Look, it wasn't a bad idea, but it's absolutely impossible to implement logistically. As others have pointed out, what happens in a year like 2009, where if Davidson wins their conference, they're a 13 seed, and if Chattanooga wins it, they're a 16 seed? I'm also not sure you realize that a lot of the bad conferences already play their championship game on that last weekend - this past year for example, two of each of the 14, 15, and 16 seeds didn't get their bid until that last two days.
My "better idea" is to change the number from 68/65 to 64 teams. But since that's not happening, I think the lowest eight seeds should play in four play-in games of 16s vs 17s on Tuesday, and to make things a little easier for them in regards to the short turnaround, put each of those games in the same city where their next game is instead of Dayton (and the NCAA can guarantee Dayton gets a sub-regional every year to make up for this).
Now that is the soundest and simplest explanation of how it should be done, so far. How I see it, though, it's the seeding process that needs to be studied. Today's system seems to combine the seeding with the selection process. How about if the 68 teams were all selected, and announced before the seeding process takes place. Then the top 60 seeds get a by in the first round of four games, one in each region. There. It's done. Don't worry about inconveniences that allow only one day's rest. Take the ACC tourney as an example. Four days in a row. No problem.
Such a system would guarantee that the eight lowest seeds play each other for what would amount to the 16th seed in each region. Don't call them play-in games. They are first round games. The selection process should rank all 68 teams, and the tourney seedings would then fall right into place. Only the logistical convenience of minimizing travel costs and time should reasonably be considered, but if advantages are handed out, they should lean in favor of the higher seeded team.
As I get ready to post this, I see that Wander says the exact same thing a little over an hour ago.
The fairness problem in letting the play-ins play at the venue of the 64-team tourney is, the winner of the play-in gets game experience at the venue. A few years ago (2005?) UW-Milwaukee was playing at the Convention Center in Cleveland as a 12 or 13 seed, and they pulled a few upsets. Why? Because they had played their regular season final game in that same venue, against Cleveland State, for the Horizon League's final game. That's the competitive reason why they play the play-in at a separate venue. (Of course, there are other reasons as well-- like, the venue not being available or ready for another game).
Gee, I have like 10 other things going on while I'm still in the middle of moving and I decide to get into an argument over play-in games. Anyway...
That's not a terrible idea, except now you need the building for an extra two or three days, and many first-round venues also host nba and nhl teams this time of year. (Although one year when the ACC tournament was in Charlotte, I'm pretty sure the Hornets played in the old Coliseum on the Sunday night of the ACC Championship.) So you may be just substituting one logistical issue for another.
So you leave the Southern Conference out of the play-in mix and if Chattanooga wins give them a 15 seed. This rarely happens with more than a couple conferences a year, and when it does, there's a chance the tournament is finished before Saturday anyway.As others have pointed out, what happens in a year like 2009, where if Davidson wins their conference, they're a 13 seed, and if Chattanooga wins it, they're a 16 seed?
I think you missed that I would have the ncaa announce the play-in conferences a day or two early. Anyway, we already have 64 teams and fanbases running around making travel arrangements on three days' notice; what's an extra four? Teevee knows where the games will be, and I do understand the ncaa pays for at least some travel costs (they definitely block out hotel rooms) out of what it gets from cbs/turner/whomever.4decadedukie: As others have already indicated, the concept is innovative. However, what about the MANY, CRITICAL logistics and administrative details that precede every NCAA Tournament game? If these eight team were to play only one day after the NCAA announced their selection, how would ticket sales, hotel arrangements (fans as well as teams), transportation (air and ground), venue preparation, media coverage, TV/cable network setup, and so forth be successfully managed (especially, with Selection Sunday being the only day for such work to be accomplished)?
I'm indifferent to where we play the play-in games -- all in Dayton, Dayton plus three others spread across the country, existing regional sites, Fairbanks, Honolulu, wherever.
I would actually rather see the play-ins involve the bottom eight at-large teams, as I don't think the seventh-place Big XII team or whatever deserves to play for the national championship. But I think that opens up even more cans of worms (they're not always 12 seeds, formation of a new "bubble" of who gets play-in games, already opaque process surrounding selection of final at-large teams now has play-in dimension, among others).
People are throwing too many complications. Just seed all 68 teams, and be done with it.
Then the lowest 4 teams would be the 17th seeds, and the next lowest would be the 16th seeds. The easy way takes a lot of questions out of the mix. Play the first round of the tournament at the home court of the 16th seeded teams. Where are the complications there? Remember, this is a national tournament. Some have to travel more than others. And don't worry about logistics problems. They can be handled by the way the committee drops the teams in the brackets, giving the edge to the higher seeded team in all instances.
