Three ways to make the tourney even better...

[Left Seater]

1) Either dump the play-in game or expand it so there are four games instead of one. If you do keep it the format should change. Any team with an auto bid shouldn't have to play in the play in game. Instead those last few at-large bids should play in these games. Match-ups with teams that were just left out vs the last few in would be a much better draw for TV. Last night we could have had FSU vs A&M, Wiscy vs a MVC team. Teams that earned an auto bid shouldn't be playing in these games.

2) The committee should come clean and tell us what was important to them and why they selected as they did. I don't have a problem at all with teams like Air Force getting in or a few MVC teams, but the committee then can't tell me that they selected the 34 best teams for at large spots. Hey, if you want to reward teams for a good conference season and spread the bids around I am fine with that. I am also ok if you do want to take the 34 best teams. Just don't mix the two as they are now. There is no way in hell that three MVC teams are part of the best 34 and FSU and UH for example are not. Either of those teams would likely win the MVC.

3) Take the regular season conference champ and give them an auto berth too. Yes, this will reduce the number of at large bids, but if you expand as I pointed out in #1 that will help make up for it. The current system rewards play over three days at the expense of the whole season. A team can dominate their league all year, have two players go down one night to food illness, and then miss the dance. Not good.


Agree, disagree, add your own, I don't care, but I would like to see these changes.

[Cicero]

I totally agree that the two teams in the play-in game should be at large teams and not conference winners. Its like, "Congrats you're in. Well sorta."

I think there should be like 4 play in games w/ 8 bubble teams going at it. If you win your conference you should def be guaranteed a 1st Round game.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Just get rid of conference tourney winner automatic bids altogether. Like Lefty said, give the bids to the regular season conference champs. This way, you can still select the same amount of at large teams, and you don't have to worry about a 12-16 Ohio Valley Conference team getting in over an above average major conference team that truly deserves to be there.

[Cicero]

^^^

I see you working, but then why even have the Conbference Tourney then?

[MuchoBulls]

I think they should change the play in game format. A team who wins their conference tournament deserves to be in the field of 64.

Instead, they should take 2 at large/bubble teams and have them play in Dayton. The winner of that game would then be a #12 seed playing against the pre-determined strongest #5 seed. If this were to occur, then you could have had a potential Syracuse-FSU matchup. The loser of the play in game would then go to the NIT.

I do see the arguement against Conference Tournaments, but I also see the arguement for them. Syracuse would be a good example of the latter.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

^^^

I see you working, but then why even have the Conbference Tourney then?

Well, in my unreasonable, but perfect world, those would be done away with as well. They're completely meaningless games, seeing as the winner of the conference has already been determined, and they only unncessarily fatigue players, when they should be well rested come tourney time. But the schools, the NCAA and the networks won't let that happen because they're money makers for everyone, so keep em if we don't have a choice, but do away with the automatic bids.

[helmet]

I like 1 and 2, but not so sure about 3.

When I first heard of the play-in game (when was that, 99 or 2000 or so?) I figured they would make the last two at-large teams play each other. I was surprised that they took the two lowest seeds. That's a shame for the school that loses the play-in game...they don't get their shot at the big dog, even though they earned it.

I don't know how you go about making the selection process more transparent....you don't want it to turn into an automated process where (for instance) the top 34 RPI teams are automatically selected. But as long as this subjective method takes place behind closed doors, we're going to gripe about it. Maybe they make transcripts from the meeting public after the tourney or something. Or allow a couple of writers/reporters to sit in for a little bit. Al Featherston has a great piece up on the DBR today about the "corruption" on the selection committee.

As for the regular season champ getting an auto bid - meh. What better way to prove that you are deserving of a bid to the NCAA tourney than to win your own conference tourney? And no one in the ACC would say that the conference tourney is completely meaningless. It's a big deal to us, even if it's not for other conferences.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I understand the ACC conference tournament is huge. One of the toughest tickets in all of sports. It's just a shame these games got to this point to begin with. There's just no denying that the existence of these tournaments doesn't allow for the NCAAs to include the best possible 34 at larges. And that's a shame.

As far as a detailed explanation from the committee...I think it would be interesting, but not necessary. It isn't results oriented, seeing as any explanation and ensuing debate from any opposition wouldn't change any of the selections. Aside from that, the debate/controversy would be multiplied to a greater degree than it is now, and would overshadow the actual games themselves, leading up to the tourney.

[Cicero]

I understand the ACC conference tournament is huge.

You mean the Duke Invitational?

[SunCoastSooner]

I understand the ACC conference tournament is huge.

You mean the Duke Invitational?

Because basketball didn't exist before the 80s?

[Shoalzie]

I hate the play-in game. I don't want to hatchet college hoops like I want to hatch football but why not just drop the conference tournaments and just go to a field of 128 and ensure that regular season conference champs are invited to the tournament. This would essentially kill the NIT also. That idea is probably less plausible than my idea of eliminating all bowl games in college football to make way for a playoff. Honestly, what has adding one more at-large bid done for the tournament. Has this last team to get in any done anything notable? Also, the whoever loses the play-in game is out of the Big Dance and can't participate in the NIT either so they're season is done already. Just put that 65th team in the NIT and go back to the traditional 64. What are we as fans supposed to do with this play-in game? I didn't watch the one last night and the winner (Monmouth) is just being fed to the lions anyways. Either another round of the tournament of lose the play in game. Also, wouldn't it make more sense for the #1 overall seed (this year being Duke) to play the play-in winner? That whole thing never made sense to me ever since they started instituting it.

My suggestion for the conference tournaments...don't include everyone from the league. Put a limit on teams invited. I don't think the last place team deserves a chance at the Big Dance after being the worst team in the conference all season. Some teams might pull a run out of their ass...Syracuse...but they can post a brutal regular season record and steal away a tournament bid from a more deserving at-large. Plus, I still don't like seeing the regular season champ get left out in the cold because they have one off night. If anything, have the conference winner host the tournament to give them an advantage of some kind. They don't get any reward for winning the regular season and they could miss the tournament all together if they don't win their tournament.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I don't want to hatchet college hoops like I want to hatch football but why not just drop the conference tournaments and just go to a field of 128 and ensure that regular season conference champs are invited to the tournament

You can do this without having to expand the field to such a bloated number. The problem with this idea of allowing virtually every team hovering around .500 or above to play in the tourney, is that regular season play will be watered down. Part of the thrill of CB's regular season, for fans of many schools, is wondering if your team will get in or not. In that sense, it makes almost every game crucial. Unless of course you're a FSU alum that roots for Duke. You've got security there. But Michigan fans should understand what I'm talking about better than anyone. I'll bet Frisco was going through all sorts of emotions this year wondering if A&M would get in. That novelty would be all but diminished with a field of 128. Teams would be playing for seeds rather than an invite. Not cool. Not cool. I'm not saying they'd play less hard, but from a fan's standpoint, the excitement would be severely diminished. If the 65th "best" team doesn't stand a chance against a 1 seed on their best day, what makes anything think a 128 seed would be deserving?

[Cicero]

You're cold as ice.

[Shoalzie]

I don't want to hatchet college hoops like I want to hatch football but why not just drop the conference tournaments and just go to a field of 128 and ensure that regular season conference champs are invited to the tournament

You can do this without having to expand the field to such a bloated number. The problem with this idea of allowing virtually every team hovering around .500 or above to play in the tourney, is that regular season play will be watered down. Part of the thrill of CB's regular season, for fans of many schools, is wondering if your team will get in or not. In that sense, it makes almost every game crucial. Unless of course you're a FSU alum that roots for Duke. You've got security there. But Michigan fans should understand what I'm talking about better than anyone. I'll bet Frisco was going through all sorts of emotions this year wondering if A&M would get in. That novelty would be all but diminished with a field of 128. Teams would be playing for seeds rather than an invite. Not cool. Not cool. I'm not saying they'd play less hard, but from a fan's standpoint, the excitement would be severely diminished. If the 65th "best" team doesn't stand a chance against a 1 seed on their best day, what makes anything think a 128 seed would be deserving?

I understand what you're saying but why 65 teams? Why not have play-in games for all 16 seeds. Have four play-ins to face the #1 seeds and not just one...especially if you aren't give this winner to the overall #1 seed. By rule, Duke should be playing Monmouth not Villanova. If you go to 4 play-ins, then you can sneak 3 more teams in.

As for the bottom seeds in a field of 128...odds are, they'd probably still be the same teams that would be the #16 seeds in the field of 64 because the small conference are locked in every year as the #13-16 seeds regardless of what their record or resume is. At-larges are rated higher than winners of the small conferences and that would be the same story if the tournament doubled in size. If you let in Michigan, Cincinnati, Florida State, and Maryland...they'd be seeded higher than the #13s, #14s, #15s, #16s. But my whole thing is if they want put another team in the tournament...just expand the field and lose the conference tournaments and put teams in strictly on regular season success.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

It's just a timing thing. The play-in winner gets a Friday/Sunday slate of games and Duke was scheduled to play a Thursday/Saturday slate.

[King Crimson]

Eliminate CBS is my vote to make the tournament better.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I get what you're saying too, but again, expanding the field to that size will result in the better half of teams duking it out for seeding position and not invites. Teams like Cincy, Michigan, Missouri St, etc., would've been locks under your proposal, which is fine because it gets the, what would be "deserving" bubble teams in, but it waters down the regular season dramatics. Not a good compromise. No need to get so complex and to employ such a massive overhaul. Just go back to 64 teams, but have all regular season champs get an automatic bid, which is 31 teams I believe. Then pick your 33 at larges. This ensures that all conferences gets at least one team represented, it awards regular season play, and it allows more major conference bubble teams in.

[Cicero]

Eliminate CBS is my vote to make the tournament better.

Agree. Let ESPN do it.

[King Crimson]

If CBS continues to be involved with the NCAA there will a 4 point shot. 3 points for a dunk....or some shit like that.

[Shoalzie]

Eliminate CBS is my vote to make the tournament better.

They just need to get rid of Packer and Nantz. Gus Johnson is the star of the CBS coverage as far as I'm concerned and Enberg and Lundquist still bring it as well.

[SunCoastSooner]

Eliminate CBS is my vote to make the tournament better.

They just need to get rid of Packer and Nantz. Gus Johnson is the star of the CBS coverage as far as I'm concerned and Enberg and Lundquist still bring it as well.

They also need to allow markets that have more than one affiliate to show different games.

[Cicero]

Eliminate CBS is my vote to make the tournament better.

They just need to get rid of Packer and Nantz. Gus Johnson is the star of the CBS coverage as far as I'm concerned and Enberg and Lundquist still bring it as well.

Gus Johnson is good. He is like the Jackie Robinson of CBS announcing.

[King Crimson]

I like ELmore, Raftery, Johnson and others....i just hate the marketing angle of the whole thing ("March Madness!!!")....and CBS' non stop "psychology/human interest stories"/etc. i know it's replacing highly rated daytime chick garbage TV...but i don't need to see JJ Redick hitting a 3 pointer 8 million times as a highlight. i don't need to see their montage music highlight videos to "capture my interest". and a lot of dunking and highfiving videos with sappy or ass-kicking music.

throw out the balls, start the clock, let em play.

that's all i want to see. sure, it's unrealistic.....but doesn't mean i got to like seeing the same fugging commercials every 15 minutes for the next month.

[Shoalzie]

They have fluffed up the broadcasts quite a bit but the bottom line is the game is still the same great we've been watching for a long time. I thought last year's tournament was amazing and couldn't possibly be matched...watch this year come out and surpass 'em all. I have a feeling we'll see some stuff we have never seen in recent history. I'm so excited about tomorrow...the start of the best three weeks of basketball in the calendar year.

[Terry in Crapchester]

A few points on the play-in game:

1. The play-in game originated with the formation of the MWC from the WAC. That created an additional automatic bid in the tournament. Rather than reduce the number of at-large bids by one, the tournament added a play-in game.

2. Disagree with those who suggest the play-in game should be for two of the at-large teams for a few reasons. One, see point one above. The play-in game originated to get more automatic bids into the tourney, not to increase the number of at-large bids. Two, the play-in game should match up the two weakest teams in the field, which will almost always be teams with automatic bids. Three, it would be unfair to one of the #1 seeds if the play-in game were to match up two at-large teams and the winner received a 16 seed. As Mucho suggested, if you're going to have at-large teams in the play-in game, the winner needs a 12 or 13 seed.

3. I believe the play-in format will change in the near future. The reason is that I believe that in about five years or so, the Big East will split along football/non-football lines, and result in an additional automatic bid. Based on previous history, the tournament will not simply remove one at-large bid at that time. Either it will add a second play-in game, or it will remove two at-large bids and eliminate the play-in game entirely.

With respect to the proposal that each regular-season conference champion receive an automatic bid, I have mixed emotions on that point. Yes, I believe the regular season receives short shrift among the Selection Committee. But there are several problems with the proposal.

First, conference tourneys are here to stay. They're money-makers for the conferences. And if they're going to be played, the conferences will want the tournament champion to get the automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise, the conference tournaments are little more than glorified exhibition games.

The problem is that, by giving automatic bids to regular-season champs and conference tournament champs, you give very little incentive in the couference tournaments to regular-season champs in weaker conferences who have little chance of improving their seeding. What's to stop a team like Albany or Southern from mailing it in during the conference tourney under that scenario? And that takes a bid away from a more deserving team. In a worst case scenario, if that proposal were to be adopted under the current format, the NCAA Tournament could be left with as few as four at-large bids (31 conferences, assuming each conference had a different regular-season and post-season tournament champion, except for the Ivy League, which has no conference tournament).

To reconcile all of this, my suggestion would be as follows: since the NCAA now runs the NIT for all intents and purposes, abolish the post-season NIT and add 40 bids to the NCAA tourney. That would mean the same number of bids to post-season play as currently exists, minus the play-in game. Automatic bids would be awarded to each regular-season conference champion and each conference tournament champion, with the remaining bids (minimum of 43 under the current system) at-large. I realize this is unlikely to happen.

I'd also like the tournament to go to a double-elimination format. That's mainly because I'm a college hoops junkie and I don't want to see this time of the year end. I realize that'll never happen, though. :wink:

[the_ouskull]

1) Give OU a first-round bye so that I don't have to watch them lose.

2) No, 1 was all I needed.

3) Enough beer, which I'm close to have having, to where 1 isn't a bitch on my liver.

d

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

Eliminate CBS is my vote to make the tournament better.

They just need to get rid of Packer and Nantz. Gus Johnson is the star of the CBS coverage as far as I'm concerned and Enberg and Lundquist still bring it as well.

They also need to allow markets that have more than one affiliate to show different games.

Here in Phoenix, Cox cable added 3 extra channels just for the weekend at no extra charge. I was shocked that something so logical could actually happen.

[Shine]

RACK Terry's post up until the expanded tourney idea, only guy who nailed it in this thread.

I'll add two quick points.

1- Sure we all know the play-in game isn't a "real" tourney game, but the NCAA record books will say otherwise. In 20 years none of us will remember Monmouth beat Hampton in the play-in game, but the record books will show Monmouth with 1 tournament victory. That's pretty real. Not to mention it actually puts 2 schools who would otherwise simply be lambs to the slaughter a chance to play a game on national TV that is the ONLY game in town and get coverage they'd never dream of getting.

2- Can everyone please STFU about expanding the tournament, 64/5 is more than enough. In a couple years NOBODY except for fans of the last teams out will remember who got left out. Perfect example, 2003. I remember flying to Boston and meeting up with Lefty to watch IU beat Alabama and get pole-axed by Pitt. I remember seeing Syracuse in person and thinking I very well might be watching the national champions. I remember Drew Nicholas hitting a crazy buzzer beater to escape against UNC-W as defending champs. I remember the talk about ol Roy maybe leaving KU for UNC. Lots of other tidbits. You know what I don't remember and wouldn't be able to tell you for...

$1 million dollars:

WHO WERE THE LAST 3-4 TEAMS THAT DIDN'T GET IN.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

but doesn't mean i got to like seeing the same fugging commercials every 15 minutes for the next month.

I'll be writing a letter to AppleBee's and State Farm.

[helmet]

Fine. But leave Old Spice alone. I like that glistening chick.