Proposed New NCAA Tournament Format

[GoingFor#5]

"Proposed" in the sense that it will never be considered by anyone in a position of power.

I've grown less interested in the tournament over the past few years and it seems more and more like a random crapshoot. Remember when Duke over UNLV was a huge upset? And we were a 2-seed! Nowadays I'm not that surprised if a 13 tops a 4. Parity isn't going away, but we could at least reward the regular season a bit and add some meaning to conference tournaments. Here's my proposal.

- 48 team field (this gives 16 teams byes, conferences with automatic bids would be reviewed and narrowed)
- Teams ranked 1-32 by the committee are bye-eligible
- Going from 1-32, teams are awarded byes IF they won their conference tournament OR conference regular season
- If the 16 byes aren't filled with conference champions, the top ranked remaining teams (1-32 again) are awarded byes
- The order of being awarded a bye is your new rank and affects your seed
- 1st/2nd round site location determined by proximity to bye teams (going from 1-16)

Some expected ramifications:

- Obviously tougher to get in the tournament
- Conference tournaments in power conferences would be intense for byes and resting in the conference tournament wouldn't make sense unless you won the regular season
- NCAA Tournament takes on the feel of 16 heavyweights vs. a bunch of other good teams so knocking of one of the 16 would be very meaningful

Comments?

[uh_no]

"Proposed" in the sense that it will never be considered by anyone in a position of power.

I've grown less interested in the tournament over the past few years and it seems more and more like a random crapshoot. Remember when Duke over UNLV was a huge upset? And we were a 2-seed! Nowadays I'm not that surprised if a 13 tops a 4. Parity isn't going away, but we could at least reward the regular season a bit and add some meaning to conference tournaments. Here's my proposal.

- 48 team field (this gives 16 teams byes, conferences with automatic bids would be reviewed and narrowed)
- Teams ranked 1-32 by the committee are bye-eligible
- Going from 1-32, teams are awarded byes IF they won their conference tournament OR conference regular season
- If the 16 byes aren't filled with conference champions, the top ranked remaining teams are awarded byes
- The order of being awarded a bye is your new rank and affects your seed
- 1st/2nd round site location determined by proximity to bye teams (going from 1-16)

Some expected ramifications:

- Obviously tougher to get in the tournament
- Conference tournaments in power conferences would be intense for byes and resting in the conference tournament wouldn't make sense unless you won the regular season
- NCAA Tournament takes on the feel of 16 heavyweights vs. a bunch of other good teams so knocking of one of the 16 would be very meaningful

Comments?

i don't think you realize how bad most conference champions are. Outside the top 10 or so conferences, the other 20 conference winners are generally really really bad. so in the end you end up with a higher ratio of bad teams to good teams, and in the end you're just left with lots of bad basketball.There's still a chance of a low seed knocking off a top seed....so it would be pretty much just as much of a crapshoot....you're effectively just saying all 1-4 seeds get an automatic bye....and those teams hardly ever lose in the first round anyway....well...this year not withstanding....usually 1 or 2 3/4 seeds lose a year...and to lose to such an inferior team means you have some pretty big team issues and probably deserve to lose anyway

I'm just not sure a) that there's a problem with the 64 team based format and b) that your solution would fix it

[AtlBluRew]

Sadly, the NCAA and its broadcast partners are definitely moving in the opposite direction and will add more teams, not limit them. On the bright side, that probably means that that 4 you mentioned will be facing a worse team than a 13 in its first game, or maybe that the 4 will be rested and the lesser team will have played a preliminary game.

[GoingFor#5]

i don't think you realize how bad most conference champions are. Outside the top 10 or so conferences, the other 20 conference winners are generally really really bad. so in the end you end up with a higher ratio of bad teams to good teams, and in the end you're just left with lots of bad basketball.There's still a chance of a low seed knocking off a top seed....so it would be pretty much just as much of a crapshoot....you're effectively just saying all 1-4 seeds get an automatic bye....and those teams hardly ever lose in the first round anyway....well...this year not withstanding....usually 1 or 2 3/4 seeds lose a year...and to lose to such an inferior team means you have some pretty big team issues and probably deserve to lose anyway

I'm just not sure a) that there's a problem with the 64 team based format and b) that your solution would fix it

Under my format, less conference champions would get in the tournament because they would lose their automatic bid. They would need to be in the top 48 without that bid. A low seed (which would only be as low as 12) would need to win twice, beating a well-rested top seed in the 2nd game at a site closer to home for the top seed. I feel that would qualify as a deserving Cindarella as it's more challenging (ie. you must beat a top 4 seed, can't get lucky off multiple upsets in your bracket). 1-4 seeds do get byes, but they earn it by winning their conference and being in the top 32 overall. Appreciate your comments, though, seems I dislike the 64 team format more than you.

[GoingFor#5]

Sadly, the NCAA and its broadcast partners are definitely moving in the opposite direction and will add more teams, not limit them. On the bright side, that probably means that that 4 you mentioned will be facing a worse team than a 13 in its first game, or maybe that the 4 will be rested and the lesser team will have played a preliminary game.

