Cut number of D1 Schools to 256. Start the NCAA tournament a week early and have every single D1 team in it. Interesting idea....
http://jimmcilvaine.sportsblog.com/posts/8261154/the-haves---have-nots-of-college-basketball.html
Talk about a crap shoot...
Homer has been self promoting the "Homer 256" forever.
Never happen now.
You could just as well leave all the teams in and have the bottom 200(?) play a play in game to get to 256.
Good for the casual fan and bad for the fan who follows the team 365 days a year. The best part is watching the team grow (even over multiple seasons) and seeing them "earn" their bid to the tournament.
Quote from: We R Final Four on December 15, 2015, 10:35:08 PM
Homer has been self promoting the "Homer 256" forever.
Never happen now.
Do you mean to say that now that Mac has endorsed the idea it is sunk? And I thought those guys got along.
Not many casual fans are going to be eager to fill out a 256-team bracket, which pretty much is the main reason behind the NCAA tournament's popularity.
And which 90 or so D-I teams get relegated, and how?
That Kentucky dorm room was bigger then my 4 person room my Freshman year.
Quote from: warriorchick on December 15, 2015, 10:26:11 PM
Cut number of D1 Schools to 256. Start the NCAA tournament a week early and have every single D1 team in it. Interesting idea....
http://jimmcilvaine.sportsblog.com/posts/8261154/the-haves---have-nots-of-college-basketball.html
Bobby Knight floated an idea like this a few years ago. But, as Knight noted, this would extend the tournament another week (another two rounds). It would be nearly a month long.
For this to happen D1 schools would have to either cut a week off the regular season schedule (meaning less revenue from home games) or do anyway with their conference tourneys (again less revenues). Knight doubted this loss of revenues and the increased expenses of running a Tourney with 256 teams would make economic sense. CBS is not paying more for a 256 team tourney.
It also means the end of the NIT. While you may not care, the NIT serves a purpose to give basketball programming for the days in between the Tourney dates.
Then what's the point of the first 31 games? What is the point of the low D1 conference tournaments? This is a really bad idea.
It's bad enough that the 68 team tournament has marginalized the season for big time programs. A tournament that everybody is in makes the entire regular season irrelevant.
Don't like it. This 256-tourney idea confirms for me my long-held belief that Jimmy Mac is indeed a stoner.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 16, 2015, 07:23:45 AM
It also means the end of the NIT. While you may not care, the NIT serves a purpose to give basketball programming for the days in between the Tourney dates.
Not that I am taking a stand either way, but they could make the NIT a pre-season tournament?
There is something intriguing about literally any D1 team having the chance to be NCAA champs. And as far as the regular season having no meaning if this is done, wouldn't it serve as a way to properly seed the teams? Kind of like it is now.
Quote from: warriorchick on December 16, 2015, 08:47:04 AM
There is something intriguing about literally any D1 team having the chance to be NCAA champs.
That happens now with conference tournaments. Except for the Ivy League, every team has a chance to win the National Championship by winning their conference tournament.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 16, 2015, 09:03:01 AM
That happens now with conference tournaments. Except for the Ivy League, every team has a chance to win the National Championship by winning their conference tournament.
And the independents. That said, there's already 330+ teams in the NCAA tournament every year. No need to add more.
Quote from: Benny B on December 16, 2015, 11:21:38 AM
And the independents. That said, there's already 330+ teams in the NCAA tournament every year. No need to add more.
No more independents left in basketball. NJIT was the last one.
Every team does have a chance to win the National Title. Conference winners have an automatic berth. So it is like the US Open in golf. Some people have to go through qualifiers to get in. The formula in place works very well and is not broken.
Among the things that distinguishes college from professional hoop is the excitement of the regular season. Our conference games are hard fought battles each possession.
Additionally, I think it is great that there are so many D-1 teams. Gives lots of kids an opportunity for a full ride they could not otherwise afford.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on December 16, 2015, 12:32:31 PM
Every team does have a chance to win the National Title. Conference winners have an automatic berth. So it is like the US Open in golf. Some people have to go through qualifiers to get in. The formula in place works very well and is not broken.
Among the things that distinguishes college from professional hoop is the excitement of the regular season. Our conference games are hard fought battles each possession.
