|
|
12-10-2008, 11:28 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 3,101
Thanks: 4,298
Thanked 2,862 Times in 1,139 Posts
|
|
Why Not 80 Teams in NCAA? And Base it Only on RPI for At-Large
Two Big Changes to the NCAA Tourney
(1) Expand the Field to 80 Teams
When the field was expaned to 64 teams in 1985, there were a total of 283 teams playing Division I Basketball. So about 22% of the teams in Division I made the tourney. We are now at 343 teams playing Division I Basketball, so down to about 18% marking the field, why not increase the field to 80 teams and push the percentage back up to 23%?
The extra 16 at-large would likely be 8 BCS and 8 non-BCS schools (looking at the last 16 out based upon RPI the past couple of years -- 10 non-BCS in 2008, 7 non-BCS in 2007, and 10 non-BCS in 2006), more than doubling the non-BCS at-large invitations.
16 Play-in Games or some other format could accomodate the field of 80.
(2) Make the At-Large Field RPI-Based Only
Moreover, why not take the human element (error) out of the NCAA selection commitee and make the 49 at-large bids purely based upon RPI and the 31 conference champs as is? All the committee does now is take 2-4 non-BCS teams with higher RPIs out and puts 2-4 BCS teams in with lower RPIs. There is a clear BCS biasis in the selection committee (we saw it even in the NIT seeding last year).
|
12-10-2008, 11:49 AM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,616
Thanks: 3,383
Thanked 3,108 Times in 1,418 Posts
|
|
I like the Idea of expanding the NCAA tourney, but not the way that you have suggested. If the tournament is going to be expanded its has to be 128 so rougly 37% of the teams would be involved. Doing any other number would really mess things up and adding byes into the tournament would really take some of the fun out of March Madness. In order to do this, the NIT would have to be scrapped, and this can be done now that the NCAA has the rights to the NIT. Besides unless your team is in the NIT who watches it. Winning this means you were the 66th best team in the country. This would also end the play-in game that already exists, which in my opinion was dumb anyway.
The problem with expanding the tournament is there will always be debate. Now the entire Big East Conf. will get in and the MEAC will still only have one team. It would also add more mediocre basketball into the March Madness. Also, instead of the 66th best team (65 now in with the play-in game) peevishly complaining it will be the 129th best team.
All in all I think the pro's out weigh the cons and the tournament should be expanded.
|
12-10-2008, 12:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ocean Springs, MS
Posts: 3,644
Thanks: 2,352
Thanked 1,650 Times in 838 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by m21eagle45
Also, instead of the 66th best team (65 now in with the play-in game) peevishly complaining it will be the 129th best team.
|
Not really the 66th best as there are so many auto bids to not very good teams. More like 56th best. Haha.
You either have to expand the tourney a bit or get rid of the undeserving auto bids. Doubtful that the auto bids are going anywhere because they represent everything that is good and exciting about college basketball ... in the same way that the PGA open is exciting because it truly is open to any qualifier. So I guess expand it by adding one more round. You either have to double the size or give the top 8 seeds in each bracket a by for the first round. I don't really like the idea of doubling the size of the tournament.
|
12-10-2008, 12:32 PM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Astoria, NY
Posts: 294
Thanks: 24
Thanked 86 Times in 39 Posts
|
|
I love March Madness, so I have no problem with expanding the field a bit. The more I can kick back in the recliner or hang out at the pub and watch basketball, the better. However, I don't agree with making the auto-bids based only on RPI. The RPI in itself isn't a perfect system either. No computer analysis can accurately assess all factors and determine which teams most deserve to make the tourney. I personally think the current selection process is the best option. Sure, there are debates, but everyone will never agree on which criteria should be weighed most heavily in deciding entry into the tournament, and how to calculate everything. Good teams (like us last year) are always left out, and it sucks, but it is what it is. I also don't get all up in arms about the BCS bias. Much of it is that the BCS teams are typically just better. The ninth placed team in the Big East probably really is better than the entire MEAC or Summit. Go back and look at the fields for the last few seasons. Can you really find more than a couple teams in each field of 64 who deserved to be in but were left out?
