Jimmy Mac's bold idea

[MerrittsMustache]

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?

[oldwarrior81]

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.

[T-Bone]

He should stick with "Motors, Muscles, and Movies"

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

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.

[WarriorInNYC]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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?

[Mr. Nielsen]

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!

[brewcity77]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[CTWarrior]

I was kidding...especially since a 256-team tourney would be completely ridiculous.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector malfunctioning again.  Quite common for me, unfortunately.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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

[Eldon]

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).

[rocky_warrior]

  I wouldn't change a thing (except maybe eliminting the play-in round).

Yup, go back to 64

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[We R Final Four]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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.

[We R Final Four]

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.

[WarriorFan]

Jimmy Mac's BAD idea

FIFY

[brewcity77]

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?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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

[martyconlonontherun]

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.

[rocket surgeon]

  if it make$ $en$e, it will happen, if it doe$n't, make $en$e....