How would you change the NCAA tournament

[SoCalDukeFan]

I would do the following if I could

1. Eliminate the first four and go back to 65 teams. They idea is not to add more teams with mediocre seasons, it should be to find the best team or at least have very good teams on the Final Four.

2. If they won't do 1. then have the play-ins from the teams ranked 61-68. Again the idea should be to have the best teams advance.

3. Give the "Committee" an extra hour and have them value the conference tournaments. If thats a problem for CBS with 60 Minutes, then let TBS or somebody else have the Selection Show.

4. Put some basketball people on the "Committee." For the last two tournaments there were two strong regions and two weak ones. This year the weak ones met in the Final Four game.

5. If possible eliminate a number 1 seed from travelling 3 time zones. If it happens, at least let them play an early game on Friday.

6. Don't have the losing team players at the post game press conference. These are unpaid players why subject them to the press idiots when they are hurting.

7. I honestly don't know what to do about the domes. I don't like them but 80,000 want to see the Final Four. Maybe try to have more games in the domes.

This year's tournament had some fun games. If Pitt hits a free throw Butler is gone. If Arizona hits a three (easier shot than the one made against Duke at the halftime) then UConnvicts are gone. However the NC game was AWFUL.

SoCal

[uh_no]

5. If possible eliminate a number 1 seed from travelling 3 time zones. If it happens, at least let them play an early game on Friday.

SoCal

That's the goal. You have to understand though that the punishment for being the worst #1 seed is that you get last pick of the sites. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it works. To provide a counter example though, Uconn seemed to do alright 3 time zones away, so this does not seem to be as much of a systematic problem as you would say.

[sagegrouse]

The problem isn't that the TSC is incompetent or corrupt. The problem is that the data to rank teams in different conferences, based only on current year results, is weak to nonexistent. But happily, we have great data to rank teams within conferences, since schools play from about 12 to 20 games against other teams in their league, including regular season and the postseason tournament. I would give bids to, say, the top 50% of teams in the power conferences, based on conference results (regular season and tournament) and independent of everything else. Then I would work similar formulas for the A-10 and mid-major conferences based on past tournament records. The CAA -- duh -- would do great under this system.

The only way to rank teams across different conferences is to have them play each other -- double duh! Yet the interconference matchups are primarily (a) in November and December, when the teams are relatively immature, or (b) in odd places like Hawaii or Puerto Rico where the conditions produce misleading results (translation -- an epidemic of leg cramps due to head and humidity).

Several years ago when the Missouri Valley Conference got four bids (guess who had a member on the TSC?), I looked at all the games between teams in the MVC and the power conferences. It all seemed to come down to a road game over the holidays at LSU, where IIRC Creighton beat the Tigers in OT. Hey guys! That isn't credible data.

Therefore, I would go to a "rules" approach rather than examining the tea leaves from a few early season inter-conference games.

Now, WRT seeding, I would pay serious attention to the seeding and placement of the top 10-12 teams, especially the top 3-5 teams. After that, I believe that there is just not that much difference between a four seed and a ten seed -- the distribution of talent and capabilities by team produces a lot of bunching below the very top teams. I might go so far as to "place" teams based only on conference data. E.g., the #3 team in the ACC is a four seed in the X region.

My two cents --

sagegrouse
'I will be happy to share some quantitative results after I finish the analysis of the paucity of inter-conference data'

[dalmatians98]

In response to your first proposal -- and why the four additional teams will be included in the Tournament again next year -- three letters: VCU. I think VCU's tournament run did more to increase the chances that next years Tournament will be run in similar fashion to this years than anything else. Had VCU gone out the way UAB did, and had Ohio State done what was expected, it might have been a different story.

[SoCalDukeFan]

That's the goal. You have to understand though that the punishment for being the worst #1 seed is that you get last pick of the sites. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it works. To provide a counter example though, Uconn seemed to do alright 3 time zones away, so this does not seem to be as much of a systematic problem as you would say.

got the early game on Thursday in the Sweet 16.

UConn also played Thursday/Saturday in their first games.

Duke played Friday/Saturday and then got the late game on Thursday.

The way Arizona played that night they probably would have beaten Duke or UConn on any neutral site in any time zone. However it just seems unfair. Maybe they should have sent Kansas to the West. I also think that the ACC Champ should have had a better seed than Pitt who did not win a game in their conference tournament when they have comparable records.

SoCal

[uh_no]

got the early game on Thursday in the Sweet 16.

UConn also played Thursday/Saturday in their first games.

Duke played Friday/Saturday and then got the late game on Thursday.

I guess the question is would you have rather duke played in a pod other than greensboro so that they could have gone thursday saturday? Unfortunately pod dates and regional dates are set years in advance. While I wish this were not the case, I don't see any way around this particular problem.


However it just seems unfair. Maybe they should have sent Kansas to the West. I also think that the ACC Champ should have had a better seed than Pitt who did not win a game in their conference tournament when they have comparable records.

SoCal

Regardless of the fact that you thought pitt deserved a better seed (pitt did go out in a supremely tight game to the eventual national runner up...), the committee did decide that duke was the #4 seed. That said, why should you punish kansas by making them fly across half the country to make it easier for a team seeded two slots below them? That doesn't make any sense and is hugely unfair to the #2 overall team..they had a better seed than duke, so they get to 'pick' their region before duke. In the end, duke would have been better off as the overall #5, as they would have first pick of region (which is why UNC was in the east). Now if you'd like to argue that you'd rather have duke as a 2 seed in a closer region than going out west, that's completely valid, but there's no way to have both the number one seed and a close region unless you are an overall higher seed (you could also argue we deserved a higher seed...which you did, though I disagree...since its a separate issue).

In the end though, we would have lost to that arizona team on that night had it been in china or on the moon or in brodie gym, so it's not something to get too worked up about, especially when final four teams often come out of regions across the country (uconn has done this 4 times, and i'm sure there are many many others whom I don't feel like looking up at the moment).