Additionally, I think it is great that there are so many D-1 teams. Gives lots of kids an opportunity for a full ride they could not otherwise afford.
Which is why it is superior to college football in that respect. As I grow older I find football rather dull with only 15 minutes of action out of 60 minutes clock time. Only the chosen few can qualify. Basketball is pretty much non-stop and even when the clock is not ticking a missed free throw can raise my blood pressure. Maybe Monmouth will win it all.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 16, 2015, 01:44:46 PM
Which is why it is superior to college football in that respect. As I grow older I find football rather dull with only 15 minutes of action out of 60 minutes clock time. Only the chosen few can qualify. Basketball is pretty much non-stop and even when the clock is not ticking a missed free throw can raise my blood pressure. Maybe Monmouth will win it all.
What I hate more than anything about college football is that one loss essentially ends most teams seasons. Two losses ends practically every teams season. The losses ends every teams season. Some teams could go undefeated and still not make the playoffs so their season is over before it starts. I find it impossible to care about qualifying for some random bowl game. After two losses I can barely watch Aggie games.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 16, 2015, 12:15:16 PM
No more independents left in basketball. NJIT was the last one.
Sorry, I meant provisionals.... although there might not be any of those left either.
EDIT: Never mind, there's five of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_reclassifying_their_athletic_programs_to_NCAA_Division_I
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 16, 2015, 02:23:11 PM
What I hate more than anything about college football is that one loss essentially ends most teams seasons. Two losses ends practically every teams season. The losses ends every teams season. Some teams could go undefeated and still not make the playoffs so their season is over before it starts. I find it impossible to care about qualifying for some random bowl game. After two losses I can barely watch Aggie games.
What always bugged me was the inconsistency of even a loss.
College football is basically MarioKart. If you get whomped in the beginning, you can still come back and win. But if you catch a red shell near the end....oh boy. There's no coming back.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 16, 2015, 02:23:11 PM
What I hate more than anything about college football is that one loss essentially ends most teams seasons. Two losses ends practically every teams season. The losses ends every teams season. Some teams could go undefeated and still not make the playoffs so their season is over before it starts. I find it impossible to care about qualifying for some random bowl game. After two losses I can barely watch Aggie games.
I'd like to see college football drop some teams and go to 8 conferences with 13 teams in each (104 total teams). Each team plays 12 conference games (no garbage non-conf) and the conference winners all go to an 8-team playoff. Sure, there's potential to have a 7-5 team in the tourney and an 11-1 team left out but so what? I know this would never happen for a vast number of reasons but it sure would be fun.
I support the cut to the ~250s. Been saying that for a while. If there ever is a P5 split, it will be about shedding the dead weight from about 10 conferences. They ain't gonna kill the tourney.
Quote from: Aughnanure on December 16, 2015, 03:20:03 PM
I support the cut to the ~250s. Been saying that for a while. If there ever is a P5 split, it will be about shedding the dead weight from about 10 conferences. They ain't gonna kill the tourney.
Thank you. I feel better with that insight.
why stop at 256? How about 4096? ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxyPeME9TbI
Quote from: warriorchick on December 15, 2015, 10:26:11 PM
Cut number of D1 Schools to 256. Start the NCAA tournament a week early and have every single D1 team in it. Interesting idea....
http://jimmcilvaine.sportsblog.com/posts/8261154/the-haves---have-nots-of-college-basketball.html
A 256-team tournament, assuming no byes/pigtail games would mean 4 regions of 64 teams. A 16-seed has never beaten a #1. What are the odds of a #64 seed beating a #1?
Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on December 17, 2015, 08:31:44 AM
A 256-team tournament, assuming no byes/pigtail games would mean 4 regions of 64 teams. A 16-seed has never beaten a #1. What are the odds of a #64 seed beating a #1?
With a 256-team tourney, there are going to be a bunch of dog games. I mean, would anyone really be interested in watching Michigan State roll over Grambling by 50? Or a match-up of a 27-seed against a 38-seed, which would basically be RPI 100 against RPI 150?
there's not anything really new about this topic as a variation of it has been floated around for decades.
Over the years one approach I've liked is allocating seeds to a conference based on conference strength and past tournament performance. ala the World Cup which awards berths per continent. If African teams perform better than expected their berths in the World Cup increase from 1 to 3 to 5. While a Europe drops from 14 to 13, or Asia from 6 to 5.
