I have a suggestion for expanding the field to 72 teams that eliminates the Selection Committee. I posted this on another thread, but after applying this methodology to 2024 I thought it deserved a separate thread.

After this year, there will be 31 D-I conferences. I would give 5 AQ to each of the power conferences (ACC, B12, B1G, BE, SEC), 2 AQ to each of the 5 mid-majors (AAC, A10, MVC, MWC, WCC), and 1 each to the 21 perennial one-bid leagues.

That's a total of 56 AQ. Have 16 at-large teams play in to reduce the field to the round of 64.

All teams are seeded in their conference tournaments. Using these seeds (which are based on regular season conference W-L records), the 56 AQ teams are determined as follows. Every CCT champion gets an AQ. That's 31 teams. In each of the mid-majors, the highest seeded non-tournament winner also gets an AQ (5). In each of the power conferences, the four highest seeded non-winners are AQ (20).

The 16 play-in teams are those with the highest ranking, using an average of at least three widely recognized services. Personally, I used the NET, KenPom and Massey Composite rankings compiled based on games completed by the day before Selection Sunday. This gives an opportunity for all regular season champions to earn their way in, even those from one bid leagues. In practice, it would be likely that most of these would come from the top ten conferences, which gives the TV networks more attractive games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Play-in winners are seeded #10-11 in the Round of 64. The rest of the field is seeded by their composite ranking using the same services described above. The seeding committee may move a team up or down by one seed to balance the brackets and/or help keep as many teams as possible closer to home for their first round game. What they can't do is use some sort of eye test to subjectively pick one team over another for inclusion in the field of 72 teams.

how about just KISS..

And no, sorry but no chance the worst conferences get a pass to the round of 64. Play in games for them are going to EXPAND not get fewer. Don't like it go to D2.

(03-19-2024 02:10 PM)andy98 Wrote:  What if the regular season conference champions got an automatic bye all the way to their conference championship game? So the final game would basically be the regular season champion versus the conference tournament champion for the right to go to the NCAA tournament.

It feels in all those ladder tournaments that the upsets a lot of times happen the 1st game of the tournament for that team- no matter the round.

Well if they expand it past 68 teams then they ought to do away with the NIT and CBI tournaments.

I think we will see 80 teams in the tournament. 32 teams in 16 play in games. The winners of those games will be slotted into the 13,14, 15, and 16 games.

32 Auto Qualifiers
48 At Large selections up from 36.

I would say 24/25 of the AQ’s will be in the play in rounds.

Using the above methodology (tweaked a little because the PAC still exists for this season), this is what the new 72 team field would have looked like.

In addition to the 32 conference champions, there would be 24 other Automatic Qualifiers, based on their standing in conference regular season play. Their NCAAT seed is shown in parentheses.

Rank...Team (2024 seed)

..1....Houston (1)
..3....Purdue (1)
..6....Arizona (2)
..7....Tennessee (2)
..8....North Carolina (2)
..9....Duke (3)
..11..Marquette (3)
..12..Creighton (3)
..14..Baylor (4)
..15..BYU(4)
..16..Gonzaga (4)
..18..Kentucky (5)
..25..Texas Tech (5)
..26..Colorado (6)
..29..Nebraska (6)
..37..Indiana State (6)
..41..Washington State (6)
..43..Utah State (7)
..49..Northwestern (7)
..57..Virginia (8)
..59..Seton Hall (9)
..62..USF (9)
..75..Richmond (9)

**************************************************************

The pairings for the Play-in Round:

#17 Wisconsin vs #39 Cincinnati
#20 Kansas vs #38 FAU
#23 Michigan State vs #36 Colorado State
#21 San Diego St vs #34 TCU
#24 Florida vs #35 Boise State
#27 Texas vs #33 Clemson
#28 Dayton vs #32 Nevada
#30 St John's vs #31 Mississippi State

These would get pretty good ratings on Tuesday and Wednesday night. One team in the Pacific Time Zone, three in the MTZ, five in the CTZ and seven in the ETZ.