[Spam Filter]

Seed the top 4 team in each region, and the bottom 4 teams in each region.

Then randomly draw all seeds 5-12 for all regions.

The committee does a terrible job of balancing the regions and seeds correctly. Just do it randomly and be done with it.

[bjornolf]

I agree that being the last #1 often equals travel. I don't have a problem with that. However, it seems ridiculous to me that a 1 seed should have to play a road game against a 5 seed. This could have been solved by putting any of the other 5 seeds in the West. Heck, I don't think Baylor should have gotten to play a home game in the third round last year against a higher seed. Just don't put them in the bracket that plays in their home town, you know? Playing Butler in the Finals, okay. I mean, who expected Butler to make, and at that point, you have to pick SOMEWHERE to play the Finals. But when they're in different regions, it seems to me that lower seeds shouldn't get home games. To me, there's a difference between having to travel and having to play a road game.

Now, I'm purely asking this cause I don't know, but when was the last time Duke got a "home" game in the later rounds?

[anon]

I agree that being the last #1 often equals travel. I don't have a problem with that. However, it seems ridiculous to me that a 1 seed should have to play a road game against a 5 seed. This could have been solved by putting any of the other 5 seeds in the West. Heck, I don't think Baylor should have gotten to play a home game in the third round last year against a higher seed. Just don't put them in the bracket that plays in their home town, you know? Playing Butler in the Finals, okay. I mean, who expected Butler to make, and at that point, you have to pick SOMEWHERE to play the Finals. But when they're in different regions, it seems to me that lower seeds shouldn't get home games. To me, there's a difference between having to travel and having to play a road game.

Now, I'm purely asking this cause I don't know, but when was the last time Duke got a "home" game in the later rounds?

Well, consider that we were actually "supposed" to play the 4-seed, Texas. Besides, Anaheim isn't a "home" arena for either Arizona or Texas. And if you want to guarantee that the higher seed is always closer to the arena, well, good luck. There are too many possibilities to make sure that rule always holds.

[uh_no]

I agree that being the last #1 often equals travel. I don't have a problem with that. However, it seems ridiculous to me that a 1 seed should have to play a road game against a 5 seed. This could have been solved by putting any of the other 5 seeds in the West. Heck, I don't think Baylor should have gotten to play a home game in the third round last year against a higher seed. Just don't put them in the bracket that plays in their home town, you know? Playing Butler in the Finals, okay. I mean, who expected Butler to make, and at that point, you have to pick SOMEWHERE to play the Finals. But when they're in different regions, it seems to me that lower seeds shouldn't get home games. To me, there's a difference between having to travel and having to play a road game.

Now, I'm purely asking this cause I don't know, but when was the last time Duke got a "home" game in the later rounds?

I tend to agree here. I think as joe lunardi says that the committee needs to spend more time putting the bracket together. The top 2 seed lines get the special treatment with location, and generally, the next 2 seeds (3,4) are used to balance the regions (or that's how it's supposed to be). After that, teams are slotted in via the S curve with teams being rearranged to not violate bracketing rules. (just for some reference here, arizona is about as far away from anaheim as duke is from new york city....would you consider Newark a home game for us?) There are a lot of rules going into bracketing, and the question becomes how close does a team have to be away from a site to not be allowed to go there? as someone pointed out, we were supposed to play texas anyway, and by your method, we wouldn't be able to put a single team in the western half of the country in the anaheim bracket, for fear that they'd have to play duke and duke would have an 'away' game....while I wish it could be possible, the logistics don't work. Saying none of the top 4 seeds can be closer than xx might work, but again, AZ was a 5 seed anyway.

Duke doesn't have any 'home' games because the only stadium large enough around here is charlotte, the problem is that the regional sites are generally placed in large metro areas to attract large crowds. If say, SDSU, MSU, Pitt, and washington were playing in a regional in charlotte, approximately 0 people would show up. That's not a knock on charlotte, but it's no san antonio, los angeles, or new york city. As a consolation, charlotte gets early round 'pod' games, where there is a very high chance that local teams (duke UNC) will be placed. Thus there will be almost guaranteed attendance.

[dukeballboy88]

1 thing is if you dont win the conference tournament you shouldnt get a #1 seed. The ACC's regular season for starters, has become watered down. I dont see how you can claim a title when you dont play everyone 2 times!

2nd thing is not just a tournament thing but a change in the college game, push the 3 point line back to where it is in the NBA and that will eliminate alot of upsets. As it is right now, anyone can hit a 3. It seemed like everybody Sean Miller put in against Duke was banging 3's. VCU's entire run was because of the 3 point shot and I dont have any statistics on this, but Im willing to bet that most of the upsets in NCAA tourney's happen because one team gets hot from 3. Pushing the line back will be a simple but effective move!

[nocilla]

I know it is impossible, but I would like to see the field reduced to 16 and all the matchups be a best of 3 series.

[Faison1]

I would definitely move the finals out of football stadiums, and back into smaller arenas. There is absolutely no atmosphere the way it sits now.

Additionally, if I paid big bucks to get inside, I would be more than upset if I was sitting in one of the flat "endzone" areas, or way up high in the nose-bleeds. What a rip-off!!!!

Adding insult to injury would be watching a game like this year's finals....ugh!

[Reddevil]

I know it is impossible, but I would like to see the field reduced to 16 and all the matchups be a best of 3 series.

That's pretty radical, and really thinking outside the paint. It won't happen, but it would be interesting. The NIT would be relevant again too.

I would just go back to 64. The play in games are all about getting the number to 64 anyway. We have the regular season and conference tournaments to act as play in games already. Whether the number is 128, 96, 68, 65, 64, 32, or 16, there will be arguments and crying over who got in vs. who didn't, so just make it 64, and admit that the moaning is part of the madness. The 64 team format really works. There is just the right number of mid majors and upsets. Maybe move the 3 point line back to the international or NBA distance, make it so you can't call time out if you are on the ground, and get rid of the stupid rule where instant replay looks at when the ref blows the whistle as opposed to looking at the moment the clock should be stopped.

