.