What if tournament brackets were done this way?

[Smitty10]

If the committee still picked all 68 teams and let Vegas' best initial oddsmakers seed them according to the odds. How different would the brackets look and would they be more fair. This would be assuming that Vegas seeded with the guidelines that 8/9 matchups would be the closest odds(8 would have to be favored over 9 or at the very least a pick em), 7/10 the 2nd closest odds and so on. Of course the odds makers would just rank them 1-68 and then it would be up to the committee to bracket them that way. The way to keep oddsmakers honest would be that Vegas would have to offer their initial odds in games exactly like they rated them(unless a significant injury took place afterward). Of course, oddsmakers aware of the rule of offering initial odds according to seeding would have to do a little shuffling knowing who would be matched up against who to account for specifically bad matchups for the better seeded team.

I realize this involves lot of complications and assumptions of honesty on the part of oddsmakers' and that this will never happen but just wondering, do you think there'd be less groaning about seedings and matchups?

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 If the committee still picked all 68 teams and let Vegas' best initial oddsmakers seed them according to the odds. How different would the brackets look and would they be more fair. This would be assuming that Vegas seeded with the guidelines that 8/9 matchups would be the closest odds(8 would have to be favored over 9 or at the very least a pick em), 7/10 the 2nd closest odds and so on. Of course the odds makers would just rank them 1-68 and then it would be up to the committee to bracket them that way. The way to keep oddsmakers honest would be that Vegas would have to offer their initial odds in games exactly like they rated them(unless a significant injury took place afterward). Of course, oddsmakers aware of the rule of offering initial odds according to seeding would have to do a little shuffling knowing who would be matched up against who to account for specifically bad matchups for the better seeded team. I realize this involves lot of complications and assumptions of honesty on the part of oddsmakers' and that this will never happen but just wondering, do you think there'd be less groaning about seedings and matchups?

I am not a fan of letting the vegas oddsmakers seeding the field. I would suggest having a committee that has former coaches and players as opposed to just current AD's. I think coaches and players would understand the advanced stats better, and I would trust their "eyetest" much more than the current committee.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 I am not a fan of letting the vegas oddsmakers seed the field. I would suggest having a committee that has former coaches and players as opposed to just current AD's. I think coaches and players would understand the advanced stats better, and I would trust their "eyetest" much more than the current committee.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting we do it this way, because it would never happen, just wondering if it would be better?

[rollo]

Money talks...I'm all for it.

[CE80]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 Yeah, I'm not suggesting we do it this way, because it would never happen, just wondering if it would be better?

Yes.

The committee selects the at large participants based upon what they have done. The S curve us created by the Vegas odds makers.

[ruechalgrin]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 If the committee still picked all 68 teams and let Vegas' best initial oddsmakers seed them according to the odds. How different would the brackets look and would they be more fair. This would be assuming that Vegas seeded with the guidelines that 8/9 matchups would be the closest odds(8 would have to be favored over 9 or at the very least a pick em), 7/10 the 2nd closest odds and so on. Of course the odds makers would just rank them 1-68 and then it would be up to the committee to bracket them that way. The way to keep oddsmakers honest would be that Vegas would have to offer their initial odds in games exactly like they rated them(unless a significant injury took place afterward). Of course, oddsmakers aware of the rule of offering initial odds according to seeding would have to do a little shuffling knowing who would be matched up against who to account for specifically bad matchups for the better seeded team. I realize this involves lot of complications and assumptions of honesty on the part of oddsmakers' and that this will never happen but just wondering, do you think there'd be less groaning about seedings and matchups?

This is essentially following kenpom rankings for seedings. Dayton would be a 9 seed playing 8 seed Miami or South Carolina.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by ruechalgrin This is essentially following kenpom rankings for seedings. Dayton would be a 9 seed playing 8 seed Miami or South Carolina.

Which in my opinion would be great and eliminate the argument that so and so(UD for this example) deserves a better seeding due to what their full body of work looks like. While in today's system, UD is a 7 based on it's body of work, it would be a 9 based on their current capability and if that's the known guidelines by all, there should be no argument.

So to sum up, at large teams get into the field based on their entire body of work but all teams get seeded by their current perceived capabilities (which transfers to odds).

I guess the down side is that committee "mistakes" allow for a lot more 11-12-13 upsets over 6-5-4 teams. Some of those upsets you can smell from a mile away, not so much if done by odds.