[Saratoga2]

There were a number of happenings which should be looked at closely when setting the format and selecting the teams next year. In my view, the following were meaningful enough to require special scrutiny:

No #1 or #2 seeds got through to the final four. The implication is that there is a lot more parity in DIV I than in the past. That parity may have something to do with the one and done rule or other factors. If there really is that much parity, perhaps more teams from non-power conferences should be given berths.

VCU came on the scene and stole the show, despite what the pundits said about them. They were well coached, aggressive and relentless. Perhaps the committee should take into account teams that have different styles of play to add interest to the tournament.

The Big East got 11 teams into the tournament and the majority of those teams didn't look all that competitive. This is two years in a row where the BE was given a lot of teams, but didn't live up to their hype. Perhaps the power conferences should be reviewed more critically based on what appears to be a pattern of not living up to expectations.

I found it confusing to see play in games getting second round games against difference seeding categories. I would have expected those teams to wind up being the 16 seeds and have to play a one seed.

[grossbus]

64 teams. NO playins.

do NOT play final in a football dome. play it in a basketball arena.

[uh_no]

I would definitely move the finals out of football stadiums, and back into smaller arenas. There is absolutely no atmosphere the way it sits now.


I was at the final 4 last year. There was PLENTY of atmosphere. Reasonable people can disagree on this point, i concede, but I don't think the NCAA is going to forgo 50,000 ticket packages so we can play in an NBA arena.

[hurleyfor3]

The selection committee should consist of the most particularly well-informed posters to DBR, as chosen by the DBR's moderators. Mods will be allowed to choose themselves, of course.

In years when this new selection committee decides Duke is the best team in the country, or would have been the best team in the country were it not for (a) an injury to a major Duke player (b) one or more stastically unlikely good performances by an opponent in a Duke road or neutral site game (c) one or more close wins by other good teams that "should" have resulted in losses or (d) another team that is about as good as Duke but whose coach in the Committee's view is morally reprehensible, the commitee has the right to cancel the tournament and award the national championship to Duke. Which would have happened every year since 1997, except perhaps in 2007. Which is kind of the point.

[uh_no]

The selection committee should consist of the most particularly well-informed posters to DBR, as chosen by the DBR's moderators. Mods will be allowed to choose themselves, of course.

In years when this new selection committee decides Duke is the best team in the country, or would have been the best team in the country were it not for (a) an injury to a major Duke player (b) one or more stastically unlikely good performances by an opponent in a Duke road or neutral site game (c) one or more close wins by other good teams that "should" have resulted in losses or (d) another team that is about as good as Duke but whose coach in the Committee's view is morally reprehensible, the commitee has the right to cancel the tournament and award the national championship to Duke. Which would have happened every year since 1997, except perhaps in 2007. Which is kind of the point.

While good, I don't think this would work. Here's a better Idea. 65 team tournament and duke gets an automatic 6 round bye. Therefore the other 64 teams play for the right to play duke in the national title game, this is of course a formality as the refs will undoubtedly be on duke's side and will hand the win to duke.

[bjornolf]

The play-in games were SUPPOSED to be between the last four automatic qualifying (conference tourney winners) teams and the last four at-large teams in the tournament. That's why you saw some 11 seeds playing in the play in games. I thought it was terrible the way Clemson was treated, though. Playing a late game in Ohio, then traveling to Charlotte and playing in an early game just two days later. They should have had the play-in game in Charlotte, and if they played a late game, been given the late game Friday for the "second" round. Personally, I think the play-in games should involve the 16 seeds only. As someone on the radio pointed out, how fair is it that the 11 seed play a play in game while the 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in the same region don't?

One interesting idea I heard was to go to 96 teams. The first 32 teams, the 1-8 seeds in each region, would be seeded. The other 64 teams play a one game play in. The 32 winners go to the tourney as the 9-16 seeds, the 32 losers go to the NIT. I'm not saying I necessarily think this is a great system, but it was at least interesting.

[NYDukie]

Thinking outside the box a bit and stealing from the women's side a bit, too. Why not for the first two rounds seed teams 1-64 without regard for region and have the first two rounds at the home of the higher seeds, essentially the #1-#16 seeds. After completion of the first two rounds, the committee reseeds the 16 remaining teams into 4 geographic regions with predetermined sites based on seed first and geography second and putting no stock into the possible # of conference teams that may be in a bracket. I understand travel for teams is a concern and the committee would have to consider this but not compromise the integrity of the seeding/region to extreme when instances do occur. Then at the Final 4, they reseed again.

Understand, there is no perfect solution. There will always be an arguement on both sides saying one idea benefits the power teams more or the other favors the underdogs and the possibility of throwing havoc on a tournament in any year.

[hurleyfor3]

Therefore the other 64 teams play for the right to play duke in the national title game....

...in Cameron. That would singlehandedly solve the thorny dome issue and the lugubrious why-do-we-have-to-travel-across-three-time-zones-when-we're-Duke issue. Also, no Iron Dukes complaining about their seats. No students in the upper deck. What's the downside?

[SCMatt33]

I've seen two things that many people seem to want here. First is competitive balance, as in the committee does a poor job in building regions with similar strength. The second is geographical and time balance, as in teams with high seeds shouldn't have to travel or play on short rest (Sunday 2nd round to Thursday Sweet 16). Currently the committee tries to balance the two of them, but ultimately fails at both. In the pre-seeding era, they tried to balance the geography since cross-country travel wasn't as feasible on short notice for a college basketball team 40 years ago. I would suggest trying ultimate competitive balance for a year, seed the field 1-64/65/68 (doesn't really bother me), and set it up so that #1 would play #64, 32, 16, etc. and 2 would play 63, 31, 15 etc. If that means a first round match-up between teams who have played three times, so be it. If the top two teams from a conference meet in the Sweet 16, that's ok. I would also eliminate predetermined days for regional rounds. Most fans have to make short notice arrangements anyway and the hosts have to block off the entire weekend for hotels, etc. so there is no pressing need that I see to say that New Orleans will be on Thursday or Friday a year in advance. This doesn't work as well for 1st/2nd round sites because fans can make arrangements in advance, and there would only be a few days lead time from Selection Sunday instead of a week and a half to put everything together. That being the case, this would NOT have helped Duke this year since three 1 seeds played on Sunday so at least one would have to play Thursday.

