The new NCAA Tourney format

[Olympic Fan]

The 10-person NCAA Men's Basketball Committee will be meeting in Indianapolis this week to decide how to expand the NCAA Tournament from 65 teams to 68 teams.

The explansion is already a done deal ... the debate is over how to incorporate the extra three teams.

Under last year's format, the tournament included 31 automatic qualifiers and 34 at-large teams. Under the new format the 2011 field will include tha same 31 automatic qualifiers, but the number of at-large teams will incease to 37 teams.

Under the old format, the two lowest seeded teams in the tournament faced each other in Dayton each year for a play-in game (although the NCAA refused to call it that).

It's almost certain that under the new format will feature four "play-in" games. But nothing else is certain. When the expansion was approached last spring, the NCAA asked schools and conferences to submit ideas for how to deal with the expansion. I don't think it's oversimplifing to say there are basically two ideas that most schools support:

(1) Simply have the eight lowest seeds in the tournament play each other to determine who will be the No. 16 seeds and get to face the four number ones.

(2) Have the eight lowest seeded at large teams play each other -- maybe to determine the No. 12 seeds (that's about where the lowest seeded at large teams usually end up).

The bigger schools and conferences advocate the first plan -- their argument is "We should remain true to the seeding process".

Of course, the lowest seeded teams are ALWAYS the champions of small conferences -- the SWAC, the MEAC, the Big South, etc. They are the leagues stuck playing in Dayton every year and they don't like it.

The smaller schools advocate the second plan. Their argument is that the expansion was to benefit the big leagues (which will gobble up all the extra at-large spots) and they should not ask the smaller conferences to take a hit so that Virginia Tech and Mississippi State (two teams that probably would have benefited last season) can play in the NCAA instead of the NIT.

Can I offer three factors that I rarely see mentioned in the media when it comes to this issue?

First, the play-in game (whatever you call it) is financially favorable to the teams (and conferences) which participate. The NCAA awards tourney shares based on participation (one share for each conference team in the field) and for wins (one addition share for each victory per team leading up to the Final Four). Since No. 16 has ever beaten a 1, the play-in game has offered teams a chance to win an extra tourney share since the NCAA treats the play-in game as a real game and it's just as valuable in financial terms as a Sweet 16 win.

Don't discount the value of that -- some small conference doubles its NCAA payout every year because of the play-in game -- and that's big money in those leagues.

But is the extra money make up for the humilation of participating in a play-in game? Well, the fact that the small conferences want to escape it tells you that. And the fact that the big conferences don't want to get involved means that they do see the added revenues as that much of a plus.

The second issue is TV. Over the years, ESPN has televised the play-in game from Dayton to dismal ratings -- more akin to the NIT going on at the same time than to the NCAA bonanza that CBS has two days later.

It's unlikely that having four Belmont vs. Jackson State games will do anything for the ratings. But if the four play-in games involve big name schools from big time conferences (as the last eight at large teams would be), then the NCAA's TV partners would have a better product to sell.

The third issue is logistics. Right now, the play-in game is Tuesday night of tourney week with the winner getting to play a true first-round game on Friday -- always.

But if the four play-in games produce four No. 16s, then two of them would probably have to play on Thursday. Can you see that -- play a killer game on Tuesday night, fly straight to, say, Greensboro for Wednesday's mandated NCAA practice and then play the No. 1 seed on Thursday? It would be the same for two of the four No. 12 seeds, if the committee goes that way.

I don't know how you get around that -- schedule two play-in games on Monday? Have all four No. 1 seeds at Friday/Sunday sites? Awkward either way.

Of course, it's always possible that somebody comes up with a third option that would satisfy both sides -- a hybrid of the two plans (in which four lower seeds play for the last two No. 16s and the four lowest at large seeds play for the last two No. 12s)??

Still, the debate ought to be interesting -- too bad it will be behind close doors.

[brevity]

I mentioned this back in an old thread, but it's worth hypothesizing that if the NCAA goes with your first idea -- the lowest overall 8 teams have 4 play-in games -- one of those winners will most likely beat a #1 seed in the not-too-distant future.

68 teams means 17 teams per region. This means:

The 17-seeds of 2011 are, essentially, the 16-seeds of 2010.
The 16-seeds of 2011 are, essentially, the 15-seeds of 2010.

