I am going to propose a few changes to the NCAA Tournament selection process which I have not heard anywhere else. Some might consider them radical, reinforcing their belief that I am some kind of whacko. But I'll take that risk.

My first suggestion is to increase the field from 68 to 72. That's not too radical. My second suggestion is to essentially split the tournament into two parallel brackets which come together at the Final Four. One of these consists entirely of P5 schools, and the other includes only schools from what I will call the G27 conferences.

The P5 half will have 32 teams (this year they had 31). The G27 side will have 40 teams, 24 of which would get a first round bye. Each half will have its own selection committee. All of the G27 committee members will come from G27 schools.

In rounds 2-5, each group will play down to two teams, who will move on to the Final Four. Each tournament site will host an equal number of P5 games and G27 games to help with attendance.

To make this more palatable to the P5, the NCAA would increase the value of each "unit" from $250K to $300K, reducing the amount the NCAA keeps for itself.

This last change keeps the $ amount of the annual P5 payout roughly the same as it is now (about $110 million), but increases the G27 payout by about $50 million (about a 55% increase). This is due largely to the fact that by all being in the same half of the bracket, G27 teams will win about 15 more tournament games every year than they do now.

For those who assume the G27 teams in the Final Four won't be worthy, this year the four highest seeded G27 teams were Villanova and Xavier (#1 seeds), Cincinnati (#2) and Gonzaga (#4). That would be at least as good as the four remaining P5 teams (at least one of which will be seeded #9 or worse).

In this new format, the highest seeded P5 teams will be facing #8 seeds in their first game, probably Top 50 teams, instead of some school with an RPI south of 250. That should make some of those Thursday/Friday games more exciting.

I agree I would rather see 72 than 68, although I could live with going back to 64.

As a P5 alumnus, I wouldn’t want to see a segregated P5 bracket. Kentucky already binges on cupcakes at home during the regular season, so I don’t want to lose games against schools like North Carolina or UCLA. It also isn’t fair to schools from the other 27 conferences, as all of the “at large” spots on their side of the bracket would likely be from the Big East. It also increases the chances of a rematch from the regular season.

I would like to see some objective measure like Pairwise or RPI used to reward performance on the court so that programs have some idea of what to expect, rather than be at the mercy of the selection committee’s whims. It might be that the statistical measure chooses which teams make the field, and then the committee sorts out the seeding and bracketing.

I would also like to see more attention paid to geography when placing teams. Games between teams on the East Coast should not be taking place in San Diego or Boise. This week we had Nevada and Loyola-Chicago playing a game that tipped off at 7 PM Eastern (4 PM local time in Nevada and 6 PM in Chicago). Maybe it’s time to quit pretending that the West has enough qualified teams, and cut down on the number of sites on the West Coast.

There are a lot of things on this thread that I like, and agree with some of the concepts. I agree with the idea of expanding the tournament to 72, 76, or even 80. I disagree with the idea of brackets for P5, G-others. With six spots each in the 40 going to the American and the Big East, and the other extra spot going to the Missouri Valley every year, the other leagues like the MAC or the SLC still don't get at-large berths. Plus, those first round upsets like Northwestern State over Iowa, Coppin State over South Carolina, and UMBC over Virginia are what make the tournament fun. We didn't need the segregated brackets this year with two P5s and two G-others in the Final Four.

I also agree that geography needs to be taken into consideration. I don't mind the way the women's tournament staged the first couple rounds until recently. Keep the top 16 seeds fairly close to where they should be geographically, and let them host the first two rounds (three rounds in an expanded tournament).

I don't want to even get started on the disparity growing between East and West schools. With those late starts out West for the TV audiences limiting exposure, the cream of the crop isn't going out there to play ball as much any more.

(03-23-2018 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  In this new format, the highest seeded P5 teams will be facing #8 seeds in their first game, probably Top 50 teams, instead of some school with an RPI south of 250. That should make some of those Thursday/Friday games more exciting.

Why on earth would the P5 schools want to (a) reserve two of the four Final 4 slots for "G27" schools, and (b) force themselves to have to fight their way through a half of the draw that will typically be far tougher competitively than the "G" schools face?

And for zero more money while the "G" gets $50 million more?

You might as well propose that I invite you out for a 50-day dry aged steak dinner with me footing the bill, and then tell you my wife says she wants to have sex with you for dessert?

Crazy.

(03-25-2018 10:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  In this new format, the highest seeded P5 teams will be facing #8 seeds in their first game, probably Top 50 teams, instead of some school with an RPI south of 250. That should make some of those Thursday/Friday games more exciting.

Why on earth would the P5 schools want to (a) reserve two of the four Final 4 slots for "G27" schools, and (b) force themselves to have to fight their way through a half of the draw that will typically be far tougher competitively than the "G" schools face?

And for zero more money while the "G" gets $50 million more?

You might as well propose that I invite you out for a 50-day dry aged steak dinner with me footing the bill, and then tell you my wife says she wants to have sex with you for dessert?

Crazy.

You are right. There is no incentive for the P5 to do this. The question for me is whether there is enough incentive for the G27 that they would be willing to risk having the P5s leave the NCAA if they were to force something like this through.