|
12-10-2008, 12:33 PM
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,784
Thanks: 140
Thanked 1,145 Times in 598 Posts
|
|
There's no need to expand the tourney, it's already over twice the size it needs to be. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
12-10-2008, 12:52 PM
|
Locked
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,309
Thanks: 731
Thanked 776 Times in 398 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Xenia UDFan
I love March Madness, so I have no problem with expanding the field a bit. The more I can kick back in the recliner or hang out at the pub and watch basketball, the better. However, I don't agree with making the auto-bids based only on RPI. The RPI in itself isn't a perfect system either. No computer analysis can accurately assess all factors and determine which teams most deserve to make the tourney. I personally think the current selection process is the best option. Sure, there are debates, but everyone will never agree on which criteria should be weighed most heavily in deciding entry into the tournament, and how to calculate everything. Good teams (like us last year) are always left out, and it sucks, but it is what it is. I also don't get all up in arms about the BCS bias. Much of it is that the BCS teams are typically just better. The ninth placed team in the Big East probably really is better than the entire MEAC or Summit. Go back and look at the fields for the last few seasons. Can you really find more than a couple teams in each field of 64 who deserved to be in but were left out?
|
I think they should expand the field to 96, give a first round bye to the top 32 teams, and let Figgie figure out who deserves to get the at large bids.
|
Mad Props to masonflyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
12-10-2008, 01:16 PM
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 817
Thanks: 2,137
Thanked 245 Times in 117 Posts
|
|
It's perfect the way it is in my humble opinion.
|
12-10-2008, 01:44 PM
|
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,269
Thanks: 327
Thanked 3,076 Times in 1,229 Posts
|
|
One change I would like to see is that to be eligible for an at-large bid, you have to finish at least .500 in your conference during the regular season
For example Arizona finished last year 18-13 (8-10 in the Pac 10), then went 1-1 in the conference tournment and still got an at-large bid
In football a certain record is required to be bowl eligible so why not do the same for college basketball's post season?
|
Mad Props to NCkevi For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
12-10-2008, 01:47 PM
|
1st Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 221
Thanks: 4
Thanked 16 Times in 9 Posts
|
|
I also agree that nothing should be changed about the tournament. Just win the conference tournament and you will not have to worry about not getting in.
|
12-10-2008, 01:57 PM
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 983
Thanks: 46
Thanked 193 Times in 94 Posts
|
|
No way should they expand the field, the only teams that truly have a shot at making the final four are generally within the top 10 seeds. George Mason is an exception, but still, they were an 11 seed. Teams from 14, 15, and 16 are generally fairly bad.
I would keep it the way it is, that way you get enough at-large teams like that Kansas run in 88 or the occasional run from a 5 seed who finished third in their conference, but still can allow for conference champions that for 99 out of 100 games have absolutely have no business being on the same court as the big boys.
JUST LOOK TO THIS....bowl games have become almost meaningless now that you only need 6 wins to qualify for one. I don't want the same to happen to the tourney and only care about the last weekend like I do in bowls, (ie...New Year's Day and beyond)
|
12-10-2008, 02:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ocean Springs, MS
Posts: 3,644
Thanks: 2,352
Thanked 1,650 Times in 838 Posts
|
|
The inclusion of AZ last year was a sick joke.
|
Mad Props to Canonball For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
12-10-2008, 02:08 PM
|
|
2nd Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: dayton
Posts: 53
Thanks: 69
Thanked 16 Times in 13 Posts
|
|
Purpose of the Tourny
I think that the purpose of the tourny is to find the BEST team in the nation. Expanding the tourny doesn't help to do that. Also, expanding the tourny diminishes the value of actually make the tourny as an accomplishment. I have never looked at an NIT winner in recent years and said to myself "They could be the best team in the country right now, if only they actually made the big dance".
Also, a single elimination of a bracket that large i don't like. If you want to have that many teams in it i would suggest a world cup style. 1st round robbin, then single elim.
|
12-10-2008, 02:19 PM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,717
Thanks: 748
Thanked 462 Times in 286 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by NCkevi
One change I would like to see is that to be eligible for an at-large bid, you have to finish at least .500 in your conference during the regular season
For example Arizona finished last year 18-13 (8-10 in the Pac 10), then went 1-1 in the conference tournment and still got an at-large bid
In football a certain record is required to be bowl eligible so why not do the same for college basketball's post season?
|
If you want to get technical about things, teams can have a losing conference record in football and still get invited to a bowl game. For instance, UConn is playing a bowl game this year with a 7-5 record, but they were only 3-4 in the Big East. I think that is somewhat analogous to Arizona making the Dance last year in basketball with a losing conference record and winning overall record. Now if we were talking about losing overall records, I think you'd have a point.
|
12-10-2008, 02:23 PM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,717
Thanks: 748
Thanked 462 Times in 286 Posts
|
|
If we're going to expand the tournament, and use computers to select teams, then there are much better systems to use than the RPI. The Sagarin is one example.
