NCAA Making Contingency Plans For Less Than 68 Teams In Tourney

[Dr. Blackheart]

We also aren't fans of MSU or NW (assuming you don't have an affiliation my bad if you do) so we aren't the target audience anyways. You'd likely see teams doing for "conference challenge" series and then a few exhibition games. Realistically I agree that it would be damaging to the product, they need at least 2 maybe 3 more conferences to make it work.  But it is a plausible move and many of those schools have "messed with happy" to chase dollars before

So then CB has become the NBA or NHL where the regular season really doesn't matter and March Madness is washed down until the end then.

[wadesworld]

What is going to be interesting this year is to see how they seed the Tournament with it all being in one state.  Do they do a true S curve and rank all 68 teams from 1-68?  Or do they just keep the exact same selection process and have teams "regionalized?"  If it's a true S curve, that will hurt Gonzaga as the West is almost always the weakest bracket, but they'll also be the #1 overall seed so they'll have the worst 2 seed (but best 3 seed).  I'd imagine they just try to avoid having conference foes match up in the first two rounds as much as possible and do a true S curve otherwise.

[Galway Eagle]

What is going to be interesting this year is to see how they seed the Tournament with it all being in one state.  Do they do a true S curve and rank all 68 teams from 1-68?  Or do they just keep the exact same selection process and have teams "regionalized?"  If it's a true S curve, that will hurt Gonzaga as the West is almost always the weakest bracket, but they'll also be the #1 overall seed so they'll have the worst 2 seed (but best 3 seed).  I'd imagine they just try to avoid having conference foes match up in the first two rounds as much as possible and do a true S curve otherwise.

They announced an answer last night. I didn't click on the article but Katz was talking about it.

[GoldenWarrior11]

The P5 will not be breaking away in basketball; football, yes, that is happening more with every season - but football, for many, many, many reasons is treated differently. 

There are a few reasons why the P5, by themselves, would not split in basketball.  Firstly, there are not enough teams to do so.  The P5 have 65 teams, with 68 teams now making the tournament.  Outside the 65, there would not be enough teams for travel purposes or to have enough OOC matchups to get enough wins to qualify for said tournament.  Secondly, it is the money factor.  March Madness is one of the richest and most valuable content producers in sports, and the idea/concept of Cinderella/mid-major surprises are what make the entire experience so viewable and enjoyable.  The networks, which drive all realignment, will not want to kill its golden goose by risking completing destroying the idea and concept of March Madness.  Thirdly, no breakaway will occur by leaving out premier basketball brands and programs like Gonzaga, Villanova, UConn and others (Marquette being one of them) so that they can have more games against the likes of Washington State, TCU, Northwestern, Boston College and Mississppi State, and others. 

Having said all of that, I do think a "correction" is on the horizon in the coming years, possibly within the next decade.  I can see the P5 (65 teams), the Big East (11), the West Coast Conference (10), the Mountain West (11), the American (11), the A10 (14) and possibly the Missouri Valley (10) forming a new upper tier D1 (possibly without the NCAA), which would have 132 total teams.  This takes all of the regular multi-bid conferences, as well as the historical and perceived top single bid (MVC, but this can be replaced by any number of leagues), and includes all of the top basketball brands and programs within D1.  The "problem" for March Madness right now for the P5 isn't ensuring they get all of the tournament spots (which would dilute and destroy the product); its sharing the revenue with many one-bid leagues that are comprised mostly of athletic programs that take away funds and revenue from them through March Madness.  A breakaway similar to this balances both objectives: it maintains the "underdog" visibility in March Madness by keeping enough non-major programs involved (and still capable of winning), but it trims the excess fat that over half of D1 presently has access to (368 teams) by keeping more of the value and revenue to the top-132 programs.  In addition, by officially moving away from the NCAA, there is even more revenue to be kept that all of its responsibilities (NCAA) could fall upon the conferences themselves. 

I do think more major schools and athletic departments are growing frustrated with having to share March Madness revenue with the lower D1 schools.  I also think, because of COVID, more of the top-half schools will be more willing to make a split if it meant increasing the revenues for themselves.  Will be interesting to say the least.

[Galway Eagle]

The P5 will not be breaking away in basketball; football, yes, that is happening more with every season - but football, for many, many, many reasons is treated differently. 

There are a few reasons why the P5, by themselves, would not split in basketball.  Firstly, there are not enough teams to do so.  The P5 have 65 teams, with 68 teams now making the tournament.  Outside the 65, there would not be enough teams for travel purposes or to have enough OOC matchups to get enough wins to qualify for said tournament.  Secondly, it is the money factor.  March Madness is one of the richest and most valuable content producers in sports, and the idea/concept of Cinderella/mid-major surprises are what make the entire experience so viewable and enjoyable.  The networks, which drive all realignment, will not want to kill its golden goose by risking completing destroying the idea and concept of March Madness.  Thirdly, no breakaway will occur by leaving out premier basketball brands and programs like Gonzaga, Villanova, UConn and others (Marquette being one of them) so that they can have more games against the likes of Washington State, TCU, Northwestern, Boston College and Mississppi State, and others. 

Having said all of that, I do think a "correction" is on the horizon in the coming years, possibly within the next decade.  I can see the P5 (65 teams), the Big East (11), the West Coast Conference (10), the Mountain West (11), the American (11), the A10 (14) and possibly the Missouri Valley (10) forming a new upper tier D1 (possibly without the NCAA), which would have 132 total teams.  This takes all of the regular multi-bid conferences, as well as the historical and perceived top single bid (MVC, but this can be replaced by any number of leagues), and includes all of the top basketball brands and programs within D1.  The "problem" for March Madness right now for the P5 isn't ensuring they get all of the tournament spots (which would dilute and destroy the product); its sharing the revenue with many one-bid leagues that are comprised mostly of athletic programs that take away funds and revenue from them through March Madness.  A breakaway similar to this balances both objectives: it maintains the "underdog" visibility in March Madness by keeping enough non-major programs involved (and still capable of winning), but it trims the excess fat that over half of D1 presently has access to (368 teams) by keeping more of the value and revenue to the top-132 programs.  In addition, by officially moving away from the NCAA, there is even more revenue to be kept that all of its responsibilities (NCAA) could fall upon the conferences themselves. 

I do think more major schools and athletic departments are growing frustrated with having to share March Madness revenue with the lower D1 schools.  I also think, because of COVID, more of the top-half schools will be more willing to make a split if it meant increasing the revenues for themselves.  Will be interesting to say the least.

This upper tier system I could see being attempted. Hope that they find the right line. Would hate to see a Murray State or Western Kentucky get stuck on the wrong side when they have proud traditions in their own right.

My own tangent is that college sports is over saturated with tiers and leagues and should have a bomb taken to it for just state tournaments and then a national tournament. Lots more WI people may root for MU if they're repping WI in the national tournament every year.

[GooooMarquette]

Having said all of that, I do think a "correction" is on the horizon in the coming years, possibly within the next decade.  I can see the P5 (65 teams), the Big East (11), the West Coast Conference (10), the Mountain West (11), the American (11), the A10 (14) and possibly the Missouri Valley (10) forming a new upper tier D1 (possibly without the NCAA), which would have 132 total teams.  This takes all of the regular multi-bid conferences, as well as the historical and perceived top single bid (MVC, but this can be replaced by any number of leagues), and includes all of the top basketball brands and programs within D1.  The "problem" for March Madness right now for the P5 isn't ensuring they get all of the tournament spots (which would dilute and destroy the product); its sharing the revenue with many one-bid leagues that are comprised mostly of athletic programs that take away funds and revenue from them through March Madness.  A breakaway similar to this balances both objectives: it maintains the "underdog" visibility in March Madness by keeping enough non-major programs involved (and still capable of winning), but it trims the excess fat that over half of D1 presently has access to (368 teams) by keeping more of the value and revenue to the top-132 programs.  In addition, by officially moving away from the NCAA, there is even more revenue to be kept that all of its responsibilities (NCAA) could fall upon the conferences themselves. 

I could see something like that happening...in part because the list of DI basketball programs has been steadily expanding. We are currently at around 350, with new schools reclassifying frequently. In recent years, we have seen Merrimack, Bellarmine, Dixie State and Tarleton State jumping or preparing to jump from DII, and St. Thomas is in the process of moving straight from DIII.

Maybe if they limit it to the conferences you listed (or something similar), they could go back to a 32 or 64 team format. The play-in games are just stupid.

[brewcity77]

What is going to be interesting this year is to see how they seed the Tournament with it all being in one state.  Do they do a true S curve and rank all 68 teams from 1-68?  Or do they just keep the exact same selection process and have teams "regionalized?"  If it's a true S curve, that will hurt Gonzaga as the West is almost always the weakest bracket, but they'll also be the #1 overall seed so they'll have the worst 2 seed (but best 3 seed).  I'd imagine they just try to avoid having conference foes match up in the first two rounds as much as possible and do a true S curve otherwise.

It's a true S-Curve with caveats being made for in-league opponents.

[wadesworld]

It's a true S-Curve with caveats being made for in-league opponents.

Thank you.  That made the most sense.  Which meant it was a coin flip (at best) whether the NCAA would do it that way or not.

[GoldenWarrior11]

This upper tier system I could see being attempted. Hope that they find the right line. Would hate to see a Murray State or Western Kentucky get stuck on the wrong side when they have proud traditions in their own right.

My own tangent is that college sports is over saturated with tiers and leagues and should have a bomb taken to it for just state tournaments and then a national tournament. Lots more WI people may root for MU if they're repping WI in the national tournament every year.

And they could easily decide to take more conferences too.  The whole point would be to eliminate the needless autobids from many conferences that end up taking away perceived revenues from the top half.  Conference USA (14) and the Ohio Valley (12) could both in theory come along too, and that still only gets the total number up to 158, which still would take away over half of what is now D1.  Or if the new D1 doesn't want to bring along an entire mid-major conference outright, they can organize the MVC or the A10 to take a Murray State or a Western Kentucky or whomever. 

