Drew
Its a post, about nothing!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 7,940
- Reaction Score
- 28,695
It's time again to think about expanding the NCAA tournament field
In college basketball's offseason, I think about what the selection committee got wrong, about what I got wrong and about my annual misevaluation of Syracuse.
But I think mostly about the NCAA tournament selection and seeding process. Is it the best that it can be? Are we using the right data? Is it fair and open and inclusive?
Something is wrong when Illinois State can go 17-1 in a top-10 league and still, from recent selection committee experience, know that its NCAA chances aren't good. Or that Monmouth can beat UCLA, Notre Dame, USC and Georgetown but miss the NCAA tournament because of a few bad bounces in a conference tournament.
It's a simple reality: Good teams from major conferences have margin for error; good teams from mid-major conferences do not. Modest expansion can correct this.
Instead of the current combination of First Four participants, let's investigate using the opening round for a floating number of regular-season champions who are not otherwise selected. If a variable number doesn't work for TV (and it probably wouldn't), determine a fixed number of said wild-card selections based on predetermined criteria that also adds needed value to the regular season.
For argument's sake, let's say we expanded the field by four to 72 teams. The additional wild cards -- last season's could have been regular-season winners Illinois State, UT Arlington, Monmouth and Belmont -- would play the last four at-large selections in what would be true "Bracket Buster" contests, typically matching power conference schools against smaller conference schools in compelling fashion. Winners become the four No. 12 seeds in the main bracket.
On the automatic qualifier side, we need to make the current one-bid league participants less isolated. Instead of four teams playing for two spots, make it eight for four. This would lead to a true tournament atmosphere at dual sites -- say, Dayton and someplace Midwest or West -- and give twice the number of non-major champions the thrill of advancing. Winners move on as the four No. 16 seeds, respectively.
So I say "yes" to expansion, but not for its own sake or to save a few coaching jobs. Let's be judicious and achieve a greater good. All we need is one more site and a second network.
In college basketball's offseason, I think about what the selection committee got wrong, about what I got wrong and about my annual misevaluation of Syracuse.
But I think mostly about the NCAA tournament selection and seeding process. Is it the best that it can be? Are we using the right data? Is it fair and open and inclusive?
Something is wrong when Illinois State can go 17-1 in a top-10 league and still, from recent selection committee experience, know that its NCAA chances aren't good. Or that Monmouth can beat UCLA, Notre Dame, USC and Georgetown but miss the NCAA tournament because of a few bad bounces in a conference tournament.
It's a simple reality: Good teams from major conferences have margin for error; good teams from mid-major conferences do not. Modest expansion can correct this.
Instead of the current combination of First Four participants, let's investigate using the opening round for a floating number of regular-season champions who are not otherwise selected. If a variable number doesn't work for TV (and it probably wouldn't), determine a fixed number of said wild-card selections based on predetermined criteria that also adds needed value to the regular season.
For argument's sake, let's say we expanded the field by four to 72 teams. The additional wild cards -- last season's could have been regular-season winners Illinois State, UT Arlington, Monmouth and Belmont -- would play the last four at-large selections in what would be true "Bracket Buster" contests, typically matching power conference schools against smaller conference schools in compelling fashion. Winners become the four No. 12 seeds in the main bracket.
On the automatic qualifier side, we need to make the current one-bid league participants less isolated. Instead of four teams playing for two spots, make it eight for four. This would lead to a true tournament atmosphere at dual sites -- say, Dayton and someplace Midwest or West -- and give twice the number of non-major champions the thrill of advancing. Winners move on as the four No. 16 seeds, respectively.
So I say "yes" to expansion, but not for its own sake or to save a few coaching jobs. Let's be judicious and achieve a greater good. All we need is one more site and a second network.