[uh_no]

The play-in games were SUPPOSED to be between the last four automatic qualifying (conference tourney winners) teams and the last four at-large teams in the tournament. That's why you saw some 11 seeds playing in the play in games. I thought it was terrible the way Clemson was treated, though. Playing a late game in Ohio, then traveling to Charlotte and playing in an early game just two days later. They should have had the play-in game in Charlotte, and if they played a late game, been given the late game Friday for the "second" round. Personally, I think the play-in games should involve the 16 seeds only. As someone on the radio pointed out, how fair is it that the 11 seed play a play in game while the 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in the same region don't?

One interesting idea I heard was to go to 96 teams. The first 32 teams, the 1-8 seeds in each region, would be seeded. The other 64 teams play a one game play in. The 32 winners go to the tourney as the 9-16 seeds, the 32 losers go to the NIT. I'm not saying I necessarily think this is a great system, but it was at least interesting.

The problem with playing the play in games at the correct pod site is that the pod sites and dates are selected way in advance. Logistically it wouldn't work to have a game scheduled on sunday to be played 2 days later....for all we know, there could be an NBA game in charlotte that night. Dates are picked way in advance and the only way to do it (in this tournament format) is to either have a central site for all the play in games or play at one of the team home stadiums (really unfair since they have equal seeds)

the 96 team idea is neither novel nor interesting

[uh_no]

Thinking outside the box a bit and stealing from the women's side a bit, too. Why not for the first two rounds seed teams 1-64 without regard for region and have the first two rounds at the home of the higher seeds, essentially the #1-#16 seeds. After completion of the first two rounds, the committee reseeds the 16 remaining teams into 4 geographic regions with predetermined sites based on seed first and geography second and putting no stock into the possible # of conference teams that may be in a bracket. I understand travel for teams is a concern and the committee would have to consider this but not compromise the integrity of the seeding/region to extreme when instances do occur. Then at the Final 4, they reseed again.

Understand, there is no perfect solution. There will always be an arguement on both sides saying one idea benefits the power teams more or the other favors the underdogs and the possibility of throwing havoc on a tournament in any year.

The women's tournament does NOT play at the home of the higher seed. It is done just like the mens tournament, where pod locations are selected years in advance. THe difference is that pods are allowed to be team's home stadiums (for attendence purposes) thus you get situations where duke and uconn play at home. On the flip side, you also get situations where duke is a 1 seed and has to play on the 8 seeds home court

[uh_no]

I would also eliminate predetermined days for regional rounds. Most fans have to make short notice arrangements anyway and the hosts have to block off the entire weekend for hotels, etc. so there is no pressing need that I see to say that New Orleans will be on Thursday or Friday a year in advance.

This has nothing to do with fans being able to make arrangements. It has everything to do with the stadium being available. These stadiums host NBA games, they host hockey games, they host dog shows and everything else. THere is turn around time. It would cost the NCAA huge amounts of money to have to reserve each stadium for an extra day (thursday-sunday instead of just 3 of those days)

[Nugget]

"1. Eliminate the first four and go back to 65 teams. They idea is not to add more teams with mediocre seasons, it should be to find the best team or at least have very good teams on the Final Four."
Fine with me, but the First Four is no particular bother. If they had to expand at all, which seems like they needed to for the recent TV contract, 68 is far better than 96.


"2. If they won't do 1. then have the play-ins from the teams ranked 61-68. Again the idea should be to have the best teams advance."
That would be good too. On the other hand, with the current set up moving the very weakest teams in the field down to play-ins for the last 16 seeds, this makes the remaining 16, 15 and 14 seeds slightly stronger than they would otherwise be, increasing the chances for true 1st round shocker upsets.


"3. Give the "Committee" an extra hour and have them value the conference tournaments. If thats a problem for CBS with 60 Minutes, then let TBS or somebody else have the Selection Show."
Agree. Gene Smith’s comment that the seeding was done Saturday is pathetic.


"4. Put some basketball people on the "Committee." For the last two tournaments there were two strong regions and two weak ones. This year the weak ones met in the Final Four game."
Agree on the 1st part. For the 2nd, not sure I see your point – the bracketing for the Final Four games is done by the rankings of the 1 seeds, not a projection about which “region” is on the whole “stronger.”


"5. If possible eliminate a number 1 seed from travelling 3 time zones. If it happens, at least let them play an early game on Friday."
This isn’t really possible if you have a national tournament, regionals spread across the country, the arena sites and dates are booked in advance, you try to equalize the strength of the regions and there are not enough high seeds in the Pacific time zone. Someone had to be moved. And, we were the lowest #1 seed, so it was wholly appropriate to send Pitt to New Orleans and Duke to the West.

(Your contention that we should have been seeded ahead of Pitt is a different point. Once the Committee decided it the other way, their carrying things out as they did is consistent with their “rules.” And, I can see why Pitt got the nod ahead of us – they won their (much tougher) league’s regular season, which the Committee values as much or more than major conf tourneys, and they had better wins and better losses than we did)

The dates and locations are reserved in advance – they can’t change which days those games are played after the brackets are done. Nor would it have made much difference if Duke’s game against Arizona was Thurs or Friday – if the game was Friday, Duke would have traveled 1 day later, not gone to California sooner. As far as the time of the game, playing the “late” game on the West Coast isn’t exactly a detriment – it starts at 6:30 local, the same biological time as the 9:30 local Eastern time start that Duke is more than used to, having played a dozen games tipping off at 9:00 p.m. over the course of the season.


