(05-17-2018 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

IMO, they should cut it back to 64 and say God Bless the NIT. The field is way too diluted already. They should also cap the # of schools any conference can get into the field of 64. I'm thinking 5.

At 72 why not just do what the NAIA used to do and lets just put everyone in the tournament playing their way through sectionals and regionals.

Cut it back to 64 and expand the NIT to 64 like it is on the women's side.

Why not have 96 with 32 conference winners earning byes. This would give more incentive to win the conference. 64 at large teams can battle out first round.

This will kill the NIT, but this way all conferences are treated equally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-17-2018 03:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There have been talks of splitting D1 for all other sports to 1A and 1AA. This would give the FBS conferences and maybe the MVFC schools in 1A. The other schools that are in good basketball conferences will have to claw and beg their way into 1A. That is why you are seeing teams like VCU, Dayton, Gonzaga and Saint Mary's moving to either the AAC or the MWC. Plus the latest with Grand Canyon a Big West LA school and both New Mexico State and BYU be in an FBS conference.

What fantasy world do you live in??

Expanding by four is really just a selfish act from the coaches. Four of their pals and staff will receive their bonuses for making the tournament and ADs will back them up to get their bonus room.

(05-18-2018 03:30 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Expanding by four is really just a selfish act from the coaches. Four of their pals and staff will receive their bonuses for making the tournament and ADs will back them up to get their bonus room.

The last team in this year made the Sweet 16 and almost made the Elite 8. The next 4 teams could likely do the same.

(05-17-2018 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 03:07 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

IMO, they should cut it back to 64 and say God Bless the NIT. The field is way too diluted already. They should also cap the # of schools any conference can get into the field of 64. I'm thinking 5.

Agree there needs to be a cap. Face it this recommendation by the ACC is so they can get 12-13 teams in the tournament. I'd rather see the #2 team in the Missouri Valley than the 12th best team in a P5.

The largest current conference is the ACC with 15 members for basketball. I said I figured 5 because if you can't finish in the top 1/3rd of your conference then you don't deserve to play in the post season's premier tournament.

And by enforcing a cap you have better schools in the NIT thereby enhancing each conference's ability to make more money through even better ratings. Right now the NCAA is simply looking to further damage the NIT so that the NCAA can bankroll even more money off of the tourney. Paying tourney creds several years in arrears is also unacceptable. They are withholding that money and earning interest on it before disbursement thereby depriving the schools of the use of that money, or the interest from it.

Bracket creep only assists the NCAA and if they are looking for bigger ratings then that means it assists the larger conferences in getting even more schools in. It has nothing to do with good basketball.

Agreed. Too many teams already.

As for the 20 second clock after offensive rebounds, that's just a rule change to make a change. There's no problem with the existing rule and it just means one more thing for the refs/scorekeepers to screw up. Was it a steal or an offensive rebound? Did they remember to set it to 20 instead of 30? Its a stupid change.

The 20 second thing will just cause more trouble than it’s worth when scorekeepers inevitably make the wrong split-second decision and the game gets stopped for 5 minutes.

I’d prefer the tournament to be an even, round, simple 70. There’s so many upsets in the 1 bid leagues - just make all the 16 seeds play-in so the RPI 175+ outliers are trimmed off right away. In turn, these leagues get a shot at an extra tourney credit.

AL’s 1-34 get in automatically. 35-38 go to Dayton. Goalposts shifted 2 spots.

(05-18-2018 04:02 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 03:30 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Expanding by four is really just a selfish act from the coaches. Four of their pals and staff will receive their bonuses for making the tournament and ADs will back them up to get their bonus room.

The last team in this year made the Sweet 16 and almost made the Elite 8. The next 4 teams could likely do the same.

Half of the current First Four is made up of Power 6 teams. Adding four more teams in most seasons adds three additional teams plus the dominant mid-major who lost in the conference tournament. This ACC proposal did not ask for all automatic qualifiers to be in the field of 64.

I would suspect CBS/Turner would say if you expand the field to 72, all “First Eight” games have to be between at-large schools. For the 2018 tournament it would have looked something like this:

East:
11A St. Bonaventure vs 11B UCLA
10A Butler vs 10B Texas
(Texas moved to prevent an all-Big 12 matchup in the round of 72)

Midwest:
10A Oklahoma vs 10B USC
11A Syracuse vs 11B Arizona State

South:
9A Creighton vs 9B Notre Dame
10A Kansas State vs Saint Mary’s

West:
8A Missouri vs 8B Baylor
9A vs Florida State vs 9B Providence

This assumes of course the NCAA doesn’t alter the ranking process to attempt to balance the landing spots for the last eight at-large teams; it’s quite possbile a team like San Diego State, who was seeded 11th in the West (now 10th due to the restructuring of the Opening Round) would still moved to another region as an 11th seed.