[Figgie123]

I've kept most quiet when things like kenpom, BPI, RPI, Brother Ned's Accountants Formula, but here is my question to the masses here...

What should the tournament teams be based on?

A teams "resume" is always mentioned. So, is it based on how you did in the year? But how is "how well did you do" based? Wins and losses overall? Wins against certain teams? Few losses against bad teams?

Or should it be based on offensive/defensive measures? Are you more "efficient" making points per possession than other teams? Should that efficiency rating be modified, though, so that if everyone is super efficient against "The Mothers of the Poor", that efficiency against that team is downgraded for everyone. Then play defensive efficiency into it in the same manner?

Should it be based on running up the score on opponents? "We beat team X by 30 points, therefore we're better than team Y who only won by 4 points!"..."But team Y beat team X."

And if we go with some formulas, shouldn't they be made known to everyone to know exactly what is going on? But could doing that cause issues with people attempting to "game" the system like the Big5/BE teams have done the past 10 years, and now the smaller schools are doing the same, therefore, "Openly known RPI shouldn't be used....use Michigan State's proprietary format instead! There won't be any bias that way!!!"

I surely don't have any answers. RPI allows for the Big5 to schedule all home games until conference season and artificially inflate their entire conference RPIs. Efficiency numbers sound interesting, but then could teams in lower conferences to the Big5 schools to pound sound, and get good efficiency numbers against low teams and be included?

Back to the question at the beginning: What should the tournament teams be based on?

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Figgie123 I've kept most quiet when things like kenpom, BPI, RPI, Brother Ned's Accountants Formula, but here is my question to the masses here... What should the tournament teams be based on? A teams "resume" is always mentioned. So, is it based on how you did in the year? But how is "how well did you do" based? Wins and losses overall? Wins against certain teams? Few losses against bad teams? Or should it be based on offensive/defensive measures? Are you more "efficient" making points per possession than other teams? Should that efficiency rating be modified, though, so that if everyone is super efficient against "The Mothers of the Poor", that efficiency against that team is downgraded for everyone. Then play defensive efficiency into it in the same manner? Should it be based on running up the score on opponents? "We beat team X by 30 points, therefore we're better than team Y who only won by 4 points!"..."But team Y beat team X." And if we go with some formulas, shouldn't they be made known to everyone to know exactly what is going on? But could doing that cause issues with people attempting to "game" the system like the Big5/BE teams have done the past 10 years, and now the smaller schools are doing the same, therefore, "Openly known RPI shouldn't be used....use Michigan State's proprietary format instead! There won't be any bias that way!!!" I surely don't have any answers. RPI allows for the Big5 to schedule all home games until conference season and artificially inflate their entire conference RPIs. Efficiency numbers sound interesting, but then could teams in lower conferences to the Big5 schools to pound sound, and get good efficiency numbers against low teams and be included? Back to the question at the beginning: What should the tournament teams be based on?

Well, of course in my scenario, I chose to keep it the same or at least in the committee's hands to begin with, however they choose to do it that particular year. That's just too complicated and has been attempted to be tackled by everybody for ages with no consensus. I just figured, let's get the seeding right first before we tackle the biggest issue. Also, now that the NCAA tourney has climbed to 68 teams, I find it less of an issue because I'm of the firm belief that if you are left out when you deserved to be at-large team, say #29 through 36, you're chance of winning the whole thing is probably about zilch anyway. You put yourself in that situation as unfair as it is, so live with it for a year and fix it.

[Flyer'95]

The greatest chance to equalize the playing field would be for the NCAA to mandate a minimum of four true road games in your non-conference portion of your schedule for all D-1 teams. Smaller schools would get to host more games. They'd get bigger chances to beat P5 teams. Sure, the P5 could still just schedule games against each other. But if they want 'easy' wins, they'd try to win at mid-majors or low-majors. And many would fail periodically. It would make November and December infinitely more interesting. And fewer of the blue-blood teams could truly manipulate the RPI to their advantage.

But such a rule would take a lot of home games and $$$ away from the kingpins of college hoops (even from UD). And therefore, an idea like this will never happen.

The only other thing that could be done for non-conference is to add some sort of homegame penalty on top of the normal RPI formula. For every non-con home game that you host above 5 home games, you are docked a certain amount.

[CE80]

It's not that difficult to come up with a way of making things more even. The P5 won't allow it so don't waste your time. The only way change will come is if the media and/or government put some pressure on the P5.

[UDDoug]

Mandate 4 road games and Syracuse will play at Prairie View, VMI, UMBC and Army.

20 conference games will make it worse. 3 exempt games, the league challenges and maybe 1 or 2 traditional games and the P5 schools won't even have games available for prospective at large teams from conference 7 to 12.
Posted via Mobile Device

[TerryK_67]

The most fair way is to mechanize the selection and seeding. Take to subjective "eye test" out of it. It can be properly done considering all the things mentioned. "They" just don't want to do that!

[Brad S.]

I posted a version of this over on the WBB tournament side, but it seems applicable here, too:

I'll put on my tournament heretic hat here and offer a couple of thoughts:

1. Tournament (all tournaments, not just BB) should be seeded 1-30something with the auto qualifiers by whatever method the NCAA chooses (RPI, secret committee, roll the bones, whatever), then the at-large teams get fed in the same way up to 64.
2. Absent #1, no at-large team should be seeded higher than the AQ team from its conference. This would give some real consequence and meaning for the conference tournament for all conferences, not just the 1-bid ones.

Those are my ideas, fire away.

[UDTradition]

Originally Posted by rollo Money talks...I'm all for it.

Me too!

[UDTradition]

If you want to really make it fun...open the tournament to everyone... I don't know the Little League WW series but their may be some valuable ideas there.

Establish the seeding by some analytical and non judgmental score and go with it ! It would be the greatest tournament in the history of mankind.

Even France would (sort of) enjoy it.

[UD90]

I personally think the committee got the bracket right under the current rules they set out. Yes, there are multiple sets of rules, but they follow the similar guidelines. As the NCAA Dance Card indicated the selections and seeds (even though it doesn't strive to get the seeds right) were very close. It's based on variables and past selection committee's actions.

I think there are 3 groups of teams that can get an at large bid.

Group 1: P5 and as much as I hate to admit it (finally the New Big East). 3 bids min - 9 max usually.

Group 2: Conferences ranked 7- 9 (Mostly 7-8). Sometimes this extends to conferences 10/11 - Most of the time 2-4 bids for conferences 7&8. 1-2 bids for 9-11. Occasionally, you can get 5 or 6 in the A10, but very rare.

Group 3: Conferences ranked 12th or higher - 1 auto bid period.

The "similar' guidelines are:

1.) Play a tough non-conf schedule. (at-large implication for group 2 / seeding implications for group 1). "Who did you play?" "Where did you play them?'
2.) Road wins do carry weight.
3.) Top 50 RPI and Top 100 rpi wins carry weight
4.) SOS and average RPI wins / losses carry weight

Items 2-4 are much easier to achieve for group 1 and this allows them to ignore item 1. However ignoring item 1 will hurt their seeding.

Teams in group 2 (Dayton, VCU, Rhode Island, SMU, Cincinnati, Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and Wichita State) can only achieve items 2-4 by focusing on item 1 and hoping that the middling P5 teams that will play them (Vandy, Alabama) win enough games to slide into the Top 50. The other hope is that the teams in their conference win enough to be quality wins (URI, VCU).

I don't like the rules, but this year the committee didn't deviate from them.

Selection team sheets from the NCAA:

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi...Selections.pdf

If (more likely when) they switch to a different metric like kenpom.com - it will still be presented in a manner similar to the team sheets.

It won't help the teams in group 2 much with scheduling challenges, but it might improve seeding.

vegas is good, but starts the process with computer rankings and lets the betting public correct it.

	Rhode Island RHODE ISLAND The University of Rhode Island was chartered as the state's agricultural school in 1888. The school became the Rhode Island College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts in 1892. Located in southern Rhode Island, URI is a quintessential New England campus - rural in feeling yet close to the city of Providence, the state's capital. Linked to the city, the beaches, and nearly every corner of the state by both rail and public transit, the campus is easily accessible from Boston and New York URI currently offers 100 majors in seven degree-granting colleges. There are more than 12,000 students on the Kingston campus, about 3,000 in Providence, and a complement of about 700 faculty. Fellow members of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Rams.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by O'side Flyer I posted a version of this over on the WBB tournament side, but it seems applicable here, too: I'll put on my tournament heretic hat here and offer a couple of thoughts: 1. Tournament (all tournaments, not just BB) should be seeded 1-30something with the auto qualifiers by whatever method the NCAA chooses (RPI, secret committee, roll the bones, whatever), then the at-large teams get fed in the same way up to 64. 2. Absent #1, no at-large team should be seeded higher than the AQ team from its conference. This would give some real consequence and meaning for the conference tournament for all conferences, not just the 1-bid ones. Those are my ideas, fire away.

Interesting, just looking at the A10, figuring our conference is no worse than 10th best, that would mean RI would be a 2 or 3 seed. Not sure I can get behind that. Or are you saying once the at large is fed in, the P5 and other conference at large would push RI down?

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by Figgie123 I've kept most quiet when things like kenpom, BPI, RPI, Brother Ned's Accountants Formula, but here is my question to the masses here... What should the tournament teams be based on? A teams "resume" is always mentioned. So, is it based on how you did in the year? But how is "how well did you do" based? Wins and losses overall? Wins against certain teams? Few losses against bad teams?

I do not know the answer. What I do know, I am 100% convinced a half dozen of us sitting around a table at Milano's could put together a better bracket.

Especially on the women's side this year

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-b...nament-bracket

[cj]

I like how the high schools do certain state tournaments, besides football.

Seed all of the teams 1 through 68. Let the coach/AD from team #1 pick their line, then #2, then #3 all the way down the line. Theoretically, once you reach the #35th team you will start having to choose who you want play against. It is a very interesting process watching the tennis coaches place their players and it would be the same with the coaches/A's of the different schools.

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by cj I like how the high schools do certain state tournaments, besides football. Seed all of the teams 1 through 68. Let the coach/AD from team #1 pick their line, then #2, then #3 all the way down the line. Theoretically, once you reach the #35th team you will start having to choose who you want play against. It is a very interesting process watching the tennis coaches place their players and it would be the same with the coaches/A's of the different schools.

Yes, and no when it comes to basketball. Seeds 2-11 put their names on the other bracket to avoid seed #1, setting up a showdown for the sectional final between #12 (with a losing record) and #1, that was a 45 point blowout. Coach of #12 seed brags about how the program has been turned around and school administration and uneducated parents buy the BS.

EDIT- Of course this is all highly hypothetical if the wrong people read it, haha

[UD90]

I didn't used to feel this way (especially when we were in the MCC), but given the direction the NCAA is heading - I'd consider conference tournaments and auto bids going away.

I know it's unpopular, but the given the current trajectory of NCAA basketball it will become a P5 only event and the teams in group 2 (as I outlined above) will end up in a secondary tournament with the teams in group 3.

I see three choices:

1.) Create another 10 team Basketball only power conference (Gonzaga, St Marys, Dayton, VCU, URI, WSU, SLU (I haven't given up on them), Richmond, GW, +1) and force metric based scheduling for the conference that drives home and home games with middling majors even if it means 2 for 1 type deals.

2.) Lose the auto-bid for conferences and select the Top 68 teams. This would open up about 15 more at-larges for teams in group 1 and group 2. Yes - I know that it would seem that group 1 would get the bulk of them, but I think conferences 7-12 would benefit significantly.

3.) Stay on the same path we are on. Schedule smart - win in your OOC schedule and schedule smart in conference (i.e. VCU twice, URI twice).

	Richmond UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND Founded in 1830, the private liberal arts university in the Commonwealth boasts 2,800 students in 57 majors within its picturesque 350-acre campus. The Robins School of Business is one of the Top-20 business schools in the country. Nickname is the Spiders and are fellow A10 Conference members.

	Rhode Island RHODE ISLAND The University of Rhode Island was chartered as the state's agricultural school in 1888. The school became the Rhode Island College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts in 1892. Located in southern Rhode Island, URI is a quintessential New England campus - rural in feeling yet close to the city of Providence, the state's capital. Linked to the city, the beaches, and nearly every corner of the state by both rail and public transit, the campus is easily accessible from Boston and New York URI currently offers 100 majors in seven degree-granting colleges. There are more than 12,000 students on the Kingston campus, about 3,000 in Providence, and a complement of about 700 faculty. Fellow members of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Rams.

	Saint Louis SAINT LOUIS Saint Louis University is a Jesuit, Catholic university ranked among the top research institutions in the nation. The University fosters the intellectual and character development of more than 12,700 students. Founded in 1818, it is the oldest university west of the Mississippi and the second oldest Jesuit university in the United States. Located in St. Louis, MO, and just five minutes from the Gateway Arch, SLU offers 85 undergraduate programs and over 50 graduate study tracks. Over 99% of the SLU faculty hold the highest degree in their respective fields. Fellow member of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Billikens, but also commonly known as "Sloo", the phonetic pronunciation of the school's initials. Athletic claims to fame include multiple national titles in men's soccer and men's basketball star Larry Hughes.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by ClaytonFlyerFan Yes, and no when it comes to basketball. Seeds 2-11 put their names on the other bracket to avoid seed #1, setting up a showdown for the sectional final between #12 (with a losing record) and #1, that was a 45 point blowout. Coach of #12 seed brags about how the program has been turned around and school administration and uneducated parents buy the BS. EDIT- Of course this is all highly hypothetical if the wrong people read it, haha

I don't think that's possible. If it's done in the NCAA tournament as it stands now. 1, 2, 3 and 4(1 seeds) will all claim a bracket to themselves. 5, 6, 7 and 8(2 seeds) will pick the bracket with the weakest of the first 4 and will put themselves at the other end of bracket. Then it gets interesting. 9, 10, 11 and 12(3 seeds) will have to put themselves as far away from 5, 6, 7 and 8 without running into 1, 2, 3 and 4 first. They will also have to choose would they rather face the toughest 1, 2, 3 or 4 or the toughest 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Basically the brackets would look a lot how they do today with the best teams kept from playing the next best teams as far as possible.

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 I don't think that's possible. If it's done in the NCAA tournament as it stands now. 1, 2, 3 and 4(1 seeds) will all claim a bracket to themselves. 5, 6, 7 and 8(2 seeds) will pick the bracket with the weakest of the first 4 and will put themselves at the other end of bracket. Then it gets interesting. 9, 10, 11 and 12(3 seeds) will have to put themselves as far away from 5, 6, 7 and 8 without running into 1, 2, 3 and 4 first. They will also have to choose would they rather face the toughest 1, 2, 3 or 4 or the toughest 5, 6, 7 and 8. Basically the brackets would look a lot how they do today with the best teams kept from playing the next best teams as far as possible.

Well my reply was to CJ who was talking about OHSAA, and YES, it is possible as I witnessed it happen.

Why would it not be possible in the NCAA. Lets say one #1 seed is decisively better than all the others, blowing out good competition by 30 points a game. No team in their right mind would want to be in that bracket before it came time for the final 4. So we are left with an Elite 8 matchup between # 1 and what, say #33 gets brave or do we go all the way to team #49 for our matchup?

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by ClaytonFlyerFan Well my reply was to CJ who was talking about OHSAA, and YES, it is possible as I witnessed it happen. Why would it not be possible in the NCAA. Lets say one #1 seed is decisively better than all the others, blowing out good competition by 30 points a game. No team in their right mind would want to be in that bracket before it came time for the final 4. So we are left with an Elite 8 matchup between # 1 and what, say #33 gets brave or do we go all the way to team #49 for our matchup?

Okay, I see your point. I guess you would have to never allow the same seeds in the same bracket. But I would imagine there would come a time, maybe team #16 or so who will put themselves in with the powerhouse, on opposite end, to make sure they have a bunch of weaklings to go through to get to the elite eight.

[CE80]

Originally Posted by cj I like how the high schools do certain state tournaments, besides football. Seed all of the teams 1 through 68. Let the coach/AD from team #1 pick their line, then #2, then #3 all the way down the line. Theoretically, once you reach the #35th team you will start having to choose who you want play against. It is a very interesting process watching the tennis coaches place their players and it would be the same with the coaches/A's of the different schools.

I like the idea but there is still an issue with the seeding of 1-68.

[SC_Flyer]

To me, the root of the problem is simple. There is simply nobody in charge of the entire league of college basketball. Would the English Premier League or the NFL allow for divisions or conferences where those sub-groups dictate everything from teams included to scheduling to distribution of wealth? And would you have them policed by a 3rd party with questionable investigation skills and even more questionable disciplinary measures?

The same problem plagues the bigger revenue generator; college football. I always pose this question to people when discussing college sports and its issues: If you were to design the league from scratch, what would you do (as the single commissioner)?

