Proposed rule changes from the ACC

[Lar77]

If this passes, it might still be a good idea if Duke, UNC and NCSU all agreed not to accept basketball transfers from each other. I think it might get a bit too intense if a player transferred from UNC to Duke or from Duke to NCSU, for instance. Can you imagine, for instance, what it would be like if Yertseven were transferring to UNC instead of Georgetown?

His GPA would go up?

[ChillinDuke]

Yeah, I'm generally in favor of all of these proposals except the tournament expansion.

Frankly, expanding the NCAAT any further is teetering on Bowl Game territory. That is, Bowl Games already get a lot of grief when 6-6 (or 5-7) teams actually play in a "postseason" game. That's ridiculous - might as well give everyone a participation trophy at that point.

Expanding the NCAAT to 72 nearly guarantees that teams with losing conference records will make the field. Look no further than OSU last year who was 21-15 (8-10); many clamored for them to make it into a 68-team field, let alone a 72-team field. [Sidebar: OSU was a 2-seed in the NIT, although I bet they would have made the NCAAT in a hypothetical 72-team field last year.]

Frankly, even 68 teams is too many for me. The incremental 4 teams do little to improve the quality of the tournament and add confusion for the casual fan that generally only takes interest when bracket season rolls around. I can't tell you how many work colleagues leave scratching their head after I try to explain the play-in format to them.

- Chillin

ETA - And Syracuse was 8-10 last year, so there you go. Keep on piling in the teams that can't even win half their conference games.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I agree with setting the 3 point line back - half the players take their shots further out anyway.
No reason for widening the lane - borrowing from another thread, there are no more Wilts.
Shot clock is already a problem, why make it more complicated.
I'm not a fan of the current transfer rule.

Which brings me to the tournament. Instead of 1 First Four, make it 4 First Fours (naming would have to change) and populate it with the 16 "minor-major" (one bid) conference winners. They all finish their conferences a week before the big dance selection anyway. Then take the 4 winners and stick them into the big dance with 60 mid- and major- majors. It makes 76 teams, which should please the coaches. It gives the minor-majors something to shoot for beyond a bid and a first round knockout, and the NCAA has something else to sell. If a team really impresses in the prelims, then they could get a better seed than a
1-16 game because the games are completed before selection sunday.

Agree but disagree. I don't mind 16 play in games, but make it the at large bubble teams and call it the Seth Greenberg Invitational. Let the small conference champs have a bye through to the real deal, and all those teams with .500 records in conference decide once and for all who deserves to get in.

[UrinalCake]

Agree but disagree. I don't mind 16 play in games, but make it the at large bubble teams and call it the Seth Greenberg Invitational. Let the small conference champs have a bye through to the real deal, and all those teams with .500 records in conference decide once and for all who deserves to get in.

Totally agree. The winners of the small one-bid leagues deserve to play in the “real” dance and get their shot at upsetting a giant. It’s totally unfair to make them win a play-in game against another automatic qualifier before they can get to that point. Let the middle-tier P5 schools fight it out for those last spots.

[UrinalCake]

Expanding the NCAAT to 72 nearly guarantees that teams with losing conference records will make the field. Look no further than OSU last year who was 21-15 (8-10); many clamored for them to make it into a 68-team field, let alone a 72-team field. [Sidebar: OSU was a 2-seed in the NIT, although I bet they would have made the NCAAT in a hypothetical 72-team field last year.]

The "First Four Out" this past year were
Baylor 17-14 (8-10)
ND 19-14 (8-10)
Saint Mary's 28-5 (16-2)
USC 23-10 (12-6)

In 2017 they were
Rhode Island 21-9 (13-5)
Cal 21-11 (10-8)
Illinois State 26-6 (15-1)
Illinois 17-14 (8-10)

So a mix of middling P5 schools hovering around 0.500 and some good mid major schools that probably lacked marquee out of conference wins. In the case of ND they were hit with injuries, yet many thought they still should have gotten in over Syracuse. Syracuse's performance (making it to the S16) proved that a middling P5 school is capable of winning a game or two, but I still am not losing any sleep over those types of schools getting left out. They had opportunities to help their cause by winning more games, and they just didn't. For the schools like Saint Mary's and Illinois State, I mean it'd be cool if a few more of them got in because it's a special moment for those programs and for the players, but again I don't think that's enough reason to expand.

Let's be honest here, the reason the ACC wants to expand has nothing to do with the quality of play or fairness. It has to do with earning a few extra dollars by adding some more games.

[Wander]

Let's be honest here, the reason the ACC wants to expand has nothing to do with the quality of play or fairness. It has to do with earning a few extra dollars by adding some more games.

I think it mostly has to do with selfish coaches wanting to say they "made the NCAA tournament" for job security.

[DU82]

[/B]

His GPA would go up?

As would the average for his new team.

[jimsumner]

I think it mostly has to do with selfish coaches wanting to say they "made the NCAA tournament" for job security.

It's not just that. Most coaches have assorted post-season incentives written into their contracts.

[ChillinDuke]

The "First Four Out" this past year were
Baylor 17-14 (8-10)
ND 19-14 (8-10)
Saint Mary's 28-5 (16-2)
USC 23-10 (12-6)

In 2017 they were
Rhode Island 21-9 (13-5)
Cal 21-11 (10-8)
Illinois State 26-6 (15-1)
Illinois 17-14 (8-10)

So a mix of middling P5 schools hovering around 0.500 and some good mid major schools that probably lacked marquee out of conference wins. In the case of ND they were hit with injuries, yet many thought they still should have gotten in over Syracuse. Syracuse's performance (making it to the S16) proved that a middling P5 school is capable of winning a game or two, but I still am not losing any sleep over those types of schools getting left out. They had opportunities to help their cause by winning more games, and they just didn't. For the schools like Saint Mary's and Illinois State, I mean it'd be cool if a few more of them got in because it's a special moment for those programs and for the players, but again I don't think that's enough reason to expand.

Let's be honest here, the reason the ACC wants to expand has nothing to do with the quality of play or fairness. It has to do with earning a few extra dollars by adding some more games.

I agree 100% with your punchline.

But your above bolded sentence should not be a consideration (and I know you're not losing sleep, nor am I). I think this year, if anything, proved that plenty of teams out there can win a game or two or four (Loyola). So clearly a team like Syracuse '18 can win 2 games. The point is not if you can win games in the NCAAT. The point is if you win enough games to earn that privilege. Going 8-10 in a conference of your peers, assuming most conferences are mostly level, should almost be disqualifying. I hesitate to make that a line in the sand. But at the very least, we shouldn't be making it easier for these sorts of teams to be playing in the NCAAT. The regular season needs to mean something (see: baseball playoffs; not a direct comp but you all get the point).

- Chillin

[RPS]

Exactly. This is not a change that would make transfers immediately eligible. It would just say that all ACC teams agree to not block a transfer from going to another team, so any transfer from an ACC school would only have to sit out one year.

The ACC has no power to completely waive the one-year sitout rule.

The one year sit-out rule (as Jason so eloquently calls it) is indeed the purview of the NCAA. However, transfers to D2 and D3 schools are immediately eligible to play while D1 transfers in sports other than baseball, men's or women's basketball, football (Football Bowl Subdivision) or men’s ice hockey can be immediately eligible. Full terms here. In the "money" sports, coaches routinely break contracts and coach at a new school right away. Players can't do that, even if/when their coach leaves just that way.

[sagegrouse]

The NCAA hoops community would be totally nuts to further expand the field for the NCAA tournament.

College basketball fans IMHO (where the H was left in the football end zone) fall into three categories:

(1) "The Fervent," who love college hoops and live and die on each possession of their team. Whadaya think? A million people? Maybe 3-4 million recognizing the diehards for "blue"-chip programs.

(2) "The Sports Nuts," who follow anything that's being covered on TV. This means college hoops from the time of the Super Bowl to early April and the Master Golf tournament. These are two months when the national sports focus is on college hoops. Maybe ten million sports nuts? At most, 15 million.

(3) "The Bracket Fillers," who follow college hoops only to get some basic insights into how to fill out their bracket for March Madness. Fifty million people -- I would guess, but maybe a lot more. (I think there were 15 million entries ahead of me in the ESPN contest.)