There are 7 AQ teams ranked lower than the lowest ranked play-in team but seeded higher. This a feature of the system, not a bug. It is meant to reward teams for finishing high in their conference standings in the regular season. Do that, and you don't have to sweat out a bubble watch. That also means that more late season conference games matter, even if the teams are out of the race for the #1 seed or a first round bye) in their CCT.

The only two teams that were actually selected in the current 68 team field but did not qualify under this system were South Carolina (#45 rank, 6 seed by committee) and Texas A&M (#46, 9 seed).

The First Four Out:
40 Wake Forest
42 Pitt
44 Villanova
45 South Carolina

Next Four Out:
46 Texas A&M
47 Oklahoma
50 Ohio State
51 Utah

(03-19-2024 02:20 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  I think we will see 80 teams in the tournament. 32 teams in 16 play in games. The winners of those games will be slotted into the 13,14, 15, and 16 games.

32 Auto Qualifiers
48 At Large selections up from 36.

I would say 24/25 of the AQ’s will be in the play in rounds.

I don't know if it's 24/25 of the AQ's, but it's definitely going to be more than what we have now.

If it's 80-
31 AQ now

1st 32
last 16 at larges
bottom 16 AQ

16 winners
top 15 AQ champions
other 33 at larges

This year, the 1st AQ having to go to Dayton would have been.... Samford. I would do those first 32 games best champ vs worst champ, etc.

(03-19-2024 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  I have a suggestion for expanding the field to 72 teams that eliminates the Selection Committee. I posted this on another thread, but after applying this methodology to 2024 I thought it deserved a separate thread.

After this year, there will be 31 D-I conferences. I would give 5 AQ to each of the power conferences (ACC, B12, B1G, BE, SEC), 2 AQ to each of the 5 mid-majors (AAC, A10, MVC, MWC, WCC), and 1 each to the 21 perennial one-bid leagues.

That's a total of 56 AQ. Have 16 at-large teams play in to reduce the field to the round of 64.

All teams are seeded in their conference tournaments. Using these seeds (which are based on regular season conference W-L records), the 56 AQ teams are determined as follows. Every CCT champion gets an AQ. That's 31 teams. In each of the mid-majors, the highest seeded non-tournament winner also gets an AQ (5). In each of the power conferences, the four highest seeded non-winners are AQ (20).

The 16 play-in teams are those with the highest ranking, using an average of at least three widely recognized services. Personally, I used the NET, KenPom and Massey Composite rankings compiled based on games completed by the day before Selection Sunday. This gives an opportunity for all regular season champions to earn their way in, even those from one bid leagues. In practice, it would be likely that most of these would come from the top ten conferences, which gives the TV networks more attractive games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Play-in winners are seeded #10-11 in the Round of 64. The rest of the field is seeded by their composite ranking using the same services described above. The seeding committee may move a team up or down by one seed to balance the brackets and/or help keep as many teams as possible closer to home for their first round game. What they can't do is use some sort of eye test to subjectively pick one team over another for inclusion in the field of 72 teams.

I like the guaranteed multiple AQs for certain conferences, while maintaining a smaller at-large grouping. That would help the regular season because the strongest conferences could innovate. The A10 could guarantee AQs to both their regular season and tournament champions. The B10 could guarantee multiple top regular season finishes. The ACC could start a meaningful mid-season tournament in NYC, Las Vegas, and Orlando…scheduled well in advance to provide nice vacations spots for boosters.

After this year’s controversy with bid-thieves, it’s possible that the Tournament is expanded to 76 teams.

(03-19-2024 02:47 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  I have a suggestion for expanding the field to 72 teams that eliminates the Selection Committee. I posted this on another thread, but after applying this methodology to 2024 I thought it deserved a separate thread.

After this year, there will be 31 D-I conferences. I would give 5 AQ to each of the power conferences (ACC, B12, B1G, BE, SEC), 2 AQ to each of the 5 mid-majors (AAC, A10, MVC, MWC, WCC), and 1 each to the 21 perennial one-bid leagues.

That's a total of 56 AQ. Have 16 at-large teams play in to reduce the field to the round of 64.

All teams are seeded in their conference tournaments. Using these seeds (which are based on regular season conference W-L records), the 56 AQ teams are determined as follows. Every CCT champion gets an AQ. That's 31 teams. In each of the mid-majors, the highest seeded non-tournament winner also gets an AQ (5). In each of the power conferences, the four highest seeded non-winners are AQ (20).

The 16 play-in teams are those with the highest ranking, using an average of at least three widely recognized services. Personally, I used the NET, KenPom and Massey Composite rankings compiled based on games completed by the day before Selection Sunday. This gives an opportunity for all regular season champions to earn their way in, even those from one bid leagues. In practice, it would be likely that most of these would come from the top ten conferences, which gives the TV networks more attractive games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Play-in winners are seeded #10-11 in the Round of 64. The rest of the field is seeded by their composite ranking using the same services described above. The seeding committee may move a team up or down by one seed to balance the brackets and/or help keep as many teams as possible closer to home for their first round game. What they can't do is use some sort of eye test to subjectively pick one team over another for inclusion in the field of 72 teams.

I like the guaranteed multiple AQs for certain conferences, while maintaining a smaller at-large grouping. That would help the regular season because the strongest conferences could innovate. The A10 could guarantee AQs to both their regular season and tournament champions. The B10 could guarantee multiple top regular season finishes. The ACC could start a meaningful mid-season tournament in NYC, Las Vegas, and Orlando…scheduled well in advance to provide nice vacations spots for boosters.

After this year’s controversy with bid-thieves, it’s possible that the Tournament is expanded to 76 teams.

I agree that we're expanding- and yes, largely due to this year. I just think it's going to be totally at large spots that are added. I mean we saw even in football that they've backed off the multiple AQ for conferences.

(03-19-2024 02:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 02:47 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  I have a suggestion for expanding the field to 72 teams that eliminates the Selection Committee. I posted this on another thread, but after applying this methodology to 2024 I thought it deserved a separate thread.

After this year, there will be 31 D-I conferences. I would give 5 AQ to each of the power conferences (ACC, B12, B1G, BE, SEC), 2 AQ to each of the 5 mid-majors (AAC, A10, MVC, MWC, WCC), and 1 each to the 21 perennial one-bid leagues.

That's a total of 56 AQ. Have 16 at-large teams play in to reduce the field to the round of 64.

All teams are seeded in their conference tournaments. Using these seeds (which are based on regular season conference W-L records), the 56 AQ teams are determined as follows. Every CCT champion gets an AQ. That's 31 teams. In each of the mid-majors, the highest seeded non-tournament winner also gets an AQ (5). In each of the power conferences, the four highest seeded non-winners are AQ (20).

The 16 play-in teams are those with the highest ranking, using an average of at least three widely recognized services. Personally, I used the NET, KenPom and Massey Composite rankings compiled based on games completed by the day before Selection Sunday. This gives an opportunity for all regular season champions to earn their way in, even those from one bid leagues. In practice, it would be likely that most of these would come from the top ten conferences, which gives the TV networks more attractive games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Play-in winners are seeded #10-11 in the Round of 64. The rest of the field is seeded by their composite ranking using the same services described above. The seeding committee may move a team up or down by one seed to balance the brackets and/or help keep as many teams as possible closer to home for their first round game. What they can't do is use some sort of eye test to subjectively pick one team over another for inclusion in the field of 72 teams.

I like the guaranteed multiple AQs for certain conferences, while maintaining a smaller at-large grouping. That would help the regular season because the strongest conferences could innovate. The A10 could guarantee AQs to both their regular season and tournament champions. The B10 could guarantee multiple top regular season finishes. The ACC could start a meaningful mid-season tournament in NYC, Las Vegas, and Orlando…scheduled well in advance to provide nice vacations spots for boosters.

After this year’s controversy with bid-thieves, it’s possible that the Tournament is expanded to 76 teams.

I agree that we're expanding- and yes, largely due to this year. I just think it's going to be totally at large spots that are added. I mean we saw even in football that they've backed off the multiple AQ for conferences.

So long as the number of AQs are based on performance that is regularly updated, I don’t believe that it’s too controversial. Multiple football AQs may still pass, and football has a much smaller playoffs. For example, the AQs should be capped and can never exceed the average number of conference teams in the top 50 of NET or RPI during the previous three/five seasons.

AQs would be a great tool for spicing the regular season. Maybe the power conferences be willing to risk an AQ bid in the ACC v SEC Challenge. Try to make the regular season more entertaining for fans.

As an advocate for the mid-majors getting better access, I like the OP proposal. Unfortunately, the major conferences aren’t going to reserve 10 bids for those 5 leagues.

Maybe just add 4 spots to counter any bid thievery.

MWC is a power league conference now, and nobody can deny that. Both the PAC 12 and the Big 12 lost a lot of good teams from expansions. Big East lost a lot of their as well. Notre Dame, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Miami, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Cincinnati, etc gone.

I do think BY may have to look because he may not get some of the teams from the ACC, but he may look at the west coast schools like the MWC. That conference is getting stronger and stronger in hoops better than the PAC 12 now.

(03-19-2024 04:46 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  MWC is a power league conference now, and nobody can deny that. Both the PAC 12 and the Big 12 lost a lot of good teams from expansions. Big East lost a lot of their as well. Notre Dame, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Miami, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Cincinnati, etc gone.

I do think BY may have to look because he may not get some of the teams from the ACC, but he may look at the west coast schools like the MWC. That conference is getting stronger and stronger in hoops better than the PAC 12 now.

I can absolutely deny that. It's not hard at all.

(03-19-2024 03:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 02:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 02:47 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  I have a suggestion for expanding the field to 72 teams that eliminates the Selection Committee. I posted this on another thread, but after applying this methodology to 2024 I thought it deserved a separate thread.

After this year, there will be 31 D-I conferences. I would give 5 AQ to each of the power conferences (ACC, B12, B1G, BE, SEC), 2 AQ to each of the 5 mid-majors (AAC, A10, MVC, MWC, WCC), and 1 each to the 21 perennial one-bid leagues.

That's a total of 56 AQ. Have 16 at-large teams play in to reduce the field to the round of 64.

All teams are seeded in their conference tournaments. Using these seeds (which are based on regular season conference W-L records), the 56 AQ teams are determined as follows. Every CCT champion gets an AQ. That's 31 teams. In each of the mid-majors, the highest seeded non-tournament winner also gets an AQ (5). In each of the power conferences, the four highest seeded non-winners are AQ (20).

The 16 play-in teams are those with the highest ranking, using an average of at least three widely recognized services. Personally, I used the NET, KenPom and Massey Composite rankings compiled based on games completed by the day before Selection Sunday. This gives an opportunity for all regular season champions to earn their way in, even those from one bid leagues. In practice, it would be likely that most of these would come from the top ten conferences, which gives the TV networks more attractive games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Play-in winners are seeded #10-11 in the Round of 64. The rest of the field is seeded by their composite ranking using the same services described above. The seeding committee may move a team up or down by one seed to balance the brackets and/or help keep as many teams as possible closer to home for their first round game. What they can't do is use some sort of eye test to subjectively pick one team over another for inclusion in the field of 72 teams.

I like the guaranteed multiple AQs for certain conferences, while maintaining a smaller at-large grouping. That would help the regular season because the strongest conferences could innovate. The A10 could guarantee AQs to both their regular season and tournament champions. The B10 could guarantee multiple top regular season finishes. The ACC could start a meaningful mid-season tournament in NYC, Las Vegas, and Orlando…scheduled well in advance to provide nice vacations spots for boosters.

After this year’s controversy with bid-thieves, it’s possible that the Tournament is expanded to 76 teams.

I agree that we're expanding- and yes, largely due to this year. I just think it's going to be totally at large spots that are added. I mean we saw even in football that they've backed off the multiple AQ for conferences.

So long as the number of AQs are based on performance that is regularly updated, I don’t believe that it’s too controversial. Multiple football AQs may still pass, and football has a much smaller playoffs. For example, the AQs should be capped and can never exceed the average number of conference teams in the top 50 of NET or RPI during the previous three/five seasons.

AQs would be a great tool for spicing the regular season. Maybe the power conferences be willing to risk an AQ bid in the ACC v SEC Challenge. Try to make the regular season more entertaining for fans.

That was not a small part of my reasoning. I do believe that there should be some recency bias in the selection process. Teams do improve over the course of a season, and I think that should be rewarded. Teams with hopes of playing in the NCAAT should be encouraged to take chances by scheduling other good teams OOC early in the season, knowing that they can overcome some early losses by improving and winning in their conference regular season.

Today, some schools with early season losses have dug themselves a hole too deep to climb out of with anything but winning their CCT. My proposal gives many a way to earn a guaranteed bid without having to rely on the whims of a Selection Committee. Finish near the top of your conference in the regular season and not only can you get an autobid, you can also earn a more favorable seed in the NCAAT than teams with a better NET but mediocre regular conference season.

In short, I was trying to make the regular season more important and compelling further into the conference schedules.

How about no to expansion.

You can't make tournament expansion plans that factor in "31 conferences" because the Pac-12 has a two-year waiver. They're NOT going away (yet?).

If they raid the MWC and American and Gonzaga and come back for the 2027 NCAA Tournament, you'll be back at 32 conferences.

The D2 schools keep coming up when there's slots at the bottom, you're not really killing off a league. You also have to be thoughtful to the idea that someone decides "This conference is just too big, we should split in half" down the like (like the MAAC or CAA).

If the NCAAT can have first round games at noon on week days, could the CFP have a first round game on Tuesday or Wednesday night?

For any NCAAT expansion, questions of getting more games on TV might be worth having. Can Tuesday-Wednesday be tapped during the middle rounds?

(03-20-2024 11:03 AM)JSchmack Wrote:  You can't make tournament expansion plans that factor in "31 conferences" because the Pac-12 has a two-year waiver. They're NOT going away (yet?).

If they raid the MWC and American and Gonzaga and come back for the 2027 NCAA Tournament, you'll be back at 32 conferences.

The D2 schools keep coming up when there's slots at the bottom, you're not really killing off a league. You also have to be thoughtful to the idea that someone decides "This conference is just too big, we should split in half" down the like (like the MAAC or CAA).

If the 2PAC manages to pull that off (and I personally doubt they can), you would still be left with 5 power conferences. But you would have also reduced the number of mid-majors, because that would turn the MWC, AAC and WCC into one-bid conferences instead of mid-majors.

That certainly changes the math, but the concept doesn't change. The main thrust of the proposal was to take the selection process out of the hands of a committee and select many of the inevitably large number of power conference teams based on their conference W-L records instead of some flawed metric or "eye-tests".

At some point, increasing the number of D-I conferences either by splitting existing conferences or promoting more D-II schools would only accelerate blowing up the whole thing and driving the power conferences to stage their own tournament. Even if that results in a tournament less ideal than the current one is perceived to be, it would still be better than diluting D-I even further. "Be careful what you wish for" is a wise adage.

Do 80:

Bottom 16 at larges participate in the play in round
Bottom 16 autobids participate in the play in round

I’d then shuffle the schedule as such:

Play in round: 16 games spread over Thurs/Fri
Round of 64: 32 games spread over Sat/Sun

Round of 32: 16 games spread over Wed/Thurs/Fri
Sweet 16: 8 games spread over Sat/Sun

Elite 8: 4 games spread over Thurs/Fri
Final 4: 2 games on Sat
Title Game: Monday