I like the fact that the 31 conference champiions are "in"... they earned it. The 3 additional teams will be the at-large teams that were really "on the bubble" with 65 teams... so getting in at all should make them happy.
From one ESPN blog...
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...-truth-arrives
*************
Moreover, it would be a nice symbolic statement. The last eight at-large teams are frequently mediocre underachievers from major conferences. If they're mediocre enough to be the last at-large team in the tournament, they don't have the right to complain about their placement; they had plenty of chances to prove otherwise in the season's first five months. The smallest schools are not as skilled or as talented. They don't have deep pockets. But they are conference champions, and seeding them in the tournament automatically, rather than in an ancillary competition, would be a tidy nod to what makes the NCAA tournament great in the first place.
*************
One idea I heard was 2 first round games with lowest seeds, and 2 first round games with last 4 at-large teams. What about the current first round game, then 3 first round games with the last 6 at-large teams... many ideas... like Andy Katz says, there will be a compromise, not a consensus.
Well, if we have to stick reasonably close to the current system, then Jarheads plan (above) makes great sense. On the other hand, what if the conference champions were eliminated from an automatic bid, and the best "X" number of teams (64, 65, 68) played the tournament. I guess the smaller conferences would scream bloody murder. Well, then let the automatic conference champions play a "play in" tournament the week before to determine which (8, 16, or whatever) get into the tournament? Might be unfair, though, to the really good teams in this group.
To me, the bolded section above is the crux of the matter. I just think that a "champion", even for a "small" conference that can never compete with the "big" boys, are champions, none-the-less, and deserve the RECOGNITION. Maybe that's my thing, recognition of being a champion. And, the notion of "play-in game"... I hope we eventually get to "first round game" instead.
Good post, gep. There are 31 Division 1 conferences. They all have a right to have their champions invited to the tournament. To do otherwise would be discrimination. The simple way would be the fairest way. Start the tournament on Thursday of the first week with the top 60 seeds getting a first round by. Will someone please explain what is wrong with that? gep, as you quoted from ESPN earlier:Enough said, don't you think?The last eight at-large teams are frequently mediocre underachievers from major conferences. If they're mediocre enough to be the last at-large team in the tournament, they don't have the right to complain about their placement...
The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament is probably the best annual sporting event in America. The 64 bracket encourages "pools" and with the large number of teams almost anyone who cares anything about sports is interested.
The 65th team thing was not so bad but probably unnecessary. The 68 team field is certainly unnecessary. If you don't win your conference and you are not one of the top 30 country do you deserve to play in the tournament?
The fact that the NCAA even thought about going to 96 teams tells me that they don't get it. Will be interesting to see if they can actually screw up the tournament.
If it were my choice than I would have the last 8 at large teams play on Tuesday with the winners playing in a Friday game.
How about 1's playing 17's at the home of the 1's. Just kidding.
SoCal
There's no way you can guarantee a Friday game for four play-in winners. With one, it was possible, as it was highly unlikely that all 4 one seeds would be at Thursday sites, but let's say that play-in games fed into 2 11 seeds, 1 12 seed, and 1 13 seed in a particular year. Since the 4, 5, and 6 seeds get tossed all over the country since the 1, 2, and 3 seeds get priority on sites. It's quite possible that 3 of the 5 seeds were forced into Thursday games which means that one of the 12-seed winners would have to play Thursday. Unfortunately unless you either get conferences to shift their schedules, or change the tourney schedule, you would have to have a team play Tuesday/Thursday.
Sounds nice, but how would that be explained rationally to the fans, or even the players. What selection logic could we come up with that justifies bracketing the last at large teams selected with higher seeds. To some of the other higher seeds it would look like the committee is favoring those higher seeds. As stated before, let's start the tourney on Thursday with the top 60 seeds getting a by. That's a pretty common way to do it.
I prefer the second method where the 64 teams get seeded the way they always had been prior to going to 65, and then the last four bubble teams in play the last 4 who would have been out had the field not been increased to 68.
So let the 8 bubble teams play one another to solve the prior debate of who got in at expense of someone else deemed better.
Okay, I'm with you, except let's call it the first round of the tourney. Your solution varies not one small bit from mine , gep's, and a few others. Will the NCAA do as we suggest? Hold on, and don't hold your breath. Me? I expect something as complicated as the handicap system in golf. I'll check back in October.
Apparently a decision has been made by the NCAA. Details will be released later, probably in a week or two. According to the linked story:Some of us, me included had been supporting the first of the three. Dayton still seems to be in the mix. We'll know all soon.The committee was known to have looked at at least three possibilities.
One would slot the bottom eight teams in the tournament into the opening round and have them play for the right to move on to the round of 64.
Another option would put the last eight at-large teams to make the field into the play-in games.
There was also talk of a hybrid plan that could include both at-large teams and automatic qualifiers.