Taking 2010 as an example, we had a 15-seed (Robert Morris) almost beat a 2-seed (Villanova). Villanova was very much in the mix for a 1 seed. This had legitimate upset potential; it was not a case of lousy seeding. The Selection Committee has gotten much, much better at evaluating low-seeded teams.

I realize that the best 15-seed in 2010 would stay a 15-seed in 2011, as the bottom 8 teams in this year's tournament were actually:

15
15
15
16
16
16
16a (play-in)
16b (play-in)

So yes, if Robert Morris were considered the best 15-seed in a 68-team field, they'd remain a 15-seed and avoid the play-in game. But it's no longer a stretch to imagine that one of four #1 seeds that happens to start a little rusty might fall to one of 4 play-in winners that has a little momentum. And the concept of a play-in game would no longer seem so humiliating.

Unrelated point: The second idea -- pitting the lowest at-large teams in play-in games -- would be disastrous for the fill-in brackets. The NCAA knows better than to kill the greatest promotional tool in all of sports.

[Deslok]

Unrelated point: The second idea -- pitting the lowest at-large teams in play-in games -- would be disastrous for the fill-in brackets. The NCAA knows better than to kill the greatest promotional tool in all of sports.

Never underestimate the NCAA ability to inject stupidity into anything.

[hurleyfor3]

The third issue is logistics. Right now, the play-in game is Tuesday night of tourney week with the winner getting to play a true first-round game on Friday -- always.

But if the four play-in games produce four No. 16s, then two of them would probably have to play on Thursday. Can you see that -- play a killer game on Tuesday night, fly straight to, say, Greensboro for Wednesday's mandated NCAA practice and then play the No. 1 seed on Thursday? It would be the same for two of the four No. 12 seeds, if the committee goes that way.

I don't know how you get around that -- schedule two play-in games on Monday? Have all four No. 1 seeds at Friday/Sunday sites? Awkward either way.

Of course, it's always possible that somebody comes up with a third option that would satisfy both sides -- a hybrid of the two plans (in which four lower seeds play for the last two No. 16s and the four lowest at large seeds play for the last two No. 12s)??

Here's one idea: Announce the eight play-in participants before Selection Sunday and have them play on Monday. At the time of the announcement, we won't even need to know who the schools are, just which conference champions will be matched up against which.

You can't do this if you make the at-large teams play the play-in games because some of their tournaments will naturally finish on Selection Sunday or late Saturday evening. But most of the smaller conferences finish their tournaments a week early or more.

You're not detracting from Selection Sunday because the teams involved are conference champions; we already know they're in.

[mgtr]

Here's one idea: Announce the eight play-in participants before Selection Sunday and have them play on Monday. At the time of the announcement, we won't even need to know who the schools are, just which conference champions will be matched up against which.

You can't do this if you make the at-large teams play the play-in games because some of their tournaments will naturally finish on Selection Sunday or late Saturday evening. But most of the smaller conferences finish their tournaments a week early or more.

You're not detracting from Selection Sunday because the teams involved are conference champions; we already know they're in.

Well reasoned - I like it!

[Rich]

Here's one idea: Announce the eight play-in participants before Selection Sunday and have them play on Monday. At the time of the announcement, we won't even need to know who the schools are, just which conference champions will be matched up against which.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but what if one of those teams happens to be really good and deserves a higher seed? How can you determine which teams should play just based on their conferences without actually evaluating the teams?

[SCMatt33]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but what if one of those teams happens to be really good and deserves a higher seed? How can you determine which teams should play just based on their conferences without actually evaluating the teams?

I'm just speculating, but he might have meant that you will announce the four match-ups, schools and all, before selection sunday, but you don't have to assign them to any particular region until the entire bracket is revealed. In generall, all of the small conference tournaments are done well in advance, so you would already know the champs and could announce it early. If that's true, I'd be on board with it.

[Dev11]

Here's one idea: Announce the eight play-in participants before Selection Sunday and have them play on Monday. At the time of the announcement, we won't even need to know who the schools are, just which conference champions will be matched up against which.

You can't do this if you make the at-large teams play the play-in games because some of their tournaments will naturally finish on Selection Sunday or late Saturday evening. But most of the smaller conferences finish their tournaments a week early or more.

You're not detracting from Selection Sunday because the teams involved are conference champions; we already know they're in.