(05-19-2018 06:19 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I would suspect CBS/Turner would say if you expand the field to 72, all “First Eight” games have to be between at-large schools. For the 2018 tournament it would have looked something like this:

East:
11A St. Bonaventure vs 11B UCLA
10A Butler vs 10B Texas
(Texas moved to prevent an all-Big 12 matchup in the round of 72)

Midwest:
10A Oklahoma vs 10B USC
11A Syracuse vs 11B Arizona State

South:
9A Creighton vs 9B Notre Dame
10A Kansas State vs Saint Mary’s

West:
8A Missouri vs 8B Baylor
9A vs Florida State vs 9B Providence

This assumes of course the NCAA doesn’t alter the ranking process to attempt to balance the landing spots for the last eight at-large teams; it’s quite possbile a team like San Diego State, who was seeded 11th in the West (now 10th due to the restructuring of the Opening Round) would still moved to another region as an 11th seed.

Great point. Stiffing TV with another 16/16 game isn't going to sit well and certainly not cause TV to beg to offer more money.

What makes you think that they'd put Tuesday and Wednesday games with Power 6 teams? Why worry about those first two nights when the next ten TV dates mean SO much more. The CBS podcast and the NCAA writers are correct, this proposal is to get the lesser conferences out ASAP and to pay medicore Power 5 coaches for lack of success.

(05-19-2018 08:49 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  What makes you think that they'd put Tuesday and Wednesday games with Power 6 teams? Why worry about those first two nights when the next ten TV dates mean SO much more. The CBS podcast and the NCAA writers are correct, this proposal is to get the lesser conferences out ASAP and to pay medicore Power 5 coaches for lack of success.

I support and 72 NCAA tournament. I also would love to see the losers of first round or even the first weekend games folded into the NIT.

Take the 56 teams that lost in the first weekend of the NCAA tournament add them to a 72 team NIT field to create an 128 team NIT field that shadows the NCAA tournament. Kill off the the small useless minor tournaments and give every decent team a shot at something.

If you don't want to go that big then you let the first round losers join at 32 team NIT field. Either way I would like find a way to make expand the NCAA tournament and give the teams that lost their first game and the teams left out of the dance a second chance to play for something.

(05-19-2018 08:49 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  What makes you think that they'd put Tuesday and Wednesday games with Power 6 teams? Why worry about those first two nights when the next ten TV dates mean SO much more. The CBS podcast and the NCAA writers are correct, this proposal is to get the lesser conferences out ASAP and to pay medicore Power 5 coaches for lack of success.

I think the NCAA missed a golden opportunity with the expansion to 68 to reconfigure the tournament schedule. The First Four should have been Thursday/Friday games, and then the First Round should be Saturday/Sunday followed by the Second Round on Monday/Tuesday. The Sweet Sixteen and Elight Eight would be the following Saturday through Tuesday, followed by the Final Four in its current setup.

The TV schedule would look like this (all times Eastern):

First Four:
Thursday 7:05, 9:35 PM, TruTV
Friday 7:05, 9:35 PM, TruTV
For 72 teams this adds games at 1:05 and 3:35 PM.

First Round
Saturday 1:05, 3:35, 7:05, 9:35 PM, CBS
Saturday 1:35, 4:05, 7:35, 10:05, TBS
Saturday 2:05, 2:35, 8:05, 10:35, TNT
Saturday 1:20, 3:50, 7:20, 9:50, Tru TV
Sunday 12:35, 3:05, 8:05, 10:35 PM, CBS
Sunday 1:05, 3:35, 6:35, 9:05 PM, TBS
Sunday 1:20, 3:50, 7:20, 9:50 PM, TNT
Sunday 2:05, 4:35, 7:05, 9:35 PM, TruTV

Second Round
Monday 7:05, 9:35 PM, CBS
Monday 7:20, 9:50 PM, TBS
Monday 7:35, 10:05 PM, TNT
Monday 6:50, 9:20 PM, Tru TV
Tuesday 7:05, 9:35 PM, CBS
Tiesday 7:20, 9:50 PM, TBS
Tuesday 7:35, 10:05 PM, TNT
Tuesday 6:50, 9:20 PM, Tru TV

