(03-03-2024 09:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 07:16 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  An obvious fix is to stop giving 16-seed play-in winners a 2nd unit.

I agree 72 is most likely, with outside chance of 80. Play the second First Eight site at Hinkle. If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

I agree with 72 teams. If it's 80 teams, I like the idea that Frank has brought up in the past that the top 24 champs + top 24 at-large teama earn a bye to the main round and the bottom 8 champs (16 seeds) and bottom 24 at-large teams (9-11 seeds) compete to enter the main 64 team round. I think he proposed it for competitive reasons, but it could probably be used for the P4 + BE earning more units/money.

Yeah - that’s how I’d set up 80 teams (or something close to it).

If it’s 72 teams, I think that it’s simply going to be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 8 at-large teams. Anyone thinking that the First Four play-in is just going to be all at-large teams or all bottom conference champs isn’t looking at this correctly. That play-in round needs to be balanced (and they sure as heck aren’t sending the weakest conference champs automatically back to main bracket again).

This is how I hope it happens if it goes to 72 so there will be some good games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

(03-03-2024 09:10 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 09:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 07:16 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  An obvious fix is to stop giving 16-seed play-in winners a 2nd unit.

I agree 72 is most likely, with outside chance of 80. Play the second First Eight site at Hinkle. If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

I agree with 72 teams. If it's 80 teams, I like the idea that Frank has brought up in the past that the top 24 champs + top 24 at-large teama earn a bye to the main round and the bottom 8 champs (16 seeds) and bottom 24 at-large teams (9-11 seeds) compete to enter the main 64 team round. I think he proposed it for competitive reasons, but it could probably be used for the P4 + BE earning more units/money.

Yeah - that’s how I’d set up 80 teams (or something close to it).

If it’s 72 teams, I think that it’s simply going to be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 8 at-large teams. Anyone thinking that the First Four play-in is just going to be all at-large teams or all bottom conference champs isn’t looking at this correctly. That play-in round needs to be balanced (and they sure as heck aren’t sending the weakest conference champs automatically back to main bracket again).

This is how I hope it happens if it goes to 72 so there will be some good games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

My guess is 2 games per. time slot staggered 30 minutes (6:30, 7, 9, 9:30) with 1 Champs and 1 At-Large.

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

Kansas City Municipal Auditorium. Modernized, half the size of T-Mobile Arena, and site of more tournament games than any older arena. Currently hosts the Big 12 women's tournament and the NAIA national tournament. Good size for another First Four site-decent size, but not too big.

(03-03-2024 07:22 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 07:16 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  An obvious fix is to stop giving 16-seed play-in winners a 2nd unit.

I agree 72 is most likely, with outside chance of 80. Play the second First Eight site at Hinkle. If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

I agree with 72 teams. If it's 80 teams, I like the idea that Frank has brought up in the past that the top 24 champs + top 24 at-large teama earn a bye to the main round and the bottom 8 champs (16 seeds) and bottom 24 at-large teams (9-11 seeds) compete to enter the main 64 team round. I think he proposed it for competitive reasons, but it could probably be used for the P4 + BE earning more units/money.

80 is too large. 72 is the last train stop before the tournament changes to something that is completely different.

80 is not too large, it's perfect imo. Pretty much if not every team deserving of a bid gets in that way. As we saw with a team like VCU in 2011, there are plenty of teams that aren't anywhere close to the field (or shouldn't be anyways) that are capable of doing damage.

(03-03-2024 06:53 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:49 PM)46566 Wrote:  Just shift the play in games around would be the easiest answer. Make play in games at large only. You then expand to 72. That adds what 4 more play in games? The at large teams are most likely going to be P4 or high end conferences. You simply shift the 1 bid leagues to the bottom portion of the brackets.

That's not going to happen. Your proposal would result in two less at-larges starting in the Round of 64. The P4 + Big East will block that.

MWC is as strong as the P5 in men's basketball. The problem is we don't need crappy P5 schools in the field that would be bounced out in the first round. We need some for schools that only have 1 bid to have 2 at least when you have 2 teams that are just as strong at winning. There is a question about a conference like the SWAC this year who should not have a bid for the tournament.

The MWC is not as top heavy as the P5, so you're wrong. It has solid depth but does not routinely produce Final Four level teams, though to be fair we may be having a different discussion if the 2020 Tournament wasn't cancelled.