Maybe the Big Ten gets 12 spots or all 14 teams get automatic bids. But the SWAC may only get two spots. It's up to them to determine how those spots are filled. Maybe one to the regular season champ and one to the postseason champ. Which could give the smaller conferences post-season tournaments some importance as they continue to be play-in games.
How do you avoid a 1 vs 64 matchup? Easy it's America and we'll have 8 regions of 32 teams or 16 regions of 16 teams. Then nobody gets their feelings hurt by being labeled as a seed lower than 16 or 32. Plus you'd have double the #1 seeds which the coaches would like for the resume.
He should stick with "Motors, Muscles, and Movies"
Quote from: oldwarrior81 on December 17, 2015, 09:22:54 AM
there's not anything really new about this topic as a variation of it has been floated around for decades.
Over the years one approach I've liked is allocating seeds to a conference based on conference strength and past tournament performance. ala the World Cup which awards berths per continent. If African teams perform better than expected their berths in the World Cup increase from 1 to 3 to 5. While a Europe drops from 14 to 13, or Asia from 6 to 5.
Maybe the Big Ten gets 12 spots or all 14 teams get automatic bids. But the SWAC may only get two spots. It's up to them to determine how those spots are filled. Maybe one to the regular season champ and one to the postseason champ. Which could give the smaller conferences post-season tournaments some importance as they continue to be play-in games.
How do you avoid a 1 vs 64 matchup? Easy it's America and we'll have 8 regions of 32 teams or 16 regions of 16 teams. Then nobody gets their feelings hurt by being labeled as a seed lower than 16 or 32. Plus you'd have double the #1 seeds which the coaches would like for the resume.
(https://extracreditlife.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/participant.jpg)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on December 17, 2015, 08:44:55 AM
With a 256-team tourney, there are going to be a bunch of dog games. I mean, would anyone really be interested in watching Michigan State roll over Grambling by 50? Or a match-up of a 27-seed against a 38-seed, which would basically be RPI 100 against RPI 150?
There wouldn't have to be any deliberation as to who is in and who is out, but seeding all of those teams would take forever.
Quote from: WarriorInNYC on December 17, 2015, 12:04:00 PM
There wouldn't have to be any deliberation as to who is in and who is out, but seeding all of those teams would take forever.
Straight RPI, homie.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on December 17, 2015, 01:48:28 PM
Straight RPI, homie.
Do you really think they'd send some crappy SWAC team to play in Oregon or something for the first round of a 256 team tournament because of the way the RPI worked out? No way. They'd end up regionalizing the early rounds to cut costs and increase attendance. Basically like the conference tournaments we already have. Which of course begs the question, why do we need a 256 team tournament again?
Quote from: AirPunch on December 15, 2015, 11:24:36 PM
and bad for the fan who follows the team 365 days a year. The best part is watching the team grow (even over multiple seasons) and seeing them "earn" their bid to the tournament.
College basketball regular season is major struggle to get ratings with the NFL and CFB right now. This idea would kill the game!
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 17, 2015, 02:09:53 PM
Do you really think they'd send some crappy SWAC team to play in Oregon or something for the first round of a 256 team tournament because of the way the RPI worked out? No way. They'd end up regionalizing the early rounds to cut costs and increase attendance. Basically like the conference tournaments we already have. Which of course begs the question, why do we need a 256 team tournament again?
Exactly right, and the reality is, we already have a 351-team tournament. Okay...there are a few independents out there, which probably brings it down to around 345, but once the conference tournaments start, EVERY eligible team can win the national championship. All they have to do is win their tournament and then win 6-7 more games. Easy peasy.
I don't get why people like Mac want fewer teams in the field.
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 17, 2015, 02:09:53 PM
Do you really think they'd send some crappy SWAC team to play in Oregon or something for the first round of a 256 team tournament because of the way the RPI worked out? No way. They'd end up regionalizing the early rounds to cut costs and increase attendance. Basically like the conference tournaments we already have. Which of course begs the question, why do we need a 256 team tournament again?
I was kidding...especially since a 256-team tourney would be completely ridiculous.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on December 17, 2015, 03:00:26 PM
I was kidding...especially since a 256-team tourney would be completely ridiculous.