That said, I do think the tournament should be expanded, particularly the "play-in" round, and it should feature the champions from the lesser conferences playing each other to see who gets to get spanked by the #1 and #2 seeds.
Actually, if we were going to dramatically change the tournament around, I'd really start by awarding automatic bids to regular season conference champions, especially when it comes to the lesser conferences.
|
12-10-2008, 02:41 PM
|
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,269
Thanks: 327
Thanked 3,076 Times in 1,229 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by ClevelandFlyer05
That said, I do think the tournament should be expanded, particularly the "play-in" round, and it should feature the champions from the lesser conferences playing each other to see who gets to get spanked by the #1 and #2 seeds.
|
If your reward for winning your conference bid is a play in game then we should do away with all automatic bids
I have yet to attend one of the play in games becasue I feel like the kids on the losing team are getting a bad deal - they won their conferences bid and should get the experience of playing a big name program on the big stage
I think winning the conference tournament should be considered a play in game so if anything,
the NCAA play-in game (or games) should involve the last teams in with at large bids.
If we keep minimizing the accomplishments of teams from 'lesser' conferences, we might as well just open the NCAA tournament to all the teams from major conferences and the regular season is simply for seeding
|
12-10-2008, 02:49 PM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 306
Thanks: 63
Thanked 78 Times in 42 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by ClevelandFlyer05
Actually, if we were going to dramatically change the tournament around, I'd really start by awarding automatic bids to regular season conference champions, especially when it comes to the lesser conferences.
|
I've always wanted to do away with conference tournaments. I've hated the idea that you can get hot in 4 days and still make the NCAA tournament when other teams proved over 2 months that they were the best team in the conference. The touraments are just there to make money. Like last year, somehow St. Joe's became an NCAA tournament team, just becuase they beat Xavier in the A-10 tournament. Basically the selection crew said, We'll forget about these stats from the entire season:
Dayton 21-10, RPI 32, SOS 24, 2 wins vs top 25, 9-6 top 100, 6-6 Last 12
St. Joes 21-12, RPI 44, SOS 53, 2 wins (same team) vs top 25, 8-8 top 100, 6-6 Last 12
Head to Head: Dayton 79 St. Joes 67
And just look at the final four days and say that since you bear Xavier in the tournament you get in ahead of Dayton. That's what I don't like.
|
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Wings In Stripes For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
12-10-2008, 02:52 PM
|
Academy Doolie
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 41
Thanks: 20
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by bcross
There's no need to expand the tourney, it's already over twice the size it needs to be. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
It's the NCAA. If it ain't broke, break it.
|
12-10-2008, 03:18 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 3,101
Thanks: 4,298
Thanked 2,862 Times in 1,139 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by addicted2flyers
I think that the purpose of the tourny is to find the BEST team in the nation. Expanding the tourny doesn't help to do that. Also, expanding the tourny diminishes the value of actually make the tourny as an accomplishment. I have never looked at an NIT winner in recent years and said to myself "They could be the best team in the country right now, if only they actually made the big dance".
Also, a single elimination of a bracket that large i don't like. If you want to have that many teams in it i would suggest a world cup style. 1st round robbin, then single elim.
|
Isn't the excitement in the tournament the 14 seed beating the 3 and making the sweet 16? If it was just about finding the best team in the nation we should reduce the field to 16 probably as only about 16 teams in the country have a true shot at winning the tourney (perhaps you could argue for 32). Most of us remember Princeton beating UCLA rather than the tourney winner in 1996 (think that was the right year).
I believe the tourney as formatted massively favors the BCS schools and the excitement for most of the country is: (1) their school making the tourney and going to 72 or 80 or 96 will not diminish that excitement much; and (2) seeing some great upsets and good games which an expanded format would increase.
|
12-10-2008, 03:39 PM
|
Locked
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,309
Thanks: 731
Thanked 776 Times in 398 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by The Fat Tuna
No way should they expand the field, the only teams that truly have a shot at making the final four are generally within the top 10 seeds. George Mason is an exception, but still, they were an 11 seed. Teams from 14, 15, and 16 are generally fairly bad.