"7. I honestly don't know what to do about the domes. I don't like them but 80,000 want to see the Final Four. Maybe try to have more games in the domes."
I agree the product is much worse in domes. On the other hand, letting 55,000 more people have the experience of going to the Final Four is nice. In any event, it won't happen.


And to respond to Bjornwolf – I was at the Regionals game. It was hardly a “road” game vis-à-vis Arizona. The crowd Thursday was about 55% San Diego St., 25% Arizona, 15% Duke, 5% U.Conn.

There was no real crowd disadvantage in the first half when we were winning (indeed, much of the arena emptied out after SDSU lost). Obviously, everyone but the Duke fans got caught up rooting on the underdog when Arizona was kicking our butt in the 2d half. But, that would have happened anywhere and wasn’t a function of there being lots of Arizona fans on Thurs. We didn’t have nearly the “road game” issue against Arizona that we did in 2002 against Indiana in Rupp or in 2006 against LSU in Atlanta.

U.Conn played and won essentially two road games – they had almost no fans there, and the Saturday crowd was probably 80% Arizona fans, even more of a road game than they overcame against San Diego St. on Thurs.

[SCMatt33]

This has nothing to do with fans being able to make arrangements. It has everything to do with the stadium being available. These stadiums host NBA games, they host hockey games, they host dog shows and everything else. THere is turn around time. It would cost the NCAA huge amounts of money to have to reserve each stadium for an extra day (thursday-sunday instead of just 3 of those days)

I don't think that this is that big of an issue. First, the buildings are turned over well in advance to get the floors set up and have practices/press conferences, so I don't think that the front end is a huge deal. I don't think that they will generally schedule Sunday NBA/NHL games for a Thursday/Saturday site anyway. The closest I saw was a Monday home Ducks game. A one day turnover isn't that big of a deal for these arenas. It's done all the time. Usually there are at least one, if not 2 dome sites who don't have regularly scheduled games at this time of year, so I don't think that 1 extra day at two or three sites is asking too much.

[uh_no]

I don't think that this is that big of an issue. First, the buildings are turned over well in advance to get the floors set up and have practices/press conferences, so I don't think that the front end is a huge deal. I don't think that they will generally schedule Sunday NBA/NHL games for a Thursday/Saturday site anyway. The closest I saw was a Monday home Ducks game. A one day turnover isn't that big of a deal for these arenas. It's done all the time. Usually there are at least one, if not 2 dome sites who don't have regularly scheduled games at this time of year, so I don't think that 1 extra day at two or three sites is asking too much.

So a one day turnover isn't a big deal, what if theres a hockey game scheduled thursday night and the ncaa wants the arena? how would that work out?

Then you would say, well don't schedule hockey games for that night

That costs money for the stadium, and that cost is passed onto the NCAA. I have no idea, but I'd presume the cost to rent the stadium for a day is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions. Why would the NCAA pony up that much money for stadiums they KNOW they won't use at least one of the days? It doesn't make any sense economically.

[SCMatt33]

So a one day turnover isn't a big deal, what if theres a hockey game scheduled thursday night and the ncaa wants the arena? how would that work out?

Then you would say, well don't schedule hockey games for that night

That costs money for the stadium, and that cost is passed onto the NCAA. I have no idea, but I'd presume the cost to rent the stadium for a day is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions. Why would the NCAA pony up that much money for stadiums they KNOW they won't use at least one of the days? It doesn't make any sense economically.

The NCAA needs the arena to be setup for practices and press conferences on Thursday regardless of whether there is a game or not. Even though the time frame in which the games occur is only three days, the arenas have enough time blocked off already that if the NCAA said tomorrow that the wanted to make these changes, there would be little noticeable difference.

[uh_no]

The NCAA needs the arena to be setup for practices and press conferences on Thursday regardless of whether there is a game or not. Even though the time frame in which the games occur is only three days, the arenas have enough time blocked off already that if the NCAA said tomorrow that the wanted to make these changes, there would be little noticeable difference.

Okay, so if they need it for practices a day before, then they need to reserve every venue from wednesday to sunday. However you slice it, your plan requires renting out every stadium for an extra day. I tried to find numbers but couldn't. THe cost is enormous though.

[hudlow]

I'd change it so that the championship game wasn't played so late on a Monday night.

...and I'd let everybody play.

[uh_no]

I'd change it so that the championship game wasn't played so late on a Monday night.

...and I'd let everybody play.

You'd let everybody play in the championship game? how would that work?

[hudlow]

You'd let everybody play in the championship game? how would that work?

No, everybody would play FOR the championship!:p

But that would be a deep bench....

[SCMatt33]

Okay, so if they need it for practices a day before, then they need to reserve every venue from wednesday to sunday. However you slice it, your plan requires renting out every stadium for an extra day. I tried to find numbers but couldn't. THe cost is enormous though.

I looked at all of the schedules the past few years and only found one instance where an event was held during the Tuesday-Sunday block necessary for this. That was a Sunday Celtics game in 2009. I'm not saying that there would be no logistical problems at all, but I don't think that it is that big of a deal, and I don't think that the cost would be more than somewhere in the low 6 figures at most. I have searched but couldn't find any info on the subject, but I would love to know what the actual cost is rather than guess if a reliable source could be found. Whatever the cost is, I'm sure that the next TV deal could include some extra money to cover it seeing as the networks would get increased flexibility. Anyway, I considered this to be the smaller part of what I thought should be done. To be perfectly honest, I just threw it in as an idea at the last minute and would be much more interested in seeing complete competitive balance based on the S-curve, or at least complete balance for 1-4 seeds if first round conference match-ups and somewhat crazy travel were too much to accommodate.

[DevilWearsPrada]

Please get rid of the FIRST FOUR. 65 teams works with the play in game.

Thank goodness they didnt use the Jennifer Hudson ONE SHINING MOMENT again. Thanks NCAA, for experimenting and Duke fans and the Team had to endur that last year in Indy.

And sometimes seeding seems off. Committee needs more time to work on that. Even a couple of hours on Sunday.