This probably won't fly given that the NCAA would have to openly admit that teams from conferences that play tournaments during that last weekend would never be considered for the play-in games. This would certainly be the case every year, but they wouldn't be able to make that a hard rule. There may come a year when every small conferences has one really awesome team (our most recent opponent out of the Horizon League would be a great example), and it may fall apart.

What about taking this plan but moving selection up to Saturday? I know the ACC has played the championship on Sunday since the dawn of time, but is it such an important tradition?

[OZZIE4DUKE]

How about if they gave the 4 number 1 seeds a bye in the first round and had the 2's play the 17's etc.?

[sagegrouse]

How about if they gave the 4 number 1 seeds a bye in the first round and had the 2's play the 17's etc.?

Doesn't work. Then there are 36 teams in the second round vs. 32. If there are 68 teams, one way or another, there need to be four games played before the regular brackets starts.

I like the ideas surfaced on this thread, though. It seems like pushing the calendar by pre-announcing some of the play-in games is an interesting idea.

sagegrouse

[Wander]

This probably won't fly given that the NCAA would have to openly admit that teams from conferences that play tournaments during that last weekend would never be considered for the play-in games.

That's a good point, and to take it a step further, the really bad conferences like the SWAC, NEC, etc could move their conference tournaments to that last weekend to try to avoid the play-in games. So I don't think there's any realistic way to announce the play-in teams before the rest of the field.

[Dev11]

That's a good point, and to take it a step further, the really bad conferences like the SWAC, NEC, etc could move their conference tournaments to that last weekend to try to avoid the play-in games. So I don't think there's any realistic way to announce the play-in teams before the rest of the field.

Too late for that, ESPN has all of those conference tournaments on schedule throughout that week leading up to Selection Sunday. Those conferences like the SWAC get on tv because they don't have to compete with the likes of the Big East and ACC for airtime later in the week.

If nothing else, ESPN has done a fantastic job of selling us on a host of weeks throughout the year that are just straight college basketball - Feast Week, Rivalry Week, Judgment Week, Championship Week. I'm not complaining, any excuse to show excessive college basketball is fine by me, as long as our Devils are always on!

[brevity]

Here's one idea: Announce the eight play-in participants before Selection Sunday and have them play on Monday. At the time of the announcement, we won't even need to know who the schools are, just which conference champions will be matched up against which.

You can't do this if you make the at-large teams play the play-in games because some of their tournaments will naturally finish on Selection Sunday or late Saturday evening. But most of the smaller conferences finish their tournaments a week early or more.

You're not detracting from Selection Sunday because the teams involved are conference champions; we already know they're in.

Nice idea, but as Rich pointed out, not all teams from low-RPI conferences are equal. Or, to illustrate another way...

In 2010, the Big South conference winner, Winthrop, was in the play-in game. In 2009, Radford won that conference and was a 16 seed. But in 2008, Winthrop was a 13 seed. Had another team won that conference tournament, there's a good chance it would have seeded much lower in the Big Dance. The Selection Committee has done a fair job recently of not pre-assigning slots based on conference affiliation, or at least appearing not to do so.

[Bob Green]

(2) Have the eight lowest seeded at large teams play each other -- maybe to determine the No. 12 seeds (that's about where the lowest seeded at large teams usually end up).



I like this approach as I do not believe conference champions should have to play-in to the tournament. The at large teams who have spent the end of the regular season "on-the-bubble" should have to play their way into the Big Dance.

[hurleyfor3]

My thought was this: As it is now there are always at least eight one-bid conferences, where seeding does not depend greatly on who wins. So you take the eight weakest conferences and just announce those will be the ones whose champions get Monday play-in games. If we want, we can do this completely objectively according to some sort of published formula.

I'm thinking the NCAA would announce the "bottom eight" on Thursday or Friday, which for a Monday game is more lead time than play-in teams currently have. Many tournaments will have already finished by then, so in practice there would be no more than two or three "Team TBD" slots.

Sure, it formalizes the relegation of the weakest conferences, but the current process already does this. (And anyway, let's see your better idea while you're complaining.)

[brevity]

My thought was this: As it is now there are always at least eight one-bid conferences, where seeding does not depend greatly on who wins. So you take the eight weakest conferences and just announce those will be the ones whose champions get Monday play-in games. If we want, we can do this completely objectively according to some sort of published formula.

I'm thinking the NCAA would announce the "bottom eight" on Thursday or Friday, which for a Monday game is more lead time than play-in teams currently have. Many tournaments will have already finished by then, so in practice there would be no more than two or three "Team TBD" slots.

