This is a personal opinion. Every conference should have at least two teams and the NCAA basketball tournament as long as the conference has at least two teams that are above 20 wins. The net rating that they use whatever rating that they used to generate who will get into the tournament and a bit unfair to the lower conferences even though there's more conferences may or may not have a good shot at getting to the actual final.

The power conferences get plenty of money and teams into the conference. Perhaps allowing the smaller conferences at least two teams that are about 20 wins each and to the conference will actually help those teams and conferences to get better in basketball.

Teams with 20 plus wins should be rewarded with post play, and not be relegated to a lesser tournament.

Even in football the plate all should have at least one team per conference.

Just my two cents.

That could work, but there would need to be a significant culling first. I dunno, perhaps a ~ 70 team breakaway with the entire P4 leaving the NCAA and starting our own version of the NCAAT and a new CFP? In the current model, with 30 Conferences eligible for NCAAT games and 10 (9) for the CFP, your solution is unworkable.

(02-28-2024 02:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  That could work, but there would need to be a significant culling first. I dunno, perhaps a ~ 70 team breakaway with the entire P4 leaving the NCAA and starting our own version of the NCAAT and a new CFP? In the current model, with 30 Conferences eligible for NCAAT games and 10 (9) for the CFP, your solution is unworkable.

Yours sounds boring and would lose half it's audience.

If a conference doesn't have two teams above a certain win column, then that conference doesn't get two bids. I realize that could also create another layer of corruption lol.

The problem with the power conference is not their success, but their unwillingness to be good NCAA partners in sharing equally among their brethren. Not talking about money, but equal access to all in the orgnanization.

An 18 win team in a power conference does not deserve to get in over a 20+ win team in a different conference, regardless of net rating.

Greed is really killing college sports.

If every conference gets 2 autobids, there is going to need to be a minimum connference size of 16 teams (or maybe more) in order to get the bids. Otherwise 8 team crap conferences are going to get some really bad teams in and the power conferences are going to have even some ranked teams squeezed out.

This would force a ton of conference expansion and mergers which would be great for this message board.

If you said every Power (not major) conference should have 2 bids, I'd agree. Expand the tournament to 72 with 36 autobids and 36 at-large teams with the bottom 8 champs and bottom 8 at-large teams in the Early Eight.

Now something I posted on here a few years ago might be a good compromise to your idea. Assuming neither team is a bubble team in the mid-majors, RS champ plays the conference tourney champ, winner goes to the Big Dance, loser to the NIT (the NIT portion is outdated so how about CIT, if they don't get an NIT bid). If you've won at least a share of the regular season and your conference tourney, you've secured your bid.

with NIT taking reg season champs who lost conf tourn, 20-25 conf got 2 schools in

after NCAA & NIT, there still 25-35 schools with 20 wins sitting at home
Athlon invitational can handle 48 schools

Some interesting ideas there. Some that I like are listed below.

Any conference with at least 8 teams gets 1 autobid. Conference can apply for a 1year waiver if they dip below 8, but not below 6 teams, for 1 year

Any conference with at least 16 teams gets 2 autobids. Conference will determine how the 2 teams are selected.

Any conference with 2 autobids, the conference champion (designated by the conference) does not have to play in a play-in round.

For every conference that gets 2 autobids, the number of play-in games in the tourney goes up by the same amount.

The richer conferences are already subsidizing everyone else, particularly the bottom third or so. And you want more at-large bids? Yeah, there'll be 2 from every conference...after a breakaway/new subdivision.

Not sure I agree with this. But I will state again that I believe that no team that does not finish in the top half of their league should get an at-large bid. They've proven over the season that they are not worthy.

Tournament field size would have to double for this to have any chance of happening. Not realistic at this point.

And, of course it's not just about subsidation but that the best teams reside in the ten or so best conferences, so it's totally unfair to take away from them for schools that by and large can't compete unless you greatly expand the Tournament. If the Tournament expanded, I'd have less of a problem with rewarding both the regular season and conference tournament champion if applicable (meaning if they aren't one in the same).

(02-28-2024 03:52 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  Not sure I agree with this. But I will state again that I believe that no team that does not finish in the top half of their league should get an at-large bid. They've proven over the season that they are not worthy.

Totally unfair. Look at the Big 12. Even UCF at almost the bottom of the standings has wins over ranked teams, including Kansas. Some neighborhoods are much tougher than others.

(02-28-2024 03:58 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 03:52 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  Not sure I agree with this. But I will state again that I believe that no team that does not finish in the top half of their league should get an at-large bid. They've proven over the season that they are not worthy.

Totally unfair. Look at the Big 12. Even UCF at almost the bottom of the standings has wins over ranked teams, including Kansas. Some neighborhoods are much tougher than others.

I don't find that argument compelling at all.

No offense C2_ but every conference is an equal partner in the NCAA organization in terms of being called a conference. It isn't their fault their teams are not as strong as the more popular conferences, etc. A .500 team or just above a .500 team in a "power" conference does not deserve to be in the tournament over a team with 20+ wins. How is that fair to them team with that many wins in a "lesser" league?

Subsidize? if the "power" conferences didn't get so many teams in and allowed for more teams below, there would not be any subsidation.

Under the current system and with the concentration of programs into bigger conferences, the tournament needs to be expanded to at least 80 teams.

lol it really is loony bin season here. Thanks for the hearty laugh today.

Nah, there are some conferences that should not even have a single team in the tournament.

I think regular season champs should also get an autobid if they don't win their conf tourney.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

maybe JMU could have scheduled better than 328th best OOC to show they were deserving. With 8 Q4 OOC games. You schedule like that in a bad conference, you don't deserve ****, no matter what your record is against that garbage.