Someone PLEASE tell Jay Bilas, not to go off on Teams and ridicule them ( VCU) and throw them under the bus.

MAINLY, go back to 65!

[gep]

What about going back to 64 teams. Single elmination to the sweet-16. Then double elimination to the NC. More games, sure, but less than round-robin:cool:

[brevity]

A lot of these responses have a turn-back-the-clock approach that I find incredibly unrealistic. I know, it's another meaningless fan thread, but I expected a little more from many of you than "I liked the way it used to be" and "Get off my lawn." When VCU beat Georgetown, it pretty much cemented in everyone's minds that the number of tournament teams will never go down again.

So, since we can't return to 64 teams, I say go up. Way up. To 100!

The last day of conference tournament play becomes Separation Sunday, where the Selection Committee prepares two lists, one with 52 teams and one with 48 teams.

52 teams: 31 automatic bids and the top 21 at-large bids
48 teams: at-large teams, including the regular season champions of all conferences that don't make the 52-team list above

That week (Thursday-Sunday) those 48 teams play one another in a single elimination playoff until 12 teams remain. (12 games Thursday and Friday, 6 games Saturday and Sunday.) Teams are seeded and grouped regionally (12 pods of 4 teams), with the highest seeds as host sites. This would replace the NIT.

Those dozen survivors are then added to the 52 teams to make an official field of 64, which would start play the following Thursday in the familiar format we all know and love.

Is it better to set the bracket for those 52 teams on Separation Sunday, or on the following Sunday, when the whole field is known? I don't know. It's a little weird to make a bracket with 12 blanks, conference affiliation and geography unknown. Then again, those 52 teams would have an extra week to plan travel (and study potential opponents) if they know where they are to go.

Other advantages:

*More transparency. Anyone can look at the 64-team bracket and tell a clear separation in seeding between the 52 teams that had a week off and the 12 play-in survivors. The Selection Committee has nowhere to hide.

*If your team automatically qualified for the tournament, then you begin play at a tournament site in the Round of 64 on a Thursday or Friday, even as a 16 seed. No Tuesday night play-in game in Dayton, Ohio.

*Teams that advance in the 48-team tournament have more time to travel and prepare than, say, Clemson did. And maybe they carry that momentum into beating their more rested first round opponent, like VCU did.

*The paper bracket, still the greatest personalized promotion of an event in human history, remains intact -- with the standard 64 teams and 4 days to fill out.

*CBS and Turner Sports have more games to broadcast, provided that they can pry the NIT replacement games from ESPN's hands.

*The Round of 64 and the Round of 32 go back to being called the First and Second Rounds.

*Joe Lunardi is out of a job. Which is fitting, because that smug guy has the second easiest job on TV (after Angus T. Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_T._Jones)).

*With no more NIT, the NCAA can start using New York City (and Madison Square Garden) for the occasional East Regional and eventual Final Four.

*100 teams have an opportunity to be crowned national champion. Most of us can't even think of 100 teams that play college basketball. That means the end of bubble talk and general public griping about which teams made the field and which were snubbed. Because getting whiny sports fans to shut up is one of the most divine acts a person can accomplish.

[ThePublisher]

Duke should win every year. Or at least 3 out of 4, so other people will still watch and experience our greatness.

I like the double elimination once it gets to the elite 8. No way arizona beats us twice this year. No way uconn or butler make the title game. It would show more of who the best team is.

[uh_no]

Duke should win every year. Or at least 3 out of 4, so other people will still watch and experience our greatness.

I like the double elimination once it gets to the elite 8. No way arizona beats us twice this year. No way uconn or butler make the title game. It would show more of who the best team is.

um...we saw arizona in the sweet 16....so your double game would have been irrelevent...

[Newton_14]

I disagree with any notion of going double elimination, 2 out of 3, etc. Sorry, but "one and done" is what makes the tournament. There is no greater pressure, and cinderella has a chance. Would love to see the NBA guys have to face the pressure of one and done even one time in their career.

Someone mentioned something that did intrigue me though. Had never thought of it, but putting in a rule that a team cannot earn a 1 Seed unless they win their conference tourney is an interesting thought. It would add pressure and bring more meaning to the tournaments, and the best part of it is, Roy Williams would "frickin" despise the rule and would give us great press conferences ranting on and on about how stupid the rule is, year in and year out!:)

[uh_no]

I disagree with any notion of going double elimination, 2 out of 3, etc. Sorry, but "one and done" is what makes the tournament. There is no greater pressure, and cinderella has a chance. Would love to see the NBA guys have to face the pressure of one and done even one time in their career.

Someone mentioned something that did intrigue me though. Had never thought of it, but putting in a rule that a team cannot earn a 1 Seed unless they win their conference tourney is an interesting thought. It would add pressure and bring more meaning to the tournaments, and the best part of it is, Roy Williams would "frickin" despise the rule and would give us great press conferences ranting on and on about how stupid the rule is, year in and year out!:)

MODS: please change the thread title to "How would you change the the NCAA tournament to make it more conducive to a Duke victory" :P

[sagegrouse]

I disagree with any notion of going double elimination, 2 out of 3, etc. Sorry, but "one and done" is what makes the tournament. There is no greater pressure, and cinderella has a chance. Would love to see the NBA guys have to face the pressure of one and done even one time in their career.

Someone mentioned something that did intrigue me though. Had never thought of it, but putting in a rule that a team cannot earn a 1 Seed unless they win their conference tourney is an interesting thought. It would add pressure and bring more meaning to the tournaments, and the best part of it is, Roy Williams would "frickin" despise the rule and would give us great press conferences ranting on and on about how stupid the rule is, year in and year out!:)

I agree. If a double-elimination type of tournament is instituted, then the field needs to be restricted to eight teams (maybe 16). The NCAA could establish a prestigious early season tournament to do just that, with a very competitive invitation process. It could be called the President' Cup and held in Washington -- or, better, the Bill Russell Cup and held in any number of cities. It would be a kickoff tournament. The TV suits would have to get in a room and help design the format and venues that would be best for the audience.

