It’s time for our annual threads proposing changes to the NCAAT selection process. I have my own ideas, which will no doubt produce a spate of replies telling me that I shouldn’t mess with perfection: the “don’t try to fix what ain’t broken” argument. Of course, that’s never stopped me before, so here goes.

I would expand the field from the current 68 teams to 72. I would repurpose the Selection Committee to a Placement Committee, and I would establish a tentative tournament field based on Massey Composite rankings as of the last Sunday of the regular season for the power conferences. I realize some of the minor conference tournaments may have already begun, but you have to pick a date and that’s mine.

I would allocate 36 berths to the six power conferences and 36 berths to the remaining 26 D-I conferences as follows:

From the power conferences, I would tentatively invite the teams with the 36 highest MC rankings. If a team not in this tentative field wins its conference tournament it replaces the lowest ranked team from its own conference.

From the remaining conferences I would tentatively invite the highest MC ranked team from every conference plus the 10 highest MC ranked teams not already in the field. As with the power conferences, if a team not already in the tentative field wins its conference tournament it replaces the lowest ranked team from its own conference.

The Placement Committee then puts these 72 teams into the four brackets, seeded by their MC rank, with the exception that they may move a team up or down in the seeding by not more than one place to accommodate obvious geographical imperatives or to avoid second or third round matchups of conference mates.

The 16 lowest seeded teams play the first round, one at each of the 8 sub-regional sites with the winners advancing to the Round of 64.

This process takes the subjective opinion of a Selection Committee out of play. It tells every team where and when they will play (unless bounced by CCT results) a week sooner than the current method, giving them more time to make travel plans. It gives more bids to the mid-major conferences while guaranteeing the power conferences as many bids as they usually get anyway. The one-bid conferences keep their autobid and are guaranteed four wins instead of two and no power conference bubble teams have to play in.

So have at it. Why am I the dumbest basketball fan on the planet?

Open Tournament. Every Division I team seeded by a computer formula.

Round one, teams 150 through 363 play on campus at the higher seed to get us down to 256. These games would be midweek.

Round two, we are down to 256. All games at higher seeds. Play these games Friday night-Sunday night. A festival of basketball. Sell games to whatever network you can find. 128 games, on all weekend.

Round three, down to 128. Play midweek at the higher seed.

Now we are down to 64 and we start play at the neutral site like normal.

(02-02-2023 11:10 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  Open Tournament. Every Division I team seeded by a computer formula.

Round one, teams 150 through 363 play on campus at the higher seed to get us down to 256. These games would be midweek.

Round two, we are down to 256. All games at higher seeds. Play these games Friday night-Sunday night. A festival of basketball. Sell games to whatever network you can find. 128 games, on all weekend.

Round three, down to 128. Play midweek at the higher seed.

Now we are down to 64 and we start play at the neutral site like normal.

The first three rounds would cost a lot more to stage than the revenue they would bring in. Maybe the Home Shopping Network would be interested in broadcasting them.

The slogan "March Madness" would take on a whole new meaning, because most fans would be crazy to watch any of it. At least the Round of 64 would start after the Masters so CBS wouldn't have a conflict.

96 teams:

32 Regular Season champions
32 Postseason Tournament champions (runner up if RS champs doubled up)
32 At-large

Further criteria:

Winning conference record
Finished in top half of conference

I wouldn't.

Drop back to 64, fewer at-larges.

Earlier start times for the later games.

My first preference is to keep it as is now.

But if the Tournament is going to expand to 80+, I'd rather just go to 128 with a symmetrical 8 regions of 16. Every 1st round game would be played on the top 64 teams' home court. Then the 2nd/3rd Rounds at neutral sites, same for S16/E8.

I just love the idea of actual college arenas, especially ones you'd never expect, getting to host an NCAA Tournament game.

Also, I would change the seeding/selection process to an objective BCS computer or Pairwise Ranking system. The committee would only be used to place teams in regional venues and avoid in-conference matchups.

Best sporting event on Earth. Period.