Sure, it formalizes the relegation of the weakest conferences, but the current process already does this. (And anyway, let's see your better idea while you're complaining.)

I'm not really complaining -- if I were, I'd say that 64 teams was just fine. When the 31st conference was formed, the number of at-large teams should have reduced by one, not stayed the same. And bubble teams that don't qualify don't deserve my sympathy. (That goes for Duke as well, if they were in that position.)

But back in reality, the better plan is for the term "play-in game" to actually mean something. It's ridiculous that automatic qualifiers need to play their way in, while the 7th or 8th best team in a power conference starts play on Thursday or Friday.

The lowest 8 of the 34 at-large teams need to play their way into the tournament, as 12a and 12b seeds in each region, or whatever. If this means that Mississippi State loses the SEC Tournament final on Sunday and plays again on Tuesday, so be it. They'd prefer that to the NIT anyway.

Play-in games are Tuesday and Wednesday, and they take place at the respective first-round sites (where the winners would face the 5 seeds two days later). There are some logistics to making sure the four 4/5/12/13 pods are split so that two play on Thursday and two on Friday, but that's not a hard fix.

I mentioned earlier that this kills the idea of fill-in brackets, but it can be salvaged somewhat if participants are allowed to predict the fate of that winner without actually having to choose the winner. For example, my bracket might say that the Virginia Tech/Illinois winner makes the 3rd round.

[tallguy]

I'm not really complaining -- if I were, I'd say that 64 teams was just fine. When the 31st conference was formed, the number of at-large teams should have reduced by one, not stayed the same. And bubble teams that don't qualify don't deserve my sympathy. (That goes for Duke as well, if they were in that position.)

But back in reality, the better plan is for the term "play-in game" to actually mean something. It's ridiculous that automatic qualifiers need to play their way in, while the 7th or 8th best team in a power conference starts play on Thursday or Friday.

I disagree entirely. Simply put, there shouldn't be 31 automatic bids. There shouldn't be 347 NCAA D1 basketball teams, because 200+ teams simply do not have the financial resources to EVER be competitive. Why should the tournament integrity be compromised because weak teams insist on playing with the big boys? Because if you make the last 8 "at large" teams play in, it will have a drastic effect on the competitive balance of the field.

First thing is, the last 8 at large teams aren't all 12 seeds. They can range from 9 seeds to 13 seeds. So there's a good chance that your 10 and 11 seeds would be weaker than the 12 seeds, which isn't fair to the 5 seeds.

Another factor is how much benefit the play in teams get for getting the first game. If you look at the Big East tournament, you'll see that teams that play an extra game tend to win at a higher % than their seed indicates (which is why the BE coaches are trying to get rid of double byes). If this trend occurs, you'll have 5 seeds at a disadvantage playing a warmed up team while coming off a week (or even 2 week) layoff.

I'm sorry that the powers that be haven't set greater barriers to entry to D1. I'm sorry that the NCAA decided to add an addition 4 teams to a perfect tournament. However...do not ruin the bracket b/c it's not "fair" for the weakest teams to have to play in. A play-in game is always for the lowest seeded teams...don't let the notion that they "automatically" qualified change that. Besides...considering that most of these schools rely heavily on their basketball teams to travel around and take beatings for money, the extra NCAA money would be definitely worth it.

[4decadedukie]

Here's one idea: Announce the eight play-in participants before Selection Sunday and have them play on Monday. At the time of the announcement, we won't even need to know who the schools are, just which conference champions will be matched up against which.

You can't do this if you make the at-large teams play the play-in games because some of their tournaments will naturally finish on Selection Sunday or late Saturday evening. But most of the smaller conferences finish their tournaments a week early or more.

You're not detracting from Selection Sunday because the teams involved are conference champions; we already know they're in.


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)?

[brevity]

I disagree entirely. Simply put, there shouldn't be 31 automatic bids. There shouldn't be 347 NCAA D1 basketball teams, because 200+ teams simply do not have the financial resources to EVER be competitive. Why should the tournament integrity be compromised because weak teams insist on playing with the big boys? Because if you make the last 8 "at large" teams play in, it will have a drastic effect on the competitive balance of the field.

You have a brilliant future in college football.

People who are interested in seeing only basketball teams from power conferences face each other should pay more attention to the conference tournaments. The nobodies in the NCAA first round make it fun. Murray State, most recently. Even Belmont a couple of years ago was fun, provided the proper antacid.