In effect, what I was setting up was competing championship tournaments. If there were separate tournaments, and each tournament had teams that fans would consider worthy to be called the "best", then IMO the American psyche would not tolerate having two champions. We would demand the basketball equivalent of a "Super Bowl" so that only one team is left standing at the end.

Would that likelihood be enough to make the G27 tournament of sufficient national interest that it could command a media contract that isn't dwarfed by the P5's contract? Or at least one that comes close to matching the per school payouts the G27 schools currently get?

I have argued in the past that it could not. And I have been loudly shouted down by some G27 fans who call for a split from the P5s.

Would a split be financial suicide for G27 athletics?

(03-26-2018 08:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-25-2018 10:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  In this new format, the highest seeded P5 teams will be facing #8 seeds in their first game, probably Top 50 teams, instead of some school with an RPI south of 250. That should make some of those Thursday/Friday games more exciting.

Why on earth would the P5 schools want to (a) reserve two of the four Final 4 slots for "G27" schools, and (b) force themselves to have to fight their way through a half of the draw that will typically be far tougher competitively than the "G" schools face?

And for zero more money while the "G" gets $50 million more?

You might as well propose that I invite you out for a 50-day dry aged steak dinner with me footing the bill, and then tell you my wife says she wants to have sex with you for dessert?

Crazy.

You are right. There is no incentive for the P5 to do this. The question for me is whether there is enough incentive for the G27 that they would be willing to risk having the P5s leave the NCAA if they were to force something like this through.

In effect, what I was setting up was competing championship tournaments. If there were separate tournaments, and each tournament had teams that fans would consider worthy to be called the "best", then IMO the American psyche would not tolerate having two champions. We would demand the basketball equivalent of a "Super Bowl" so that only one team is left standing at the end.

Would that likelihood be enough to make the G27 tournament of sufficient national interest that it could command a media contract that isn't dwarfed by the P5's contract? Or at least one that comes close to matching the per school payouts the G27 schools currently get?

I have argued in the past that it could not. And I have been loudly shouted down by some G27 fans who call for a split from the P5s.

Would a split be financial suicide for G27 athletics?

I think Attackcoog and a few other G5 fans are correct: The G5 has extremely limited financial appeal to TV, etc., and in hoops not just football. That's why they are desperate to remain competitively linked to the P5.

E.g., even all the media hype around a Loyola of Chicago right now is dependent on the fact that they are competing against Power schools (which includes the Big East). What makes them compelling is that they have beaten Kansas State, Miami, and Tennessee.

If they have beaten fellow G5 schools* there would be no interest in them.

Basically, the overwhelming media interest in March Madness derives from (a) interest in competition among the Power schools, e.g., Duke vs Kansas, and (b) curiousity about whether a tiny underdog non-power like Loyola or George Mason can knock off power Goliaths.

People are interested in watching two Goliaths fight, or a David vs a Goliath. But there has to be a Goliath in there. There's no interest in watching two Davids, which is what 98% of a "G" only event would be.


* With a few high-profile G exceptions, like UConn.

I'm pretty sure the Big East and American would refuse yo be considered a mere G27, which would include the MWC and A10 to feel the same, etc.

1. No school that finished the regular season not in the top half of their conference should be considered for an at-large bid to play for the National Championship.

(03-27-2018 05:54 PM)jhn31 Wrote:  I'm pretty sure the Big East and American would refuse yo be considered a mere G27, which would include the MWC and A10 to feel the same, etc.

I don't think there's any doubt that if there was a fundamental hoops split the Big East would be included with the P5, not the G5.

(03-27-2018 06:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:54 PM)jhn31 Wrote:  I'm pretty sure the Big East and American would refuse yo be considered a mere G27, which would include the MWC and A10 to feel the same, etc.

I don't think there's any doubt that if there was a fundamental hoops split the Big East would be included with the P5, not the G5.

The NCAA already requires that all DI members play men's basketball as a condition of membership. What if the P5 were to start a new association that requires playing football as a condition of membership? It would make their basketball tournament less than optimal, but still far more lucrative than their current share of the NCAAT revenue.

In other words, the Big East (and A10) may not have a choice, and the AAC and MWC might not meet other membership thresholds the P5 would want to set. Those conferences all need the P5, but the P5 doesn't need them.

(03-27-2018 06:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 06:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:54 PM)jhn31 Wrote:  I'm pretty sure the Big East and American would refuse yo be considered a mere G27, which would include the MWC and A10 to feel the same, etc.

I don't think there's any doubt that if there was a fundamental hoops split the Big East would be included with the P5, not the G5.

The NCAA already requires that all DI members play men's basketball as a condition of membership. What if the P5 were to start a new association that requires playing football as a condition of membership? It would make their basketball tournament less than optimal, but still far more lucrative than their current share of the NCAAT revenue.

Well yes, if the P5 did that, the Big East would be out.

P5 could split and cherry pick the rest for the remaining best football and basketball schools to form a super division that splits from the NCAA. They do not all the financial weak schools to earn big buck TV revenue. The question is how many to add will the independents be added for football.