The eyeballs are in Category 3. Why would you screw with the one event -- the NCAA Tournament -- that would threaten to drive away this group, which contains three-fourths of college basketball fans? "First Four" is bad enough, and probably should be junked. Adding four teams? Going to 96 teams? Are you kidding me? This would be financial suicide, as the brackets would be impossible to decipher and people would lose interest.

The "expand March Madness" movement is designed to benefit basketball coaches in promoting job retention, and maybe a few AD's as well.

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
'Add another week to the tournament? Not any time soon. CBS covers both March Madness and The Masters, and the Masters ain't moving from the second weekend in April'

[ChillinDuke]

The NCAA hoops community would be totally nuts to further expand the field for the NCAA tournament.

College basketball fans IMHO (where the H was left in the football end zone) fall into three categories:

(1) "The Fervent," who love college hoops and live and die on each possession of their team. Whadaya think? A million people? Maybe 3-4 million recognizing the diehards for "blue"-chip programs.

(2) "The Sports Nuts," who follow anything that's being covered on TV. This means college hoops from the time of the Super Bowl to early April and the Master Golf tournament. These are two months when the national sports focus is on college hoops. Maybe ten million sports nuts? At most, 15 million.

(3) "The Bracket Fillers," who follow college hoops only to get some basic insights into how to fill out their bracket for March Madness. Fifty million people -- I would guess, but maybe a lot more. (I think there were 15 million entries ahead of me in the ESPN contest.)

The eyeballs are in Category 3. Why would you screw with the one event -- the NCAA Tournament -- that would threaten to drive away this group, which contains three-fourths of college basketball fans? "First Four" is bad enough, and probably should be junked. Adding four teams? Going to 96 teams? Are you kidding me? This would be financial suicide, as the brackets would be impossible to decipher and people would lose interest.

The "expand March Madness" movement is designed to benefit basketball coaches in promoting job retention, and maybe a few AD's as well.

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
'Add another week to the tournament? Not any time soon. CBS covers both March Madness and The Masters, and the Masters ain't moving from the second weekend in April'

The term, as it's been used in other mediums, is over-saturation. Institutions, particularly in the realm of entertainment, largely appear that they have to learn the hard way that expansion is not possible indefinitely. There are limits. ESPN, for example, is feeling this in many ways both internally (programming) and externally (macro factors for television watching).

Expanding the NCAAT would be similar, IMO. Eventually, there's too much for the "three-fourths" to consider. Too much time, too complicated, too unfamiliar. Whatever the reason, 3/4 turns into 1/2, and now you have a massive problem. Ratings crash, contracts slim down the next time they are up for renewal, and suddenly everything's different.

People consistently underestimate how easy it is to cross this threshold, IMO. Especially in today's environment where it's near effortless to substitute your viewing/entertainment habits away and to a new fix.

- Chillin

[wilson]

Can we just get 4 quarters?

I'm interested to know why you'd favor this rule change. Assuming the total number of minutes would remain at 40, how would you envision this changing game play?

[UrinalCake]

I'm interested to know why you'd favor this rule change. Assuming the total number of minutes would remain at 40, how would you envision this changing game play?

Jumping in here... the biggest difference is how team fouls accumulate and getting rid of the one and one. That has an impact on game strategy. Also with the extra natural break you would probably take away a timeout per half, providing fewer interruptions.

Every other level of basketball plays in quarters - high school, pros, international, even women’s college ball. The fact that the men play halves is an anomaly.

[rsvman]

My thoughts:

1) The tournament has too many teams already.

2) Widening the lane is OK. Won't change much.

3) Moving back the 3-point line makes perfect sense. Need to do it.

4) I HATE the idea of shortening the shot clock after an offensive rebound. I think the shot clock is already too short, and I can't see why you would want to punish the team for pulling off a great play down the stretch of a tough game. Any move whatsoever that furthers the descent of the game into even more of a shuttle run should be roundly opposed by everybody who loves basketball. Basketball is not a game where you run as fast as you can into the frontcourt and toss up a shot as quickly as possible, or, at least, it shouldn't be. There was a time when people ran offenses. I kind of miss that. If it were up to me I'd lengthen the shot clock back out to at least 40 seconds for college ball. Keep the game as separate from the NBA game as possible.