I would then do it World Cup style -- two groups of four play a round-robin. The winners play for the championship. If it's 16, then there would be four qualifying for the semis -- and no, I would not have these play a round-robin.

sagegrouse

[SoCalDukeFan]

I want to keep it single elimination.

The Western Regional games should always be Fri-Sun so that teams that have to travel out West can get some time to adjust. This can be scheduled in advance.

I think that in college basketball a C+ Team can beat an A- team if the C+ team has a good or great night and hits some threes. A C+ team can beat an A+ team if the C+ team play perfectly - see Villanova in 85. This year with early entry and injuries there was no A or A+ teams. We got a FF with B- to C teams and in the NC game neither played well.

While I think it is amazing that Butler got to the NC game two years in a row, in the tournament they beat Old Dominion by 2, Pitt because Pitt missed a free throw at the end, Wisconsin at best at fair team, a misseeded Florida team by 3, then VCU. In my mind they beat one good team and that win required Pitt to miss the free throw and the refs to call a foul on a play that did not matter. So it was not a big surprise that they stunk in the NC game. Expanding the field just lets in more mediocre teams that might have a lucky run. If they win the NC then its a great story but my guess we will mostly get lousy games.

Next year, barring injury, Ohio State, UNC, and potentially Ky should be very good. In nothing else we should have better teams in the NC game.

SoCal

[uh_no]

The Western Regional games should always be Fri-Sun so that teams that have to travel out West can get some time to adjust. This can be scheduled in advance.

SoCal

On the other hand, eastern regionals should be made fri-sun so teams that have to travel out east can get some time to adjust.

Your argument does make some sense,though, but only because the majority of the teams/sites are in the east, so the likelihood of a good team having to travel from east to west is much greater than one having to travel from west to east. Essentially, the teams out west have an advantage. If the fourth overall seed comes from he east (like this year) they generally have to travel out west (due to the number of good teams in the east), but if the fourth overall seed comes from the west (like if sdsu was the fourth #1) they don't have to travel at all, since the 3 east coast teams would go to the eastern sites.

[rsvman]

I know it is impossible, but I would like to see the field reduced to 16 and all the matchups be a best of 3 series.

Amen. Preach on, brother!

[Newton_14]

MODS: please change the thread title to "How would you change the the NCAA tournament to make it more conducive to a Duke victory" :P

You totally lost me? My post was not about giving Duke an advantage over any other team. The conference tourney meant everything when only the winner would make the NCAA Tourney. Unlike others, I still hold the conference tourney's in high regard, and feel they do in fact mean something.

However, if the only way to get a Number 1 Seed is to win the conference tourney, it would absolutely mean the world to better teams. Note, I did not say winning the conf tourney earned a Number 1 Seed. Not at all. A team would still need a resume strong enough to earn the Number 1 Seed.

It will never be instituted, but I just thought it was an interesting concept, and in the case of the ACC, you can bet UNC would view the ACC Tourney far different than they currently do.

[tommy]

I know it is impossible, but I would like to see the field reduced to 16 and all the matchups be a best of 3 series.

It's called the NBA. Playoffs start in a few weeks. Enjoy!

[Neals384]

What about going back to 64 teams. Single elmination to the sweet-16. Then double elimination to the NC. More games, sure, but less than round-robin:cool:

I like that, gep! Double elimination starting with the sweet 16. That gives the best teams a chance to overcome a stumble - and it means a better chance of seeing two really strong teams in the final.

[gep]

Next year, barring injury, Ohio State, UNC, and potentially Ky should be very good. In nothing else we should have better teams in the NC game.

SoCal

I guess this is the main part. Barring injury, transfers, bad luck, lower-seed with magic... potentially very good teams maybe have a better chance for the NC game, but as almost always happens, never happens...:cool:

[SCMatt33]

I want to see the RPI replaced as a selection tool. I even have an idea: use the BCS. Since it's not football, I will call it the Basketball Consensus Standings. Many of us here have great reverence for Ken Pomeroy's ratings, but even he says that a single computer (including his own) shouldn't be used to evaluate teams (http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/saturday_morning_reading/). Basically, I think the NCAA would do well to replace the RPI with a BCS style compilation of 5-7 computers. The RPI could still be included in them if the NCAA was unwilling to let go. They could employ some of the BCS football guys who already have basketball rankings (Jeff Sagarin, Wes Colley, Kenneth Massey) and add them to a few others, including Pomeroy to come up with a much more accurate ranking. If things like "top 50 wins" is going to be an important concept in the committee room, they should at least have an accurate top 50. This year, Princeton and UAB were both top 50 opponents for Duke, while Florida St, Clemson, and Marquette were not. Colorado State and Missouri State both made the top 50. The teams not in the RPI top 50 were all in Ken Pom's top 40, while of those in the RPI top 50, only UAB was even in the KenPom top 70. It's not that either one is inherently better, but they need to be averaged out to remove biases of a certain computer.

It is a very easy change to make and would go a long way in improving the selection process.

[uh_no]

You totally lost me? My post was not about giving Duke an advantage over any other team. The conference tourney meant everything when only the winner would make the NCAA Tourney. Unlike others, I still hold the conference tourney's in high regard, and feel they do in fact mean something.

However, if the only way to get a Number 1 Seed is to win the conference tourney, it would absolutely mean the world to better teams. Note, I did not say winning the conf tourney earned a Number 1 Seed. Not at all. A team would still need a resume strong enough to earn the Number 1 Seed.

It will never be instituted, but I just thought it was an interesting concept, and in the case of the ACC, you can bet UNC would view the ACC Tourney far different than they currently do.

Sorry newton, It was more a commentary on a lot of comments rather than just yours in particular.