Sorry, my sarcasm detector malfunctioning again. Quite common for me, unfortunately.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 17, 2015, 02:46:30 PM
Exactly right, and the reality is, we already have a 351-team tournament. Okay...there are a few independents out there, which probably brings it down to around 345, but once the conference tournaments start, EVERY eligible team can win the national championship. All they have to do is win their tournament and then win 6-7 more games. Easy peasy.
I don't get why people like Mac want fewer teams in the field.
No independents. Just a few programs still transitioning to d1
Why do people insist on changing the Tourney format? Is this simply grass-is-greener fallacy?
IMO, the Tourney is absolutely perfect the way it is. I wouldn't change a thing (except maybe eliminting the play-in round).
Quote from: Eldon on December 18, 2015, 12:53:30 PM
I wouldn't change a thing (except maybe eliminting the play-in round).
Yup, go back to 64
Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on December 17, 2015, 10:43:03 AM
(https://extracreditlife.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/participant.jpg)
That's kind of how the idea sounds to me. Having a tournament with everyone in would be the NCAA basketball equivalent of awarding participation trophies. Everyone has a shot to win the championship. The first "round" the tournament is the conference tournaments. It ain't broke. In fact, in many ways, I think it's one of the least broke things in major sports.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 18, 2015, 03:00:38 PM
Yup, go back to 64
I agree 100%, but I doubt they'd decrease the number.
If they're going to stick with 68, at least make all the play-in games between bubble teams. A team that wins their conference tourney should get a shot to play in a real NCAAT game - likely against a top-tier program - as opposed to being placed in a play-in game against another 16-seed.
This I agree with. Last 4 in and last 4 out play each other. You were on the bubble and are not guaranteed anything. If you won your conf. or conf. tourney that should not be lessened by needed to win a play in game. You are in--you earned it. A 6th place team from a P5 conf. needs to prove it--even if it is on the 12 line.
Quote from: We R Final Four on December 21, 2015, 09:38:40 AM
This I agree with. Last 4 in and last 4 out play each other. You were on the bubble and are not guaranteed anything. If you won your conf. or conf. tourney that should not be lessened by needed to win a play in game. You are in--you earned it. A 6th place team from a P5 conf. needs to prove it--even if it is on the 12 line.
At least those bottom four conference tournament winners actually get to play an NCAA Tournament game that they have a chance of winning. I'd prefer going back to 64, but the First Four the way they have it now (last four in and the worst four autos) is OK by me.
I hear you. I just think that a SWAC or similar team that wins its conference and then wins its conference tourney should be rewarded more than potentially losing the play-in game and in the minds of those casual fans who fill out their brackets on Wed "didn't really even make the tourney" when in fact they did and should be allowed a Thurs/Friday game not a Tues/Wed. game.
Jimmy Mac's BAD idea
FIFY
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 17, 2015, 04:38:54 PM
No independents. Just a few programs still transitioning to d1
Looks like NJIT was the last before joining the A-Sun this year. I'm sure there will still be more in the future. Do all the conferences get an automatic bid now? I feel like there was someone who didn't get one for the past few years, maybe the now-dissolved Great West?
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 21, 2015, 10:12:54 AM
Looks like NJIT was the last before joining the A-Sun this year. I'm sure there will still be more in the future. Do all the conferences get an automatic bid now? I feel like there was someone who didn't get one for the past few years, maybe the now-dissolved Great West?
Just the now defunct great west
Only way I like this idea is if it is a preseason tourney that replaces part of the non-conference schedule. Make it so the elite-8 are guaranteed a YE tourney spot. Not sure if this will be enough of a fan job to lose the cupcake game money, but who knows based on TV contracts. Teams would also have to schedule contingent home games if they lose early in the tournament. Then you would have to fit 8.5 rounds over 3 weekends, which would really be pushing the student-athlete fallacy to the limit. As a fan though, that would be awesome having a pre-season/non-conference champion. Then have a regular season followed by the same tourney format as we have now. It makes even the cupcake game meaningful.
As a top ~70ish team, we would probably play at least 3 games in this format. Playing Chicago State in a preseason tourney is a lot more fun than later on.
As for the year-end tourney? Nope. Horrible idea that makes the regular season basically meaningless besides maybe playing an extra practice games.
if it make$ $en$e, it will happen, if it doe$n't, make $en$e....