(03-03-2024 11:30 PM)C2__ Wrote:  The MWC is not as top heavy as the P5, so you're wrong. It has solid depth but does not routinely produce Final Four level teams, though to be fair we may be having a different discussion if the 2020 Tournament wasn't cancelled.

San Diego State last year, final 4, and went into the championship game against UConn. The way the P5 have been playing this year? They seemed to lose a lot and not stay at number 1. The field is wide open for the win this year. Anybody could win and the MWC does have a strong chance to win it out this year.

I said and even underlined routinely and while we'll never know what would have happened in 2020, even if we say SDSU would have made the F4 that year, they'd still only have 2 appearances ever. Realistically, to be able to say they routinely make the Final Four and beyond they need at least 3 a decade or at least 1 every 5 or so seasons.

(03-03-2024 10:46 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  If it goes to 80, don’t give the 15-seed play-in winners a second unit and for the 4 sites play the games at Dayton, Hinkle, Palestra, & somewhere historic out west.

Kansas City Municipal Auditorium. Modernized, half the size of T-Mobile Arena, and site of more tournament games than any older arena. Currently hosts the Big 12 women's tournament and the NAIA national tournament. Good size for another First Four site-decent size, but not too big.

You won the internet today. Municipal Auditorium is the exact Hinkle/Palestra-esque historic venue west of the Mississippi that I couldn't think of.

(03-03-2024 06:53 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:49 PM)46566 Wrote:  Just shift the play in games around would be the easiest answer. Make play in games at large only. You then expand to 72. That adds what 4 more play in games? The at large teams are most likely going to be P4 or high end conferences. You simply shift the 1 bid leagues to the bottom portion of the brackets.

That's not going to happen. Your proposal would result in two less at-larges starting in the Round of 64. The P4 + Big East will block that.

They'll still be in the play in game that is still worth a tournament unit. It could be a more winnable game than the round of 64 game. We're just moving at large teams to a play in. Chances are P4 + Big East benefit most by having the play in schools gain a easier unit in the tournament. It protects the top seeds better by pretty much making the #15 and #16 seeds weaker by pretty much moving the weak auto bids conferences up into the main bracket. Basically the top 2 currently ranked #16 seeds are now going to be the weakest #15 seeds and so forth.

It both offers at large teams a easier way to a extra unit and the top portions of the bracket a easier first round. I'd assume most of the at large teams added would be P4 or Big East teams. Right now based on Joe Lombardi tweet the last 4 out are St John's, Utah, Providence and Colorado. It's basically what 2 extra Big 12 teams and 2 extra Big East teams guaranteed a tournament unit in my proposed 72 tournament with at large replacing auto bids in the play in game. Last 4 in plus first 4 out plays teams normally ranked let's say at either #10 and #11 seeds. I just don't think why they'd argue over getting extra at large schools plus potentially picking up a win and another free unit with a win in the play in round. Teams losing in the playin game still get a unit like if they lost in the round of 64.

The problem I see is money. The extra 4 credits have to come from somewhere. But CBS/Turner have already signed the contract and are not giving additional money. Is there really enough money in a 2nd first-four sight? Is Dayton giving $6M a year to host that now?

Bigger issues are swirling that could derail the entire NCAA before it even gets to the question of the tournament format adjustment.

(03-04-2024 12:52 AM)46566 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:53 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 06:49 PM)46566 Wrote:  Just shift the play in games around would be the easiest answer. Make play in games at large only. You then expand to 72. That adds what 4 more play in games? The at large teams are most likely going to be P4 or high end conferences. You simply shift the 1 bid leagues to the bottom portion of the brackets.

That's not going to happen. Your proposal would result in two less at-larges starting in the Round of 64. The P4 + Big East will block that.

They'll still be in the play in game that is still worth a tournament unit. It could be a more winnable game than the round of 64 game. We're just moving at large teams to a play in. Chances are P4 + Big East benefit most by having the play in schools gain a easier unit in the tournament. It protects the top seeds better by pretty much making the #15 and #16 seeds weaker by pretty much moving the weak auto bids conferences up into the main bracket. Basically the top 2 currently ranked #16 seeds are now going to be the weakest #15 seeds and so forth.