I would keep it the way it is, that way you get enough at-large teams like that Kansas run in 88 or the occasional run from a 5 seed who finished third in their conference, but still can allow for conference champions that for 99 out of 100 games have absolutely have no business being on the same court as the big boys.
JUST LOOK TO THIS....bowl games have become almost meaningless now that you only need 6 wins to qualify for one. I don't want the same to happen to the tourney and only care about the last weekend like I do in bowls, (ie...New Year's Day and beyond)
|
But the 14-16 teams are automatic qualifiers from bad leagues. There are teams every year left out that could make a magical run to the final 4. The year GMU made it they were a very controversial at-large pick. I know Hofstra was quite mad that Mason made it ahead of them.
|
12-10-2008, 03:42 PM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 342
Thanks: 159
Thanked 32 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
I agree that we don't need to expand the tournament. However, if you are going to expand it I think that 128 or even 96 is way too many teams. 68 is a fine number. That would give us 4 opening round games. This gives several teams the chance to win an NCAA game. No matter how many teams you include there will always be few teams that feel they should have made the dance.
|
12-10-2008, 05:07 PM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,717
Thanks: 748
Thanked 462 Times in 286 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by NCkevi
If your reward for winning your conference bid is a play in game then we should do away with all automatic bids
I have yet to attend one of the play in games becasue I feel like the kids on the losing team are getting a bad deal - they won their conferences bid and should get the experience of playing a big name program on the big stage
I think winning the conference tournament should be considered a play in game so if anything,
the NCAA play-in game (or games) should involve the last teams in with at large bids.
If we keep minimizing the accomplishments of teams from 'lesser' conferences, we might as well just open the NCAA tournament to all the teams from major conferences and the regular season is simply for seeding
|
No offense, but winning three games in a row against marginal competition doesn't equate to much of an accomplishment to me. That's really all it takes to win a lot of these smaller conference tournaments. These are the teams that oftentimes prevent good Dayton teams from getting a bid to the Dance.
What's wrong with making these teams play each other in play-in games? If you add a few more of these games, it won't seem like we're singling out only a few teams. It will be more like a legitimate part of the tournament.
|
12-10-2008, 05:09 PM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,717
Thanks: 748
Thanked 462 Times in 286 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Wings In Stripes
I've always wanted to do away with conference tournaments. I've hated the idea that you can get hot in 4 days and still make the NCAA tournament when other teams proved over 2 months that they were the best team in the conference. The touraments are just there to make money. Like last year, somehow St. Joe's became an NCAA tournament team, just becuase they beat Xavier in the A-10 tournament. Basically the selection crew said, We'll forget about these stats from the entire season:
Dayton 21-10, RPI 32, SOS 24, 2 wins vs top 25, 9-6 top 100, 6-6 Last 12
St. Joes 21-12, RPI 44, SOS 53, 2 wins (same team) vs top 25, 8-8 top 100, 6-6 Last 12
Head to Head: Dayton 79 St. Joes 67
And just look at the final four days and say that since you bear Xavier in the tournament you get in ahead of Dayton. That's what I don't like.
|
Bingo! I think the NCAA tournament should be reserved for the best teams, the ones that have proven it over several months of play. Conference tournaments undermine that idea. I don't think they should be done away with, because they are fun, but they shouldn't be used to determine automatic qualifiers.
|
12-10-2008, 05:10 PM
|
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 2,242
Thanks: 3,251
Thanked 1,388 Times in 620 Posts
|
|
thing about the play-in game is that I believe it should be the 2 last AT_LARGE teams to play it (who are typically very fortunate to even be there anyway), not the 2 least desireable automatic qualifiers (who have legitimately earned their way in). And if you expand to 4 play-in games, then make it the last 8 at large bids.
my $0.02
|
Mad Props to AC91 For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
12-10-2008, 05:31 PM
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,784
Thanks: 140
Thanked 1,145 Times in 598 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Wings In Stripes
I've always wanted to do away with conference tournaments. I've hated the idea that you can get hot in 4 days and still make the NCAA tournament when other teams proved over 2 months that they were the best team in the conference. The touraments are just there to make money. Like last year, somehow St. Joe's became an NCAA tournament team, just becuase they beat Xavier in the A-10 tournament. Basically the selection crew said, We'll forget about these stats from the entire season:
Dayton 21-10, RPI 32, SOS 24, 2 wins vs top 25, 9-6 top 100, 6-6 Last 12
St. Joes 21-12, RPI 44, SOS 53, 2 wins (same team) vs top 25, 8-8 top 100, 6-6 Last 12
Head to Head: Dayton 79 St. Joes 67
And just look at the final four days and say that since you bear Xavier in the tournament you get in ahead of Dayton. That's what I don't like.
|
13-1 Before we lost CW
8-9 After we lost CW
CW was still out on Selection Sunday
St. Joe's beat Xavier twice in the last two weeks.