Sweet Sixteen
Saturday 1:05, 3:35, 7:05, 9:35 PM, CBS
Sunday 1:05, 3:35 PM TNT
Sunday 6:35, 9:05 PM TBS

Elite Eight
Monday 7:05, 9:35 PM TBS
Tuesday 7:05, 9:35 PM TBS

Final Four
Saturday 6:50, 9:20 PM

Championship
Monday 9:05 PM

(05-17-2018 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

IMO, they should cut it back to 64 and say God Bless the NIT. The field is way too diluted already. They should also cap the # of schools any conference can get into the field of 64. I'm thinking 5.

Agreed, there was never a good reason to expand beyond 64.

Heck, 48 was from a competitive view better than 64, 64's only advantage was the mathematical symmetry.

(05-19-2018 05:42 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 04:02 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 03:30 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Expanding by four is really just a selfish act from the coaches. Four of their pals and staff will receive their bonuses for making the tournament and ADs will back them up to get their bonus room.

The last team in this year made the Sweet 16 and almost made the Elite 8. The next 4 teams could likely do the same.

Half of the current First Four is made up of Power 6 teams. Adding four more teams in most seasons adds three additional teams plus the dominant mid-major who lost in the conference tournament. This ACC proposal did not ask for all automatic qualifiers to be in the field of 64.

No mention was made of taking away automatic qualifiers....

To JRsec....the NCAA has a vested interest in the NIT. They own it now.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/sp...llion.html

(05-20-2018 01:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

IMO, they should cut it back to 64 and say God Bless the NIT. The field is way too diluted already. They should also cap the # of schools any conference can get into the field of 64. I'm thinking 5.

Agreed, there was never a good reason to expand beyond 64.

Heck, 48 was from a competitive view better than 64, 64's only advantage was the mathematical symmetry.

Wasn't it due to the MWC earning an auto bid? They didn't want to lose another at-large bid?

Capping leagues at 5 might be fine for the bottom 27 or so conferences...but really unfair for leagues like the ACC. They actually have had teams make the F4 that finished outside the Top 5.

That’s close, but look, the perfect number is 73.
First round is 17 games with 39 byes. That plays down to 56.
Second round gets you to 28. Your top four seeds then get a 3rd round bye and with 12 games we’re down to our sweet sixteen.

(05-20-2018 08:13 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  That’s close, but look, the perfect number is 73.
First round is 17 games with 39 byes. That plays down to 56.
Second round gets you to 28. Your top four seeds then get a 3rd round bye and with 12 games we’re down to our sweet sixteen.

Makes sense that the ACC would lobby for inclusion of greater number of its schools in the tournament. Makes sense that in a vacuum the NCAA would be complicit. Leadership and staff compensation hinge on tournament revenue. What is curious is silence/passivity of mid-major conference commissioners and ADs in the process/dialogue.

Every year we’re subjected to the pontifications of Bilas and his ESPN compatriots lecturing us that this or that mid-major didn’t have the strength of schedule to warrant at large selection. They make these proclamations knowing full well how difficult it is for competitive mid-majors to even schedule the Power 5 and that persuading a Power 5 to play a non-conference away game is not in the cards. And in the future of course the Power 5 will go to 20 game conference schedules.

Ironically one of the few “violations” the NCAA is able to detect and enforce is weak scheduling committed by a mid-major. Anything more serious requires an FBI assist.

Begs the question of why mid-major commissioners don’t publicly ask why there are selection penalties for mid-majors with weaker schedules, there aren’t commensurate penalties for Power 5 members guilty of scheduling cowardice. Seems unreasonable to be able to claim superiority over opponents you won’t play.

Of course another option a creative mid-major commissioner could investigate is the formation of a larger number of eight team leagues as a means of garnering more auto-bids.

One thing seems certain, failure to engage will reduce the revenue crumbs that fall their way.

(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

I like the modification of the current format. Eight 16 seeds and eight last-at-large-in play on Tuesday and Wednesday. If NCAA let 15-18 seeds play on Tuesday and Wednesday, very few people will watch these games.

As I said before, I'd be more than happy to return to 64
I think the NCAA could go back to 64 and make more money.
Change the first round. Instead of playing 16 games Thursday and 16 on Friday. Play 8 Tuesday, 8 Wednesday, 8 Thursday, and 8 Friday.

You get more primetime games.