Bottom line, any split will not involve the top-65, nor it would only eliminate the bottom-65; any separation would be as close to half as possible for many reasons.  The biggest value in separating, whether in football or in basketball, would be for the member schools to keep the entire revenues and not have to share with the NCAA.  In 2021, for many reasons, there is little reason for the NCAA to continue to exist.  Schools and conferences can do a lot of the administrative work on their own, and create their own committees, with commissioners, that oversee their respective sports.  By cutting the total number of teams in half, it makes the oversight considerably less, and allows the membership to incorporate the NIL legislation much more effectively (with 350+ D1 teams now, it is impossible for the NCAA to honestly say they can treat all members and all sports fairly and equitably). 

Football will most likely happen first - especially with the influx of new D1 football programs seeking promotion, not to mention conferences attempting to do so as well (WAC and Atlantic Sun).  Many schools see the financial incentive of moving to D1 today; unfortunately, as it takes away more of the overall pie, it will only expedite the process of the top brands/conferences separating. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I have long thought that basketball could use a good amount of fat trimming. Could you imagine the realignment craziness that would happen if it ever actually became a reality. Top programs from the conferences that get left out would be fleeing to try to join one of the mid-major conferences that make the cut. I could see some conferences cutting lower performing programs to make room for top performers from other conferences.

[Galway Eagle]

I have long thought that basketball could use a good amount of fat trimming. Could you imagine the realignment craziness that would happen if it ever actually became a reality. Top programs from the conferences that get left out would be fleeing to try to join one of the mid-major conferences that make the cut. I could see some conferences cutting lower performing programs to make room for top performers from other conferences.

The issue is someone has to lose though. And would you rather be Murray st pretty much alway guaranteed a bid or would you rather be Depaul who can tout a great historical tradition but gets rocked every year. Surely the people who constantly want to move up realize that not everybody is going to come out a winner.

[MU82]

GW11 -- that is a fascinating possibility, and I thank you for bringing it up (and others for continuing the discussion).

It makes sense that, in the not-too-distant future, something major like this could (and probably should) occur.

Heck, they could even come up with a relegation-type system for the last couple of conferences. If you achieve such-and-such (some pre-determined standard) your league gets to play with the big boys for 2-3 years, replacing conference(s) that didn't meet the standard. Wouldn't that be fun?

[GoldenWarrior11]

Well, I think the chances are close to 0% of any member of any conference getting booted for another; there will always be additions, but eliminating a member school is a political minefield and very rare in college history.  Temple Football got the boot from the Big East years ago, and the amount of steps to get to that point were extraordinary.  Should certain programs make the decision to leave select conferences because they are not competitive, because they do not have a similar athletic mission, because they do not provide value, etc?  Of course.  But no President in their right mind would relinquish the brand association or monetary values of being in a conference with no alternative that offers a similar offering.

Relegation is also very unlikely, as the powers-that-be would never want one of their own and protected members to ever be dropped down due to a lack of competitiveness. 

[GooooMarquette]

GW11 -- that is a fascinating possibility, and I thank you for bringing it up (and others for continuing the discussion).

It makes sense that, in the not-too-distant future, something major like this could (and probably should) occur.

Heck, they could even come up with a relegation-type system for the last couple of conferences. If you achieve such-and-such (some pre-determined standard) your league gets to play with the big boys for 2-3 years, replacing conference(s) that didn't meet the standard. Wouldn't that be fun?

A relegation system would be awesome, but I doubt we'll ever see it.

[MU82]

Well, I think the chances are close to 0% of any member of any conference getting booted for another; there will always be additions, but eliminating a member school is a political minefield and very rare in college history.  Temple Football got the boot from the Big East years ago, and the amount of steps to get to that point were extraordinary.  Should certain programs make the decision to leave select conferences because they are not competitive, because they do not have a similar athletic mission, because they do not provide value, etc?  Of course.  But no President in their right mind would relinquish the brand association or monetary values of being in a conference with no alternative that offers a similar offering.

Relegation is also very unlikely, as the powers-that-be would never want one of their own and protected members to ever be dropped down due to a lack of competitiveness.

Oh, I hear ya. I was just spitballin'.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I think the easiest thing to do is to create a "Division 1+" where conferences are eligible for the larger division if they meet certain attendance and performance standards.

[Galway Eagle]

I think the easiest thing to do is to create a "Division 1+" where conferences are eligible for the larger division if they meet certain attendance and performance standards.

Basically FBS vs FCS?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Basically FBS vs FCS?

Yep.  Or force a bunch of schools back down to D2.

[PGsHeroes32]

Lundari latest brackets now include at 48 and 16 team bracket because as he says

The truth is there is no way to know at this point what Selection Sunday will bring, so all bases must be covered by.

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/30302581/the-varying-states-ncaa-tournament-bracketology

Incidentally, in the 68 team bracket, MU is among the "first four out." Interestingly, Michigan State and Duke are among the "last four byes." and UNC is among the "last four in."

Hes been doing those reduced brackets all year

There was once a time we made the 48 one. Now we gotta get back into the 68