Those are the key figures you left out, and is the reason we were left out.
As for expanding the tourney, there's no need for it. Not to spit the common rhetoric, BUT conference tourney's already serve this purpose of giving everyone a chance.
|
12-10-2008, 05:36 PM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 306
Thanks: 63
Thanked 78 Times in 42 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by bcross
13-1 Before we lost CW
8-9 After we lost CW
CW was still out on Selection Sunday
St. Joe's beat Xavier twice in the last two weeks.
Those are the key figures you left out, and is the reason we were left out.
BUT conference tourney's already serve this purpose of giving everyone a chance.
|
You just made my point. They looked at one portion of the season without CW, There are other players on the team and the team deserved a bid based on the numbers by what they did early in the season. No doubt we shouldn't have lost to Duquesne or La Salle with or with out CW but it should be the ENTIRE season not portions of the season whether or not you have your entire team out not. If the entire season doesn't count and only portions of it, why not just play the conference tournaments and base the NCAA tournament off that?
And to refute your common rhetoric, everybody does have a chance ... instead of 4 games every team gets 16 chances in the regular season
Last edited by Wings In Stripes; 12-10-2008 at 05:38 PM..
|
12-10-2008, 06:08 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,571
Thanks: 3,383
Thanked 6,618 Times in 3,024 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by ClevelandFlyer05
Actually, if we were going to dramatically change the tournament around, I'd really start by awarding automatic bids to regular season conference champions, especially when it comes to the lesser conferences.
|
The conferences could do that. It is up to the conferences how they determine their representative. They could just do away with the conference tournaments.
|
12-10-2008, 06:18 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,571
Thanks: 3,383
Thanked 6,618 Times in 3,024 Posts
|
|
They could expand to 68 teams, play four "play-in" games at UD Arena of the last 8 at-large candidates, and place the four winners into the bracket as 12 seeds. Or expand to 72, play eight play-in games at two locations, and place the 8 winners into the bracket as 11 and 12 seeds. Of course, the BCS Conferences wouldn't like that because many of their teams would be in the play-in games.
|
12-10-2008, 06:27 PM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 531
Thanks: 29
Thanked 93 Times in 42 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by ClevelandFlyer05
Bingo! I think the NCAA tournament should be reserved for the best teams, the ones that have proven it over several months of play. Conference tournaments undermine that idea. I don't think they should be done away with, because they are fun, but they shouldn't be used to determine automatic qualifiers.
|
Unbalanced schedules. That's why the conference tournaments will and need to stay the same. The money generated from this events is also a reason you will see them continue.
|
12-10-2008, 06:29 PM
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Barra mexicana de zambullida
Posts: 919
Thanks: 41
Thanked 107 Times in 33 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by AC91
thing about the play-in game is that I believe it should be the 2 last AT_LARGE teams to play it (who are typically very fortunate to even be there anyway), not the 2 least desireable automatic qualifiers (who have legitimately earned their way in). And if you expand to 4 play-in games, then make it the last 8 at large bids.
my $0.02
|
I totally agree. I can't believe the NCAA doesn't realize the money potential over the way it is today in these type of match-ups.
|
12-10-2008, 06:49 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 4,473
Thanks: 6,848
Thanked 1,569 Times in 939 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Wings In Stripes
You just made my point. They looked at one portion of the season without CW, There are other players on the team and the team deserved a bid based on the numbers by what they did early in the season. No doubt we shouldn't have lost to Duquesne or La Salle with or with out CW but it should be the ENTIRE season not portions of the season whether or not you have your entire team out not. If the entire season doesn't count and only portions of it, why not just play the conference tournaments and base the NCAA tournament off that?
And to refute your common rhetoric, everybody does have a chance ... instead of 4 games every team gets 16 chances in the regular season
|
Yes...and No... The committee (rightfully in my mind) determined that the team that had CW on it was not the same team that finished the season. There was no indication that CW would be back, so they left us out.
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|