The fact remains that duke USUALLY wins the ACC tournament, meaning they would always be 'eligible' for a 1 seed. This sort of rule would necessarily preclude conferences who deserved more than 1 #1 seed (the big east ala 2009....whether you thought they deserved 3 or not is irrelevent, each of the teams made the elite 8, and 1 made the final four). The argument here is to make the tournament less entropic. The problem is you are making it that way by seeding partially based on just as random conference tournaments! Say we beat UNC the last game of the regular season then lost to them a week later, would you like the committee to say, oh duke is the better team, they beat UNC 2/3, but they didn't beat them in the tournament, so no #1 seed! how about connecticut 2006, they were clearly one of the best 2 teams all season, but lost to a red hot syracuse team in the big east tournament...your system would suddenly prevent them from being a 1 seed...
Another example: UNC 2009, beat duke twice, got upset in the ACC tournament...clearly by far the best team in the country, but they can't be a 1 seed?

Basically, Duke fans can be pampered enough to say we should put weight on the conference tournament since WE WIN IT ALL THE TIME!

[SoCalDukeFan]

MODS: please change the thread title to "How would you change the the NCAA tournament to make it more conducive to a Duke victory" :P

I want to make it less likely that the biggest game of the year for college basketball is also the worst.

SoCal

[uh_no]

I want to make it less likely that the biggest game of the year for college basketball is also the worst.

SoCal

then win the games you play. duke didn't do that. uconn and butler did.

[Reddevil]

I want to make it less likely that the biggest game of the year for college basketball is also the worst.

SoCal


then win the games you play. duke didn't do that. uconn and butler did.

It's not like the NC game is bad every year. Most of them are GREAT! In fact, this tournament is one of, if not the best sporting events of the year. This is a fun thread, and lots of interesting ideas have been floated, but although the thing can certainly be tweaked a bit, it certainly is not broken. This was a wierd year with a wierd ending, and it should not be used as the year to judge the NCAA tournament. Of all the NC games since 1974, I can only remember a few clunkers. Heck if Butler shoots only 36% this year it goes to OT or they win in regulation. It was an outlier. The current set up creates excitement for three glorious weeks. There are more things about the game/rules that I would like to see changed (that were highlighted during the NCAA tourney), rather than the tournament itself.

[Nugget]

I want to see the RPI replaced as a selection tool. I even have an idea: use the BCS. Since it's not football, I will call it the Basketball Consensus Standings. . . . Basically, I think the NCAA would do well to replace the RPI with a BCS style compilation of 5-7 computers. The RPI could still be included in them if the NCAA was unwilling to let go. They could employ some of the BCS football guys who already have basketball rankings (Jeff Sagarin, Wes Colley, Kenneth Massey) and add them to a few others, including Pomeroy to come up with a much more accurate ranking. If things like "top 50 wins" is going to be an important concept in the committee room, they should at least have an accurate top 50. . . .

It is a very easy change to make and would go a long way in improving the selection process.

I agree - that would be an excellent improvement, and as Matt notes, very, very easy to implement.

So Cal Duke's suggestion to have the West Regionals always be Fri/Sun is also a very good one. In the last 10 tournaments, the #1 seed in the West Region has been from the West only 4 times (2003 Arizona, 2004 Stanford, 2005 Washington and 2008 UCLA), and really it should have been 3 -- Washington in 2005 was a ridiculous 1 seed. So, more often than not, the #1 seed in the West has had to travel from the East time zone (other than Kansas once).

Frankly, I've never understood how they do the scheduling of the Regionals because, if you go back and look over the past 15 years (every time since 1996), the West Regionals have ALWAYS been Thurs/Sat, with the other 3 regions flipping back and forth between Thurs/Sat and Fri/Sun. The only thing I can think of is that, to accomodate the off chance that BYU, which can't play Fri/Sun, is good enough to be a 1 seed (in which case it would obviously be put in the West) they've decided to always have the West region be Thurs/Sat. That really could and should be changed.

[SCMatt33]

Frankly, I've never understood how they do the scheduling of the Regionals because, if you go back and look over the past 15 years (every time since 1996), the West Regionals have ALWAYS been Thurs/Sat, with the other 3 regions flipping back and forth between Thurs/Sat and Fri/Sun. The only thing I can think of is that, to accomodate the off chance that BYU, which can't play Fri/Sun, is good enough to be a 1 seed (in which case it would obviously be put in the West) they've decided to always have the West region be Thurs/Sat. That really could and should be changed.

I think that the real reason that the West is always on Thursday/Saturday is because of the elite 8. Sunday games are in the early afternoon, with the first tipping off at 2:00-2:15 PM ET. I don't think that they would want an 11:00 AM local time tip off, nor would they want to be locked into which match up gets which time slot. I'm sure that CBS wouldn't be happy and wouldn't pay quite as much if they were stuck putting the best match up in the early slot to accommodate time adjustments. I really think that it the whole time adjusting thing would be a problem if one team had an extra day of rest over the other, but that wasn't the case for us this year. We had to travel three time zones, but it's not like Arizona didn't have travel problems either. They had to travel forward two time zones, adjust, travel back, and adjust back.

[Nugget]

I think that the real reason that the West is always on Thursday/Saturday is because of the elite 8. Sunday games are in the early afternoon, with the first tipping off at 2:00-2:15 PM ET. I don't think that they would want an 11:00 AM local time tip off, nor would they want to be locked into which match up gets which time slot. I'm sure that CBS wouldn't be happy and wouldn't pay quite as much if they were stuck putting the best match up in the early slot to accommodate time adjustments.

Duh. I think you explanation is clearly the right answer for why they do it.

[captmojo]

1) Re-alignment of conferences, in a regional fashion, to a number that fit a bracket drawing.
2) Everybody in. One and done. Tourney play begins at the conference level.
3) Seedings set by committee, at the completion of the regional conference playout.
4) Set final four to a Friday/Sunday scheduling format, with final game set for a reasonable tip-off time that will satisfy both continental coastal time zones, with all respect paid to the fact that adults and children have to be able to return to normal lives the next day.

NIT regains promenence. Invitations go out after NCAA is over.
Nobody complains about omission...at least not to the NCAA.

If this is not suitable...you are the type of person that can never be satisfied. (opinion)