My answer is based more on the Premier League pyramid structure than anything else. I would draw geographical boundaries around states to form a certain number of sub-groups (what we think of as conferences today). It would be likely 6-8 "geographic conferences". Any schools in these geographies that want to field a team in a specific sport have the opportunity to do that. Then, you simply start making tiers of the pyramid where each conference could field the same number of teams at the highest level. Call it Division I if you want. The next group of teams would play Division II and so on down the line. Each year there would be promotion and relegation between the divisions, like the EPL/BPL.

There are a number of benefits to a setup like this, but the best one to me is the ability to determine the OOC schedules. You would do something like what the NFL does where the team that finished 3rd in a conference the year before would have to play teams from a similar level in the adjacent geographic conferences. Suddenly you have a ton of significant data to determine the best conferences. From there, the post season would be completely determined by a computer algorithm, for whichever sport. The could be some small tournaments, like we have currently, where you could even cross-pollinate more from geographically dispersed conferences, but you would have such a great base data set, that the additional data wouldn't be nearly as significant.

I honestly haven't thought through all of the money parts of it, so feel free to poke at me there, but if I were in charge, the money part would have more rules put in place for sure. Coaches would not like me, but parents of kids paying for college at a non-profit institution would surely embrace me.

Anyway, sorry for the long post (probably my longest ever).

[Brad S.]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 Interesting, just looking at the A10, figuring our conference is no worse than 10th best, that would mean RI would be a 2 or 3 seed. Not sure I can get behind that. Or are you saying once the at large is fed in, the P5 and other conference at large would push RI down?

I'm saying that the AQ teams should get the top seeds. I'm open to how the NCAA determines the ranking within those seeds. After the 30 or so (not sure of the exact number) AQ teams are loaded in, then the at-large teams get loaded below that, all the way to 68 for the men's tourney.

If that means that RI would be a 2 or 3 seed, OK. If any team (school) is upset that they're seeded low, there are 2 options:
- Win the conference tournament
- Transfer to a conference in which you can win

Would that result in some bad first round match ups for the 6-10 NCAA "blessed" teams that the current tournament is designed to advance? Could be, but wouldn't that be fun!

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by O'side Flyer I'm saying that the AQ teams should get the top seeds. I'm open to how the NCAA determines the ranking within those seeds. After the 30 or so (not sure of the exact number) AQ teams are loaded in, then the at-large teams get loaded below that, all the way to 68 for the men's tourney. If that means that RI would be a 2 or 3 seed, OK. If any team (school) is upset that they're seeded low, there are 2 options: - Win the conference tournament - Transfer to a conference in which you can win Would that result in some bad first round match ups for the 6-10 NCAA "blessed" teams that the current tournament is designed to advance? Could be, but wouldn't that be fun!

I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

So in the first round every game would consist of one Auto and one At-large.
The worst Auto(8 seed) gets the best at large(9 seed) (close to 1-16 is now except 16 becomes 8 and 1 becomes 9).

The best Auto(1 seed) gets the worst At large(16 seed).

So with this in mind, the best auto that you're trying to reward, gets a harder game than the best at large(because the worst at large teams are much better than the worst Auto teams.

Don't like it for many reasons but the main reason it's too confusing as far as what a seed means. 6, 7, 8 seeds are inferior to 9, 10 and 11 seeds. Or to simplify it, 1, 2, 3 seeds are better than 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 seeds and 9 through 16 are also better than 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 seeds. 9 seeds might be better than 1,2 seeds but definitely would be superior to 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds.

You might like the confusion, but most won't and neither will the NCAA.

[Brad S.]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 I'm trying to wrap my head around this. So in the first round every game would consist of one Auto and one At-large. The worst Auto(8 seed) gets the best at large(9 seed) (close to 1-16 is now except 16 becomes 8 and 1 becomes 9). The best Auto(1 seed) gets the worst At large(16 seed). So with this in mind, the best auto that you're trying to reward, gets a harder game than the best at large(because the worst at large teams are much better than the worst Auto teams. Don't like it for many reasons but the main reason it's too confusing as far as what a seed means. 6, 7, 8 seeds are inferior to 9, 10 and 11 seeds. Or to simplify it, 1, 2, 3 seeds are better than 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 seeds and 9 through 16 are also better than 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 seeds. 9 seeds might be better than 1,2 seeds but definitely would be superior to 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds. You might like the confusion, but most won't and neither will the NCAA.

I could also live with seeding the bracket randomly. But that's just me...