But since you asked :)

96 teams with 32-first round byes (seeded bracket like now)

First Round: Tue/Wed at better-seeded team

Second Round: Thur/Fri hosted by 32 teams with first-round byes

Third Round: Sat/Sun: hosted by 32 teams with first-round byes (yes, some of these teams would be knocked out and inevitably there would be a few third-round games at neutral sites)

Sweet 16 (pre-determined sites with committee giving preference to best-seeded teams): Thur/Fri

Elite 8: Winning teams at same venue (identical to now): Sat/Sun

Final Four and NCG: (identical to now): Sat/Mon

I've said this many times before - if there's one sporting event that I would NOT change at all whatsoever, it would be the NCAA Tournament. You can list out every single other sporting event on the planet and I'll find more problems with every single one of them compared to the NCAA Tournament. Therefore:

1st choice: zero change

2nd choice: expand by 4 teams to 72 games where the "First Four" becomes the "First Eight" with the same overall format (e.g. bottom 8 AQ teams and bottom 8 at-large teams play each other). Everything else stays exactly the same.

Anything more than the very small tinkering under the 2nd choice should be fired into the sun.

(02-02-2023 12:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've said this many times before - if there's one sporting event that I would NOT change at all whatsoever, it would be the NCAA Tournament. You can list out every single other sporting event on the planet and I'll find more problems with every single one of them compared to the NCAA Tournament. Therefore:

1st choice: zero change

2nd choice: expand by 4 teams to 72 games where the "First Four" becomes the "First Eight" with the same overall format (e.g. bottom 8 AQ teams and bottom 8 at-large teams play each other). Everything else stays exactly the same.

Anything more than the very small tinkering under the 2nd choice should be fired into the sun.

Beat me to it - that would be my suggestion as well.

(02-02-2023 11:22 AM)inutech Wrote:  Drop back to 64, fewer at-larges.

Earlier start times for the later games.

This. Hate those play-in games.

Keep it as is.

But IF I was required, by some insane hypothetical, to change the model: Eliminate league tourneys and open the NCAA Tournament to every DI program. Make it an insane free-for-all.

(02-02-2023 11:17 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  96 teams:

32 Regular Season champions
32 Postseason Tournament champions (runner up if RS champs doubled up)
32 At-large

Further criteria:

Winning conference record
Finished in top half of conference

This is my preference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drop 10 conferences.
Drop back to 52 teams.

This won't happen, but I would restructure the 68 team bracket to where the top 16 overall (1-4 seeds) gets a double bye to Saturday-Sunday, top 28 overall or top 10 conference champs and top 18 at-larges (1-7 seeds) get at least a single bye to at least Thursday-Friday. The bottom 40 teams (8-17 seeds) play Tuesday-Wednesday. It's basically taking the 1st weekend and spreading it out further for fans to watch throughout the week and reducing team travel while giving the top teams fewer games to play to for the championship as a reward for their regular season success.

If we went to 72 teams, it could be the top 8 conference champs and top 16 at-large or top 24 overall (Seeds 1-6) earning at least a single bye and top 16 overall get the double bye (Seeds 1-4) while the bottom 48 teams (Seeds 7-18) start on Tuesday-Wednesday. Maybe allow the bottom 16 conference champs to play each other with 8 15-seeds and 8 16-seeds (as opposed to using 15, 16, 17, 18 seeds) with the 8 winners playing the 5 and 6 seeds.

Obviously what Frank mentioned will be the most likely changes to March Madness.

Dazzle: if we got rid of conference tournaments, I’d just go back to 64 teams: 32 RS champs, 32 at-large. Champs higher seeds.

(02-02-2023 11:22 AM)inutech Wrote:  Drop back to 64, fewer at-larges.

Earlier start times for the later games.

(02-02-2023 02:02 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 11:22 AM)inutech Wrote:  Drop back to 64, fewer at-larges.

Earlier start times for the later games.

I was at Indianapolis last year, and the final game (San Francisco-Murray St) ended at 12:45am inside the arena, per the timestamp on my phone.

I honestly don't have a very strong opinion about it, other than 1) 96 is probably too big and 2) the idea that expanding the tournament devalues the regular season in a meaningful way is pretty silly.

64 was fine. 68 is fine. 72 would probably be fine. 76 might be fine too.

(02-02-2023 02:24 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 02:02 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 11:22 AM)inutech Wrote:  Drop back to 64, fewer at-larges.

Earlier start times for the later games.

I was at Indianapolis last year, and the final game (San Francisco-Murray St) ended at 12:45am inside the arena, per the timestamp on my phone.

I'm sure it was fine for the Dons fans. But young Racer fans had school the next day.