Big East 2024 Offseason

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

No, that's what you're saying when you say it was obvious why St. John's was left off.  The implication is that the team that got in got in for an obvious reason.

You are being too black and white. I'm talking shades of grey here. SJU, SHU and Oklahoma all had legit arguments for being in over Virginia. I wouldn't have had an argument against any of them.

However I can completely understand why they weren't.  That is the context in which I responded to willie.

In the end, we are talking about team #68. The ones who missed out only have themselves to blame - they could have done more, but just didn't.

[Hards Alumni]

You are being too black and white. I'm talking shades of grey here. SJU, SHU and Oklahoma all had legit arguments for being in over Virginia. I wouldn't have had an argument against any of them.

However I can completely understand why they weren't.  That is the context in which I responded to willie.

In the end, we are talking about team #68. The ones who missed out only have themselves to blame - they could have done more, but just didn't.

That's fair... I guess.  But you started this out pretty black and white when you used, "obvious".  lol

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Any expansion IMO can't take away from the first and second rounds on Thursday and Friday. That's why an expansion to 96, where the 9-24 seeds in each region play on Tuesday and Wednesday, is just a bad idea IMO.

Anything they do should try to generate the interest and urgency on a smaller scale - something like the NBA play-in games. For example, turn the conference champion play-in games to a Monday through Wednesday play in tournament for the eight worst conference champions for one spot. You could still have play-in games for the at-larges as well.

Something that will be fun for the die-hards to watch, but not take away from that first four-day weekend.

I read this weekend that the most likely scenario is expansion to 72 or 76.  I read 80 max was being evaluated but there seemed to be a consensus at 72 or 76 by adding more play-in games only.

Per ESPN article:
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39724097/ncaa-tournament-expansion-future-80-teams-march-madness

[TheButlerDidIt]

What if the NCAA tourney absorbs the NIT and expands to 100? The NIT tourney could essentially be used to play into the NCAA tourney proper.

I’m sure some will think that’s too many, but it could be a way of expanding while giving new importance to the NIT (or just getting rid of it altogether!).

Has this been discussed/proposed at all or have I just been living under a rock?

[TheButlerDidIt]

Also, could include both conference regular season and tourney winners. This year there would’ve been 52 winners across 32 conferences and there’d be 48 at-larges available.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Also, could include both conference regular season and tourney winners.

No expansion will include regular season winners, or any other teams from low level conferences. Why let a bunch of bad teams into the tournament?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I read this weekend that the most likely scenario is expansion to 72 or 76.  I read 80 max was being evaluated but there seemed to be a consensus at 72 or 76 by adding more play-in games only.

Per ESPN article:
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39724097/ncaa-tournament-expansion-future-80-teams-march-madness

Short term yes. Would like to see what happens after 2032.

[TheButlerDidIt]

No expansion will include regular season winners, or any other teams from low level conferences. Why let a bunch of bad teams into the tournament?

Just keeping in spirit with the NIT up until this year. It’s a pipe dream, I get it.

[CountryRoads]

The only change that needs to be made to the NCAA tournament is to strip Dayton of having the exclusive rights to the first round. It makes no sense why it is always there.

The change I’d make is to make all 16 seeds play in games and put those games at the site of their first round game to minimize travel and so that their fans can easily attend both games. Let’s be honest, the last four high majors in the first four to generate more interest has been a dud and an overall failure.

If expansion goes to 72, then do the same for the 15 seeds. If it goes to 80, then do the same for 13 and 14 seeds.

Whatever the case, there needs to be 64 teams remaining at the start of Thursday and from there the format needs to be remain the same.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The only change that needs to be made to the NCAA tournament is to strip Dayton of having the exclusive rights to the first round. It makes no sense why it is always there.

The change I’d make is to make all 16 seeds play in games and put those games at the site of their first round game to minimize travel and so that their fans can easily attend both games.

The problem is that it is often difficult to reserve arenas for a couple extra days. Dayton is centrally located, gets fans to turn out for the games, and teams get chartered to their next location. It works.

[StillWarriors]

The only change that needs to be made to the NCAA tournament is to strip Dayton of having the exclusive rights to the first round. It makes no sense why it is always there.

The change I’d make is to make all 16 seeds play in games and put those games at the site of their first round game to minimize travel and so that their fans can easily attend both games. Let’s be honest, the last four high majors in the first four to generate more interest has been a dud and an overall failure.

If expansion goes to 72, then do the same for the 15 seeds. If it goes to 80, then do the same for 13 and 14 seeds.

Whatever the case, there needs to be 64 teams remaining at the start of Thursday and from there the format needs to be remain the same.

I suspect those games would be played in front of minimal crowds in most locations. Dayton has a nice stadium and the crowd really turns out for those games to create a great atmosphere. Between that and central location as Sultan referenced, it is tough to beat.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I did not see previously.  Big East statement.


https://www.bigeast.com/news/2024/3/18/mens-basketball-big-east-statement-on-ncaa-tournament-selections.aspx

BIG EAST Statement on NCAA Tournament Selections

We are very proud that UConn earned the No. 1 overall seed in this year's NCAA men's basketball tournament following another tremendous season that included both the Big East regular season and tournament titles.  Marquette, a No. 2 seed, and Creighton, a No. 3 seed, give the Big East three of the top 10 overall seeds in the tournament, as many as any other league.  We consider each of them legitimate contenders for a Final Four berth and another Big East national crown on April 8th.
 
These high seeds follow our most successful Big East Tournament to date, which saw five sellouts and our usual impassioned crowds at The World's Most Famous Arena.  Our four-year extension with Madison Square Garden, announced on Friday, means that the event, a New York City staple, will celebrate its 50th anniversary at MSG in 2032, a run unmatched in the college basketball world.
 
We have great respect for the NCAA men's basketball committee and the time and effort that goes into selecting and seeding the teams for the NCAA tournament.  It is a very challenging job, and we have been advised that this year’s upsets added to the complexity and contributed to the committee's final bracket selections.   Given the high level of play in our league, we are understandably very disappointed that some worthy Big East teams were not selected to participate.   We will be working closely with our schools in the coming months to best position the Big East next year and to ensure that we continue to be represented in March Madness in a manner befitting our stature as one of the best conferences in college basketball.

[Galway Eagle]

I did not see previously.  Big East statement.


https://www.bigeast.com/news/2024/3/18/mens-basketball-big-east-statement-on-ncaa-tournament-selections.aspx

BIG EAST Statement on NCAA Tournament Selections

We are very proud that UConn earned the No. 1 overall seed in this year's NCAA men's basketball tournament following another tremendous season that included both the Big East regular season and tournament titles.  Marquette, a No. 2 seed, and Creighton, a No. 3 seed, give the Big East three of the top 10 overall seeds in the tournament, as many as any other league.  We consider each of them legitimate contenders for a Final Four berth and another Big East national crown on April 8th.
 
These high seeds follow our most successful Big East Tournament to date, which saw five sellouts and our usual impassioned crowds at The World's Most Famous Arena.  Our four-year extension with Madison Square Garden, announced on Friday, means that the event, a New York City staple, will celebrate its 50th anniversary at MSG in 2032, a run unmatched in the college basketball world.
 
We have great respect for the NCAA men's basketball committee and the time and effort that goes into selecting and seeding the teams for the NCAA tournament.  It is a very challenging job, and we have been advised that this year’s upsets added to the complexity and contributed to the committee's final bracket selections.   Given the high level of play in our league, we are understandably very disappointed that some worthy Big East teams were not selected to participate.   We will be working closely with our schools in the coming months to best position the Big East next year and to ensure that we continue to be represented in March Madness in a manner befitting our stature as one of the best conferences in college basketball.

If that's all you're going to say I feel like it's not worth putting a statement out. If they wanted to put a breakdown highlighting top wins vs comparable bubble teams, or NET rankings, or any other argument you could make then I feel that would've been worth it but this is the most "I'm upset but ok we'll just try another day rather than ask for  explanations"

[CountryRoads]

The problem is that it is often difficult to reserve arenas for a couple extra days. Dayton is centrally located, gets fans to turn out for the games, and teams get chartered to their next location. It works.

Ok fine, I’ll admit that I’d mostly just like to see their fans upset about losing the location versus any practical considerations.

[Hards Alumni]

If that's all you're going to say I feel like it's not worth putting a statement out. If they wanted to put a breakdown highlighting top wins vs comparable bubble teams, or NET rankings, or any other argument you could make then I feel that would've been worth it but this is the most "I'm upset but ok we'll just try another day rather than ask for  explanations"

IMO, the most important two lines are the last two.  She's alluding to the fact that she saw what the Big 12 did and was rewarded for and will tell her schools to do the same if that is what makes a team tournament eligible.  Playing a 300+ NCSOS to pad NET scores and get easy wins is what the strategy is.

[wadesworld]

IMO, the most important two lines are the last two.  She's alluding to the fact that she saw what the Big 12 did and was rewarded for and will tell her schools to do the same if that is what makes a team tournament eligible.  Playing a 300+ NCSOS to pad NET scores and get easy wins is what the strategy is.

Yup.  The related notice sent out to all BE schools will urge them to not let their walk ons play in the non con.  Run that score up, baby.

[StillAWarrior]

The change I’d make is to make all 16 seeds play in games and put those games at the site of their first round game to minimize travel and so that their fans can easily attend both games. Let’s be honest, the last four high majors in the first four to generate more interest has been a dud and an overall failure.

If expansion goes to 72, then do the same for the 15 seeds. If it goes to 80, then do the same for 13 and 14 seeds.

I realize that I may be in the minority here -- but my preference would be exactly the opposite. I'd rather they throw the last eight (or 12, 16, etc.) at-large teams into the play-in games and let the automatic qualifiers start on Thursday with the field of 64. Let the little guys enjoy being in the "real" tournament rather than shipping them off to Dayton; make the bubble teams from the high major conferences fight it out for the right to play in the "real" tournament.