[Go-UD-Go]

I would rather objective measures, not subjective. Take the human element with it's tendency for mischief out of the process. Random, would be better than what we do now.

[MikeF]

Originally Posted by Figgie123 Back to the question at the beginning: What should the tournament teams be based on?

I have the NCAA's answer to that question: "Ask us next year."

[MikeF]

Originally Posted by SC_Flyer Each year there would be promotion and relegation between the divisions, like the EPL/BPL.

I've felt for a while that the Atlantic 10 - if they're going to maintain a single standings table for basketball rather than divisions - should employ a two-flight system with promotion and relegation to determine which opponents you play twice. With the conference growing to 14 or whatever teams it becomes more difficult, but I've thought doing so would allow the top-flight teams more opportunities at higher RPI wins, improved SOS, etc. I'm not sure it's practicable, but I'd be interested to look at it more in depth.

[ud2]

Originally Posted by CE80 It's not that difficult to come up with a way of making things more even. The P5 won't allow it so don't waste your time. The only way change will come is if the media and/or government put some pressure on the P5.

Totallly agree...fixing this is not difficult...it is only to get worse with 20 game league schedules...it is depressing...the non-p5 schools need to start scheduling each other more in non-conference games...the government and the media are not going to do anything.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by ud2 Totallly agree...fixing this is not difficult...it is only to get worse with 20 game league schedules...it is depressing...the non-p5 schools need to start scheduling each other more in non-conference games...the government and the media are not going to do anything.

It will be fixed, eventually. The P5 (or some variation) will break away and have their own tournament

[CE80]

Originally Posted by Radar It will be fixed, eventually. The P5 (or some variation) will break away and have their own tournament

I used to think that way but I am beginning to think the P5 may be smarter than I gave them credit for. Keeping the automatic births leaves enough of an element of the Cinderella upsets that make this tourney special. But by stacking the deck against the non P5 through scheduling and then at large bid selection and then seeding, the P5 keeps most of the $$'s in house. And by doing that, it makes it extremely difficult for the non P5 to move up.

[ud2]

Originally Posted by Radar It will be fixed, eventually. The P5 (or some variation) will break away and have their own tournament

Could the non-p5 schools file an anti-trust lawsuit against the p5?

The p5 would maybe be a monopoly at that point.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by cj I like how the high schools do certain state tournaments, besides football. Seed all of the teams 1 through 68. Let the coach/AD from team #1 pick their line, then #2, then #3 all the way down the line. Theoretically, once you reach the #35th team you will start having to choose who you want play against. It is a very interesting process watching the tennis coaches place their players and it would be the same with the coaches/A's of the different schools.

The more I think about it, the more I like cj's idea the most. Can you imagine the TV drama as each University's AD went to the board and chose their Region and opponent? It would be nuts. Twitter would go nuts and could be scrolled on the bottom of the screen.

Someone put me in charge!

[Figgie123]

Originally Posted by rollo Someone put me in charge!

Only one word can be used right now.

NO!

[ud2]

Originally Posted by rollo Can you imagine the TV drama as each University's AD went to the board and chose their Region and opponent? It would be nuts.

Sort of sounds like The Hunger Games. Who wants to sort of volunteer to play Kansas? Lol.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by CE80 I used to think that way but I am beginning to think the P5 may be smarter than I gave them credit for. Keeping the automatic births leaves enough of an element of the Cinderella upsets that make this tourney special. But by stacking the deck against the non P5 through scheduling and then at large bid selection and then seeding, the P5 keeps most of the $$'s in house. And by doing that, it makes it extremely difficult for the non P5 to move up.

I've said this before and I'll repeat it here. If the P5 made their own tournament they would depend on regions to extend their basketball interests from non-P5 to non-P5 and P5. Basically what the Pros depend on and what college football depends on. It's not going to happen because I'm going to jump out on limb here and say if my Dayton Flyers were no longer allowed to qualify for the best college basketball tournament, I would not switch or add to my allegiance the Buckeyes or anyone else. If I wanted to watch the whales of basketball play, I'd be an NBA fan.

That's a lot of interest to lose in a great tournament like the NCAA because that's at least 3/4 of college basketball that's getting spit on.

And I'll also say that if they expanded it to include the A10 and some of the other very good non-P5 schools but left off the guppies, I'd still have a big problem with it.

So let them try, I think they're bluffing and the NCAA is falling for their bluff.