Even from a business perspective, I feel what they are doing is short-sighted. You don't dilute your best product! I really think enhancing the regular season and conference tournaments could bring in a lot more revenue for college basketball (of course, maybe those profits end up in different hands).

[dcdevil2009]

I'm not saying this would make the tournament better and might make it worse, but if you want it to be a more accurate representation of the best team each year, while keeping it at 64 teams a solution could be to make it a multiple elimination tournament. Maybe you keep the first weekend as is, which would keep the upsets around for a bit with the justification that if a top two seeded team can't beat an 8/9 seed and a 4/5/12/13 seed then they shouldn't be worthy of a national title. Once you get to the sweet 16, then it goes to a best of three for the remainder. It adds 4 to 8 more games and would likely get rid of Cinderellas in the elite eight, but the trade off is that the best team is more likely to win a championship. As I college basketball fan, I'd be against this. As a Duke fan, I might be neutral or pro change. We'd probably have more titles, losing '91 and maybe 2010, but possibly winning in '94, '04, and '11 and probably winning in '99 and '01.

[uh_no]

Under my format, less conference champions would get in the tournament because they would lose their automatic bid. They would need to be in the top 48 without that bid. A low seed (which would only be as low as 12) would need to win twice, beating a well-rested top seed in the 2nd game at a site closer to home for the top seed. I feel that would qualify as a deserving Cindarella as it's more challenging (ie. you must beat a top 4 seed, can't get lucky off multiple upsets in your bracket). 1-4 seeds do get byes, but they earn it by winning their conference and being in the top 32 overall. Appreciate your comments, though, seems I dislike the 64 team format more than you.

Part of the beauty of the tournament, is that however bad they may be, every team in the country has a chance to win...much like the US open in golf...there is no politicking like in the BCS...if you eliminate the auto bid, you eliminate any chance of a small school to prove they can actually play with the big boys. Whether they can or not is largely irrelevent....because in this sport, if you're bad, you lose....but at least you had a chance.

[tommy]

I'm not saying this would make the tournament better and might make it worse, but if you want it to be a more accurate representation of the best team each year, while keeping it at 64 teams a solution could be to make it a multiple elimination tournament. Maybe you keep the first weekend as is, which would keep the upsets around for a bit with the justification that if a top two seeded team can't beat an 8/9 seed and a 4/5/12/13 seed then they shouldn't be worthy of a national title. Once you get to the sweet 16, then it goes to a best of three for the remainder. It adds 4 to 8 more games and would likely get rid of Cinderellas in the elite eight, but the trade off is that the best team is more likely to win a championship. As I college basketball fan, I'd be against this. As a Duke fan, I might be neutral or pro change. We'd probably have more titles, losing '91 and maybe 2010, but possibly winning in '94, '04, and '11 and probably winning in '99 and '01.

Double elimination or a "series" is the idea I like least. The beauty of the tournament, or one of its beauties, is the lose-and-go-home aspect of it. You get one chance. You better bring it, or you're gone. You play the game of your life, you can eliminate Goliath. With double elimination or series, it would feel like the NBA, which I for one wouldn't want. And if it was double elimination, then is anyone thinking about Houston-NC State the same way? Georgetown-'Nova? Duke-UNLV? No, because the losers of those (first) games almost assuredly would have come back to win the series, and the unforgettable finishes, and unforgettable games, would be forgotten. I for one would hate that.

[Nugget]

The tournament had byes for the higher seeded teams in the early 80's and it was not necessarily a good thing -- disproportionate numbers of 1 seeds got upset in their "2nd round" games, playing nervous against teams who already had a win under their belts.

I think the tournament is fine at 64. The expansion to 68 is a minor dilution, easily adjusted to, and, given the long lucrative contract just signed with the networks, I think it very unlikely they will expand to 96 anytime soon, as we'd all feared last year. I think the expansion to 68 is actually a pretty good development. It has basically allowed any bubble team with a remotely plausible case to get in (over the last 2 seasons, basically only Drexel this year has much of a case for being improperly excluded). And it has slightly strengthened the bottom of the bracket by eliminating the two weakest 16 seeds before the tournament really starts, thereby making 2 of the 16 seeds playing Thurs/Fri "true" 15 seeds and 2 of the 15 seeds "true" 14 seeds. Obviously, we can speak from bitter experience this season as to how tough Lehigh was as a 15 seed.

[hurleyfor3]

I proposed the following format last year (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?25209-How-would-you-change-the-NCAA-tournament&p=497354#post497354):

The selection committee should consist of the most particularly well-informed posters to DBR, as chosen by the DBR's moderators. [2012 edit: Except for Throaty, who doesn't like anything.] 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 statistically 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 committee 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.

[GoingFor#5]

I proposed the following format last year (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?25209-How-would-you-change-the-NCAA-tournament&p=497354#post497354):

The selection committee should consist of the most particularly well-informed posters to DBR, as chosen by the DBR's moderators. [2012 edit: Except for Throaty, who doesn't like anything.] 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 statistically 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 committee 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.

Ha! My format, however, does Duke no favors as we'd probably not even get a bye (making us a 5 seed).

[Indoor66]

Mods will be allowed to choose themselves, of course.


That would eliminate six or eight slots, annually. :cool: