Tournament Expanding to 76 Teams

[Badgerhater]

"Peer competitiveness" should never be a factor in these discussions.

Why?

Beat the teams you play.

[The Sultan]

Why?

Beat the teams you play.

Because beating the teams you play, without any indication of the quality of those teams, makes no sense to me. Teams should not be punished for being in stronger conferences. Nor should teams benefit from being in weaker ones.

You end up judging teams on different standards, which has never really been done when it comes to selecting at-large teams.

[Badgerhater]

Because beating the teams you play, without any indication of the quality of those teams, makes no sense to me. Teams should not be punished for being in stronger conferences. Nor should teams benefit from being in weaker ones.

You end up judging teams on different standards, which has never really been done when it comes to selecting at-large teams.

The power conference teams get the benefits/money/exposure of being in a stronger conference and lots of opportunities to beat really good teams, which they didn't.

[The Sultan]

The power conference teams get the benefits/money/exposure of being in a stronger conference and lots of opportunities to beat really good teams, which they didn't.

But they've always had that. Nothing has changed from that perspective.

The current environment certainly amplifies those differences, but power conference teams have always had a resource advantage.

[wadesworld]

The power conference teams get the benefits/money/exposure of being in a stronger conference and lots of opportunities to beat really good teams, which they didn't.

Except that sometimes these teams did beat really good teams.  Last year you would've left out Arkansas, who went 8-10 in the SEC.  They had 7 Q1 wins and 0 Q3/4 losses.  They had a net of 35 and NET SOS of 23.  They had 5 Q1A wins.

Meanwhile you'd be good with UNC making the NCAA Tournament despite having a Q1 record of 1-13 and having a Q3 loss because they were 13-7 in a different, much weaker conference.

It makes no sense at all.

[Uncle Rico]

Except that sometimes these teams did beat really good teams.  Last year you would've left out Arkansas, who went 8-10 in the SEC.  They had 7 Q1 wins and 0 Q3/4 losses.  They had a net of 35 and NET SOS of 23.  They had 5 Q1A wins.

Meanwhile you'd be good with UNC making the NCAA Tournament despite having a Q1 record of 1-13 and having a Q3 loss because they were 13-7 in a different, much weaker conference.

It makes no sense at all.

Leave 'em out and feed the staff to the wolves.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is why they should be lowering the number of division 1 schools, not increasing the size of tournaments.

This, it's getting time to do an FBS FCS style split for D1 Basketball.

I don't disagree....though I would be nervous about where exactly that split would occur.

Maybe the high majors are playing 5D chess right now. Expand the tournament, make everyone hate it, announce that they are kicking out the bottom 16 conferences, and bring back a 64 bid tournament to the cheers of all. You would lose 12 bids....but convert 16 autobids to at large bids, netting an additional 4 spots for high major teams.

[Uncle Rico]

I don't disagree....though I would be nervous about where exactly that split would occur.

Maybe the high majors are playing 5D chess right now. Expand the tournament, make everyone hate it, announce that they are kicking out the bottom 16 conferences, and bring back a 64 bid tournament to the cheers of all. You would lose 12 bids....but convert 16 autobids to at large bids, netting an additional 4 spots for high major teams.

The SEC and Big 18 won't stop until all their teams are eligible for the tournament.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The SEC and Big 18 won't stop until all their teams are eligible for the tournament.

One of my bigger "fears" is that at some point the B1G, SEC, and B12 cannibalize the top of the ACC and BEast, get to a combined 64 teams, set up a new league, and declare that everyone in their league qualifies for March Madness and the regular season is just for seeding.

I sincerely doubt it will happen, but it would suck. Unless of course we're included in which case I welcome our new P3 overlords!

[Hards Alumni]

Fair, but I was thinking of the teams from what Bill Walton once called "Truckstop conferences" that fill up the 68 team limit by simply winning their conference championships, leaving no room for better teams from the P5.

Interesting that both Bill and his beloved Pac12 are dead.  I guess the Pac12 is still technically alive, but it is going to be populated by schools that Bill once referred to derisively.

[Scoop Snoop]

Interesting that both Bill and his beloved Pac12 are dead.  I guess the Pac12 is still technically alive, but it is going to be populated by schools that Bill once referred to derisively.

Yeah, his "the Conference of Champions" chant for the Pac 12 got old really quick. When he stuck with talking about bball, he was interesting, but some of his wacky side stories were entertaining. I remember during covid Bilas and another announcer were stationed way up in the stands in one arena and Bilas said "we're higher than Bill Walton ever was".

I never thought I would see the day that the Pac 12 would be gobbled up and hope that I never see the Big East meet the same fate.

[MU82]

Pac-12 = Truckstop conference

[Uncle Rico]

One of my bigger "fears" is that at some point the B1G, SEC, and B12 cannibalize the top of the ACC and BEast, get to a combined 64 teams, set up a new league, and declare that everyone in their league qualifies for March Madness and the regular season is just for seeding.

I sincerely doubt it will happen, but it would suck. Unless of course we're included in which case I welcome our new P3 overlords!

The ultimate goal is to squeeze the small conferences out.  The Big 18, SEC and to a lesser extent the Big XIIIIII and ACC don't want the other kids in their sandbox.  It kills the Big 18 and SEC to have to share dollars the tournament makes them with the smaller leagues.  It kills them. 

[Badgerhater]

Except that sometimes these teams did beat really good teams.  Last year you would've left out Arkansas, who went 8-10 in the SEC.  They had 7 Q1 wins and 0 Q3/4 losses.  They had a net of 35 and NET SOS of 23.  They had 5 Q1A wins.

Meanwhile you'd be good with UNC making the NCAA Tournament despite having a Q1 record of 1-13 and having a Q3 loss because they were 13-7 in a different, much weaker conference.

It makes no sense at all.

Don't be in a 16-team conference with 10 teams better than you.

Expanded tournament fields feed the mega conferences.  At the very least beat half of your schedule in one.

[Badgerhater]

The ultimate goal is to squeeze the small conferences out.  The Big 18, SEC and to a lesser extent the Big XIIIIII and ACC don't want the other kids in their sandbox.  It kills the Big 18 and SEC to have to share dollars the tournament makes them with the smaller leagues.  It kills them. 

Exactly, they will get tons of bids without putting sub .500 teams in the tournament.

[The Sultan]

Don't be in a 16-team conference with 10 teams better than you.

Expanded tournament fields feed the mega conferences.  At the very least beat half of your schedule in one.

Again that's just punishing teams for being in a good conference. No thanks.

[Badgerhater]

Pac-12 = Truckstop conference

Go big with that and get Buc-ees as the corporate sponsor.

[MU82]

Don't be in a 16-team conference with 10 teams better than you.

Expanded tournament fields feed the mega conferences.  At the very least beat half of your schedule in one.

Even if folks here agreed with you, making a .500+ conference record a condition of receiving an NCAAT bid is never ever ever gonna happen.

You might as well propose that only teams with 4.0 cumulative GPAs be allowed in the NCAAT. That's equally likely to happen.

[Badgerhater]

Even if folks here agreed with you, making a .500+ conference record a condition of receiving an NCAAT bid is never ever ever gonna happen.

You might as well propose that only teams with 4.0 cumulative GPAs be allowed in the NCAAT. That's equally likely to happen.

I did say in my original post that my rule was arbitrary.

College football has a general guide (violated from time to time) of .500 or better for a bowl game.

It adds a basic eye-test standard of performance in face of over-reliance of metrics.  Metrics are boring and tedious.

And it was a topic where the board wasn't trashing on an individual.

[brewcity77]

The biggest problem is that when the P4 say they aren't getting enough money from the NCAA Tournament, they're right.

In 2015, the NCAA & NBA TV revenue was about equal, and had been since the early 1970s. Emmert negotiated an 8-year status quo contrast that didn't meaningfully increase the value of NCAA units. But while the NCAA value remained flat, the NBA nearly tripled their contract value in 2016.

Over the years, as streaming came to dominate and moments no longer captured the cultural zeitgeist like The Sopranos fading to black, the Red Wedding, and Breaking Bad's Ozymandias had just a few years before, Live sports remained the one spectator event that would still bring mass audiences for appointment television. So what did the NCAA do? Voluntarily extend their 2016-2024 contract another 8 years to 2032 while the NBA doubled revenue again.

No one is getting fair market value for NCAA performance. Not the high majors, not the low majors, not admitting stuck in between. And the NCAA still has to fund the bulk of their non-revenue sports using NCAAT dollars.

This is why the breakaway tournament is a real threat. The P4 could negotiate a deal worth 3-5 times as much as the current NCAA deal in their sleep but instead of having to share it with low majors & non-revenue sports, could pocket the vast majority themselves. Probably do so while following the NCAA women's model of having protected seeds host, allowing them to further protect revenues by putting ticket sales in their own pockets.

Expansion is the only hope of keeping the P4 around long enough to negotiate a new deal that hopefully increases the NCAAT contract value by 5-10 times in 2032.

I truly don't think fans and media recognize how existential the need for expansion and added revenue paths are.

[Jay Bee]

I did say in my original post that my rule was arbitrary.

College football has a general guide (violated from time to time) of .500 or better for a bowl game.

It adds a basic eye-test standard of performance in face of over-reliance of metrics.  Metrics are boring and tedious.

And it was a topic where the board wasn't trashing on an individual.

You're overstating the football rules. A path for sub .500 teams is clear in the rules and happens all the time, not 'violated time to time').

Moreover, it looks at a BIZARRE metric -- APR to select teams from the ranks of the losers.

[Uncle Rico]

The biggest problem is that when the P4 say they aren't getting enough money from the NCAA Tournament, they're right.

In 2015, the NCAA & NBA TV revenue was about equal, and had been since the early 1970s. Emmert negotiated an 8-year status quo contrast that didn't meaningfully increase the value of NCAA units. But while the NCAA value remained flat, the NBA nearly tripled their contract value in 2016.

Over the years, as streaming came to dominate and moments no longer captured the cultural zeitgeist like The Sopranos fading to black, the Red Wedding, and Breaking Bad's Ozymandias had just a few years before, Live sports remained the one spectator event that would still bring mass audiences for appointment television. So what did the NCAA do? Voluntarily extend their 2016-2024 contract another 8 years to 2032 while the NBA doubled revenue again.

No one is getting fair market value for NCAA performance. Not the high majors, not the low majors, not admitting stuck in between. And the NCAA still has to fund the bulk of their non-revenue sports using NCAAT dollars.

This is why the breakaway tournament is a real threat. The P4 could negotiate a deal worth 3-5 times as much as the current NCAA deal in their sleep but instead of having to share it with low majors & non-revenue sports, could pocket the vast majority themselves. Probably do so while following the NCAA women's model of having protected seeds host, allowing them to further protect revenues by putting ticket sales in their own pockets.

Expansion is the only hope of keeping the P4 around long enough to negotiate a new deal that hopefully increases the NCAAT contract value by 5-10 times in 2032.

I truly don't think fans and media recognize how existential the need for expansion and added revenue paths are.

Brother, that ship has sailed

[Badgerhater]

You're overstating the football rules. A path for sub .500 teams is clear in the rules and happens all the time, not 'violated time to time').

Moreover, it looks at a BIZARRE metric -- APR to select teams from the ranks of the losers.

And the football bowl landscape is just vibrant and enriched by that rule.

Brew's post is very interesting and I did not know that side of the story.

The So-called Opening Round should be called the Children's Bracket — just like the kid's table at grandma's house at Thanksgiving.  The 7-13 P4 conferences record teams should play there and kept away from the adults.  They are like that middle cousin who can sit at the adult table if an older cousin doesn't show up, otherwise they are hanging with cousin Timmy eating mashed potatoes like Ralphie in the Christmas Story.

[jfp61]

Broke "nonprofit" scummy organization

[The Sultan]

Broke "nonprofit" scummy organization

Who are its members?