[Wander]

The term, as it's been used in other mediums, is over-saturation. Institutions, particularly in the realm of entertainment, largely appear that they have to learn the hard way that expansion is not possible indefinitely. There are limits. ESPN, for example, is feeling this in many ways both internally (programming) and externally (macro factors for television watching).

Expanding the NCAAT would be similar, IMO. Eventually, there's too much for the "three-fourths" to consider. Too much time, too complicated, too unfamiliar. Whatever the reason, 3/4 turns into 1/2, and now you have a massive problem. Ratings crash, contracts slim down the next time they are up for renewal, and suddenly everything's different.

People consistently underestimate how easy it is to cross this threshold, IMO. Especially in today's environment where it's near effortless to substitute your viewing/entertainment habits away and to a new fix.

- Chillin

The thing is, I think everyone agrees on this for college basketball. I don't think anyone believes expanding the tournament would be better for the sport, and I'm not even sure anyone believes that expanding the tournament would be better at making television money in the long term. It's just about coaches being selfish about their own personal job security/benefits/salaries. The problem is that coaches have way too much power in the sport, so even though basically everyone recognizes tournament expansion as a terrible idea, it may happen anyway.

[rasputin]

The thing is, I think everyone agrees on this for college basketball. I don't think anyone believes expanding the tournament would be better for the sport, and I'm not even sure anyone believes that expanding the tournament would be better at making television money in the long term. It's just about coaches being selfish about their own personal job security/benefits/salaries. The problem is that coaches have way too much power in the sport, so even though basically everyone recognizes tournament expansion as a terrible idea, it may happen anyway.

Obviously 64 was the most appropriate number for bracketing purposes. The field consisted of 65 teams from 2001 to 2010 (according to Wikipedia, anyway). I recall that the stated rationale for adding the 65th team was so that the Committee would still have X number of at-large berths to award; this came about because of the addition of another automatic qualifier that would have reduced the at-large field by one. Then they went to the current 68.

I would be happy to see the field go back to 64, and I sure don't want to see it go to 96, given that this would just be another step to eventually creeping up to 128. There's just no stopping it at that point.

And I feel this way despite the fact that I do normally watch the First Four games, but then again, I'm one of the category 1 junkies.

[UrinalCake]

4) I HATE the idea of shortening the shot clock after an offensive rebound. I think the shot clock is already too short, and I can't see why you would want to punish the team for pulling off a great play down the stretch of a tough game. Any move whatsoever that furthers the descent of the game into even more of a shuttle run should be roundly opposed by everybody who loves basketball.

I think the idea is that in a normal possession you have 10 seconds to get the ball across halfcourt and then 20 seconds to run a play, hence the 30 second shot clock. But after an offensive rebound you’re already on your side of the court so you don’t need those 10 seconds to get down the court. You’re not forcing teams to hurry, you’re just giving them the normal amount of time.

Another way of looking at it could be, why punish a team who plays good defense and forces their opponent to heave up a bad three only to have the long rebound bounce right back to the offensive team by chance.

[ChillinDuke]

The thing is, I think everyone agrees on this for college basketball. I don't think anyone believes expanding the tournament would be better for the sport, and I'm not even sure anyone believes that expanding the tournament would be better at making television money in the long term. It's just about coaches being selfish about their own personal job security/benefits/salaries. The problem is that coaches have way too much power in the sport, so even though basically everyone recognizes tournament expansion as a terrible idea, it may happen anyway.

Fair point. Which is why a "commissioner" would be nice, assuming we are able to get that right.

- Chillin

[jimsumner]

The women have used four 10-minute quarters the last few years and I've come to prefer that.

There is an extra stoppage of play between Q1 and Q2 and between Q3 and Q4.

But there are fewer media timeouts.

And the timeouts between quarters come after watching the game clock count down to zero and therefore seem more organic, less disruptive of the game's rhythms.

FWIW.