Someone on here posted that having the auto-qualifiers play that extra game was a way for the NCAA to help them get more money by having another game. Suffice it to say that I'm deeply skeptical of this explanation - history would suggest that when the NCAA claims they're looking out for the little guy...there's almost certainly something else going on. But, in the unlikely event that is true, it would be easy enough for the NCAA to increase the payment to all the conference tournament winners from one-bid leagues (or all the conference tournament winners) to account for not having them play in the first four games. The NCAA's new-found largesse for the little guys could extend beyond just two teams each year.

Whatever the case, there needs to be 64 teams remaining at the start of Thursday and from there the format needs to be remain the same.

On this, we agree.

[CountryRoads]

IMO, the most important two lines are the last two.  She's alluding to the fact that she saw what the Big 12 did and was rewarded for and will tell her schools to do the same if that is what makes a team tournament eligible.  Playing a 300+ NCSOS to pad NET scores and get easy wins is what the strategy is.

Imagine this non-con home slate next year for MU (this was Oklahoma’s, but pick most any other B12 team):

Central Michigan
Miss Valley State
Texas St
UT Rio Grande
Arkansas Pine Bluff
Providence
Green Bay
Central Arkansas
Monmouth

Very Creanesque

[CountryRoads]

I realize that I may be in the minority here -- but my preference would be exactly the opposite.

I actually prefer the same as you. Just think it will go in a direction to minimize the little guys even more.

[Scoop Snoop]

I realize that I may be in the minority here -- but my preference would be exactly the opposite. I'd rather they throw the last eight (or 12, 16, etc.) at-large teams into the play-in games and let the automatic qualifiers start on Thursday with the field of 64. Let the little guys enjoy being in the "real" tournament rather than shipping them off to Dayton; make the bubble teams from the high major conferences fight it out for the right to play in the "real" tournament.

Someone on here posted that having the auto-qualifiers play that extra game was a way for the NCAA to help them get more money by having another game. Suffice it to say that I'm deeply skeptical of this explanation - history would suggest that when the NCAA claims they're looking out for the little guy...there's almost certainly something else going on. But, in the unlikely event that is true, it would be easy enough for the NCAA to increase the payment to all the conference tournament winners from one-bid leagues (or all the conference tournament winners) to account for not having them play in the first four games. The NCAA's new-found largesse for the little guys could extend beyond just two teams each year.

On this, we agree.

This is close to what I would like to see. I would also like to see a change in NET- stop rewarding beatdowns. Cap the margin of victory at a reasonable number.

[Uncle Rico]

Drop it back to 23.  Al McGuire could barely make the Sweet 16 when it was 23 and when he did, he went to the Final 4 and blew it for his players 😂

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Imagine this non-con home slate next year for MU (this was Oklahoma’s, but pick most any other B12 team):

Central Michigan
Miss Valley State
Texas St
UT Rio Grande
Arkansas Pine Bluff
Providence
Green Bay
Central Arkansas
Monmouth

Very Creanesque

We'd never play that schedule with Green Bay on it.

[Dr. Blackheart]

IMO, the most important two lines are the last two.  She's alluding to the fact that she saw what the Big 12 did and was rewarded for and will tell her schools to do the same if that is what makes a team tournament eligible.  Playing a 300+ NCSOS to pad NET scores and get easy wins is what the strategy is.

I'll also say, with even bigger mega conferences next season, there will be less room for OOC games. More so, even within conferences, this encourages more gaming presently (see English fouling at FF down big versus  Pitino throwing in the towel too early.

Btw, most analytic services not named NET capped off blow outs over cupcakes in the last few years.  See Haslam whose system is built on play by play data.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I realize that I may be in the minority here -- but my preference would be exactly the opposite. I'd rather they throw the last eight (or 12, 16, etc.) at-large teams into the play-in games and let the automatic qualifiers start on Thursday with the field of 64. Let the little guys enjoy being in the "real" tournament rather than shipping them off to Dayton; make the bubble teams from the high major conferences fight it out for the right to play in the "real" tournament.

Someone on here posted that having the auto-qualifiers play that extra game was a way for the NCAA to help them get more money by having another game. Suffice it to say that I'm deeply skeptical of this explanation - history would suggest that when the NCAA claims they're looking out for the little guy...there's almost certainly something else going on. But, in the unlikely event that is true, it would be easy enough for the NCAA to increase the payment to all the conference tournament winners from one-bid leagues (or all the conference tournament winners) to account for not having them play in the first four games. The NCAA's new-found largesse for the little guys could extend beyond just two teams each year.

On this, we agree.

I had read some time ago that small conference auto-qualifiers don't mind the play-in games because they have a national audience by themselves and a chance for more than one game. 

[StillAWarrior]

I actually prefer the same as you. Just think it will go in a direction to minimize the little guys even more.

I guess I misinterpreted your, "They change I'd make..." language to mean that was the change...you'd make.