It both offers at large teams a easier way to a extra unit and the top portions of the bracket a easier first round. I'd assume most of the at large teams added would be P4 or Big East teams. Right now based on Joe Lombardi tweet the last 4 out are St John's, Utah, Providence and Colorado. It's basically what 2 extra Big 12 teams and 2 extra Big East teams guaranteed a tournament unit in my proposed 72 tournament with at large replacing auto bids in the play in game. Last 4 in plus first 4 out plays teams normally ranked let's say at either #10 and #11 seeds. I just don't think why they'd argue over getting extra at large schools plus potentially picking up a win and another free unit with a win in the play in round. Teams losing in the playin game still get a unit like if they lost in the round of 64.

it's going to be like said that it'll be 4 more first four games. 2 more with the last 4 at larges, but also 2 more with the worst 4 champions.

So seeds 65-72 have to play in the first 4 in 4 games, and the last 8 teams in have to play in 4 games. They aren't going to add 4 games and all 8 teams involved being at large teams like it sounds is exactly what you're hoping.

(03-04-2024 01:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The problem I see is money. The extra 4 credits have to come from somewhere. But CBS/Turner have already signed the contract and are not giving additional money. Is there really enough money in a 2nd first-four sight? Is Dayton giving $6M a year to host that now?

Bigger issues are swirling that could derail the entire NCAA before it even gets to the question of the tournament format adjustment.

I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to just play during the day at Dayton on Tuesday and Wednesday. They wouldn't have to get a new site for a hypothetical 72-team tournament. Anything above it would require a new site unless you make teams play on Monday (which is totally unfair from a travel/jetlag perspective and that it's possible they may have had to have played as many as 5 straight days to a conference tournament final on the previous day potentially, making it possibly as many as 6-in-6).

It needs to be smaller, not bigger. The conference tournaments serve as the early rounds. If they want to change the tournament make it like Kentucky's Sweet 16. The best high school basketball tournament in the country. One of only two single class tournaments in the country (Hawaii is/was the only other)

That means: no automatic bids. If you lose in your conference tournament your season is over. No more backing into the championship tournament with a loss.

I know they'll do the opposite and expand the tournament. Keep changing tournament for more money by adding teams.

(03-04-2024 01:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The problem I see is money. The extra 4 credits have to come from somewhere. But CBS/Turner have already signed the contract and are not giving additional money. Is there really enough money in a 2nd first-four sight? Is Dayton giving $6M a year to host that now?

Bigger issues are swirling that could derail the entire NCAA before it even gets to the question of the tournament format adjustment.

Maybe that's where the compromise happens with the extra units for winning the "play in" games happens. The NCAA takes that away but then tells the auto bids that they get to be in the field of 64. Something's got to give. The Big South's and NEC's can't believe the NCAA is going to expand the tournament so they can double their shares.

The P5 want at least 75% of their members Dancing lol. Maybe stop expanding your damn leagues for football and they won’t have this issue?

Whatever they do, can we call the play-in games the 1st round? It’s stupid, they’re in the tournament. Stop with the illusion it’s a 64 team tournament still.

(03-04-2024 06:42 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The problem I see is money. The extra 4 credits have to come from somewhere. But CBS/Turner have already signed the contract and are not giving additional money. Is there really enough money in a 2nd first-four sight? Is Dayton giving $6M a year to host that now?

Bigger issues are swirling that could derail the entire NCAA before it even gets to the question of the tournament format adjustment.

Maybe that's where the compromise happens with the extra units for winning the "play in" games happens. The NCAA takes that away but then tells the auto bids that they get to be in the field of 64. Something's got to give. The Big South's and NEC's can't believe the NCAA is going to expand the tournament so they can double their shares.

P4 ain't doing that. They don't want fewer teams in the round of 64.

The college football playoff needs to expand to 16 teams.
The NCAA basketball tournament needs to go back down to 64 teams.

(03-04-2024 04:57 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It needs to be smaller, not bigger. The conference tournaments serve as the early rounds. If they want to change the tournament make it like Kentucky's Sweet 16. The best high school basketball tournament in the country. One of only two single class tournaments in the country (Hawaii is/was the only other)

That means: no automatic bids. If you lose in your conference tournament your season is over. No more backing into the championship tournament with a loss.

I know they'll do the opposite and expand the tournament. Keep changing tournament for more money by adding teams.

That's your idea of best? Why even play the entire season if only a handful of games really matter?

(03-04-2024 08:05 AM)andy98 Wrote:  The college football playoff needs to expand to 16 teams.
The NCAA basketball tournament needs to go back down to 64 teams.

Don't worry CFP will expand to maybe 32-64 teams eventually. Participation trophies for everyone!