First thing is, the last 8 at large teams aren't all 12 seeds. They can range from 9 seeds to 13 seeds. So there's a good chance that your 10 and 11 seeds would be weaker than the 12 seeds, which isn't fair to the 5 seeds.

Historically, not many at-large teams got a 13 seed. Only Oklahoma 10+ years ago comes to mind. Most are in the 10-12 range, mixed in with automatic qualifiers from mid-tier conferences, but I'll spot you a 9 somewhere for the sake of argument.

If you believe that, by default, an 11-seed from a power conference is better than an 11-seed from a non-power conference, then I don't know what to tell you. Both have had success, and both have failed miserably. Mixed bag. Kind of the point.


Another factor is how much benefit the play in teams get for getting the first game. If you look at the Big East tournament, you'll see that teams that play an extra game tend to win at a higher % than their seed indicates (which is why the BE coaches are trying to get rid of double byes). If this trend occurs, you'll have 5 seeds at a disadvantage playing a warmed up team while coming off a week (or even 2 week) layoff.

I'm sorry that the powers that be haven't set greater barriers to entry to D1. I'm sorry that the NCAA decided to add an addition 4 teams to a perfect tournament. However...do not ruin the bracket b/c it's not "fair" for the weakest teams to have to play in. A play-in game is always for the lowest seeded teams...don't let the notion that they "automatically" qualified change that. Besides...considering that most of these schools rely heavily on their basketball teams to travel around and take beatings for money, the extra NCAA money would be definitely worth it.

As I described the 12a/12b thing before, that winner would have a 2-day headstart at the first round site, and already be familiar with that court's quirks. You could consider that a disadvantage to the 5 seeds.

But remember, once the decision was made to expand to 65, and then 68 teams, the result by its very nature is imperfect. The question becomes: who gets screwed?

[sagegrouse]

I disagree entirely. Simply put, there shouldn't be 31 automatic bids. There shouldn't be 347 NCAA D1 basketball teams, because 200+ teams simply do not have the financial resources to EVER be competitive. Why should the tournament integrity be compromised because weak teams insist on playing with the big boys? Because if you make the last 8 "at large" teams play in, it will have a drastic effect on the competitive balance of the field.



Uhhh.... Wouldn't it make it exactly like it is now? The expansion adds four at-large teams/ If eight at-large teams are in the play-in games, the field of 64 would contain the same number of at-large teams and conference champions as the tournament has had the last few years.

But many ADs would agree with you about sharing the NCAA loot with the small conference teams.

sagegrouse

[Wander]

Sure, it formalizes the relegation of the weakest conferences, but the current process already does this. (And anyway, let's see your better idea while you're complaining.)

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).

[Kedsy]

(and the NCAA can guarantee Dayton gets a sub-regional every year to make up for this).

Why do they have to make up for it? Does Dayton have naked pictures of the NCAA or something that guarantees them a post-season game every year?

[Jarhead]

Uhhh.... Wouldn't it make it exactly like it is now? The expansion adds four at-large teams/ If eight at-large teams are in the play-in games, the field of 64 would contain the same number of at-large teams and conference champions as the tournament has had the last few years.

But many ADs would agree with you about sharing the NCAA loot with the small conference teams.

sagegrouse

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.

[toooskies]

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).

[hurleyfor3]

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...


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).

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.


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?

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.


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 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.

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).

[Jarhead]

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.



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.

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.

[gep]

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/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/12866/the-play-in-moment-of-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.

[mgtr]

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.

[gep]

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.

[Jarhead]

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:
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... Enough said, don't you think?

[tommy]

I mentioned earlier that this kills the idea of fill-in brackets, but it can be salvaged somewhat if participants are allowed to predict the fate of that winner without actually having to choose the winner. For example, my bracket might say that the Virginia Tech/Illinois winner makes the 3rd round.

Not in my pool you don't!

[SoCalDukeFan]

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

[SCMatt33]

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.

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.

[Jarhead]

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.

[ACCBBallFan]

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.

[Jarhead]

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.

[Jarhead]

Apparently a decision has been made (http://blog.taragana.com/sports/2010/07/02/ncaa-settles-on-format-for-68-team-march-madness-tournament-puts-off-details-til-next-week-117608/) by the NCAA. Details will be released later, probably in a week or two. According to the linked story:
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.
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.:cool: