Ross Dellenger: NCAA presented with two plans to expand NCAA tournament by 4 or 8 teams | The Boneyard

Ross Dellenger: NCAA presented with two plans to expand NCAA tournament by 4 or 8 teams

shizzle787

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
12,919
Reaction Score
22,714
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-ncaa-pr...28269.html

My prediction: 76 teams. 64-team bracket remains intact. First dozen includes six matchups between conference champs and six matchups between at-large teams. My bet for a second host city is Salt Lake City. Games played both days at both sites. Three time frames: 3:19, 6:49, 9:19. Each time frame has two matchups: one auto vs auto, one at-large vs at-large.
 
Even if the tourney expands by 4, I'm not sure it'll take care of the P4 conferences the way they'd like.

If there was an expansion this year, likely the four teams added are St John's, Wake, Indiana St. and either Pitt or Cincy. If we take that to eight teams, then it's something like Pitt/Cincy, Oklahoma, Utah and Ohio St.

In the case both the 4 and 8 team expansions, it's really pretty clear from using KP and NET that there are really only 8 teams vying for those play-in spots. And really, the only toss up is whether it's Pitt or Cincy making the cut for a 4 team expansion. Both clearly make the 8 team expansions.

It seems to me that the P4s wouldn't seriously consider the 4 team option. Too often there's a non-power conference that should get more than one bid but didn't, as was the case with the MVC this year. And there's as much crowding in the middle of the BE and MW on a year basis where either/both are likely to take a spot in a four team expansion.

So I think it's an 8 team expansion or bust.

That said, does Yormark really think any of the teams mentioned above are "the best teams" compared to who's already in the field?
 
The more play-in games you add, the more you dilute the tourney's most sacred ingredient: the bracket.

Sure in theory you'll eventually end up with 64 teams anyway, but to your average fan Selection Sunday is the equivalent of Christmas morning here. That is the climax, the fountain from which all rivers flow, etc. Right now you're OK because you're really only talking about four at-large teams playing their way in. Double or triple that, and it greatly increases the likelihood that people have to wait to make their picks, which greatly increases the likelihood that they forget or develop apathy for it. Us Americans don't do portion control well - this would be like ripping off two strands of steak and expecting your dog to leave the second one until Wednesday night. That dog wants all of that steak right now. It wants to eat that steak faster than its brain can process it's full.

Our brains naturally go straight from the match-ups to the possibilities. The more uncertainty you toss in front of those initial match-ups, the faster your appetite will wane. "That looks like a delicious 7-10 match-up, but what if I get another unexpected topping of Virginia?" is not something you want people asking on the greatest night of the year.
 
storrsroars said:
Even if the tourney expands by 4, I'm not sure it'll take care of the P4 conferences the way they'd like.

If there was an expansion this year, likely the four teams added are St John's, Wake, Indiana St. and either Pitt or Cincy. If we take that to eight teams, then it's something like Pitt/Cincy, Oklahoma, Utah and Ohio St.

In the case both the 4 and 8 team expansions, it's really pretty clear from using KP and NET that there are really only 8 teams vying for those play-in spots. And really, the only toss up is whether it's Pitt or Cincy making the cut for a 4 team expansion. Both clearly make the 8 team expansions.

It seems to me that the P4s wouldn't seriously consider the 4 team option. Too often there's a non-power conference that should get more than one bid but didn't, as was the case with the MVC this year. And there's as much crowding in the middle of the BE and MW on a year basis where either/both are likely to take a spot in a four team expansion.

So I think it's an 8 team expansion or bust.

That said, does Yormark really think any of the teams mentioned above are "the best teams" compared to who's already in the field?
Expand ...
How about Seton Hall?
 
.-.
CTFAN4LIFE said:
How about Seton Hall?
Expand ...
Just using metrics w/o regard to competition, there's very clear delineation between the #8 (OSU) and #9 (VaTech). Hall is right behind VaTech using my methodology.
 
champs99and04 said:
The more play-in games you add, the more you dilute the tourney's most sacred ingredient: the bracket.

Sure in theory you'll eventually end up with 64 teams anyway, but to your average fan Selection Sunday is the equivalent of Christmas morning here. That is the climax, the fountain from which all rivers flow, etc. Right now you're OK because you're really only talking about four at-large teams playing their way in. Double or triple that, and it greatly increases the likelihood that people have to wait to make their picks, which greatly increases the likelihood that they forget or develop apathy for it. Us Americans don't do portion control well - this would be like ripping off two strands of steak and expecting your dog to leave the second one until Wednesday night. That dog wants all of that steak right now. It wants to eat that steak faster than its brain can process it's full.

Our brains naturally go straight from the match-ups to the possibilities. The more uncertainty you toss in front of those initial match-ups, the faster your appetite will wane. "That looks like a delicious 7-10 match-up, but what if I get another unexpected topping of Virginia?" is not something you want people asking on the greatest night of the year.
Expand ...
While I agree with your fantastic poetry in regards to the bracket, the best way to try to preserve that feeling while still expanding the tournament is have enough distance between the play-in games and the 64-team bracket to make the big reveal still feel big.

I like Fran's idea:

 
As someone who is not a fan of the play-in round, just stay at 64 and have fewer not more at-large bids, I hate this idea. To me it just rewards mediocrity. Of course so does the current system. But, if there is going to be expansion just bite the bullet and 96 or even 128 and add a full round. If you go to 96, I would make the lowest at large teams play in the elimination round, but they’ll never do that. But at least with 16 games it is a true first round.
 
CTFAN4LIFE said:
How about Seton Hall?
Expand ...
Another mediocre team that didn’t deserve a bid and didn’t get one. Much like the Johnnies. BTW they deserved it more than St Johns. Just didn’t have as media savvy coach.
 
storrsroars said:
If there was an expansion this year, likely the four teams added are St John's, Wake, Indiana St. and either Pitt or Cincy. If we take that to eight teams, then it's something like Pitt/Cincy, Oklahoma, Utah and Ohio St.
Expand ...
Seton Hall, theoretically, but I'm not entirely sure the end results wouldn't be to add more undeserving P4 teams.
 
freescooter said:
Another mediocre team that didn’t deserve a bid and didn’t get one. Much like the Johnnies. BTW they deserved it more than St Johns. Just didn’t have as media savvy coach.
Expand ...
Disagree about Seton Hall. They managed to beat us, decisively, and ended up running the table and winning the NIT. They deserved an NCAA bid.
 
.-.
Stinger92860 said:
F it, just let everyone in, even random teams of college kids.
Expand ...
That might not be too far from wrong. Invite all D1 teams. Instead of seeding 1st few rounds are by a blind draw. Once you get to a reasonable number seed them.
 
freescooter said:
That might not be too far from wrong. Invite all D1 teams. Instead of seeding 1st few rounds are by a blind draw. Once you get to a reasonable number seed them.
Expand ...
Maybe the conferences could have their own tournaments, and the winners of those make the tournament, plus some additional good teams. Then it would be like every team in the country was in it.
 
.-.
I think expanding the first four to a first 8 is fine, it's already being used as a way to screen mediocre P5 at larges, (see Virginia). If it guarantees the P2 won't take their ball and make their own tournament, then I'm all for it.
 
I wish it went back to 64 like most of you but the P4 want more spots and they will get them. Like in real life, I blame both the rich and the poor for this problem. The P4 are consolidating which makes it harder for the likes of the MW, AAC, and WCC to get teams in. Division 2 schools have been flooding in over the last 40 years necessitating more auto bids.

I would be okay with a setup where it goes back to 64 teams but only the top 24-ranked conference champs get in. 40 at-large selections satisfy the P4, and the teams that are mooching at the bottom have to actually work for it.
 
Disgusting. Now you know the NCAA is in with the SEC & B1G. This will only make the big football boys happy as they want more of their bottom feeding teams to quality so their conferences can get more units when the payouts are sent.

No need to expand. There was no need to have the play in games either.

We knew this was coming and if they expand now, you can be certain that it will be expanded again to 90 plus teams.

The next change to the tournament structure will be the tiering of credits and units.

This sucks.
 
this is stupid, NCAA is trying to get every last dollar before this tournament becomes the NIT
 
.-.
shizzle787 said:
I wish it went back to 64 like most of you but the P4 want more spots and they will get them. Like in real life, I blame both the rich and the poor for this problem. The P4 are consolidating which makes it harder for the likes of the MW, AAC, and WCC to get teams in. Division 2 schools have been flooding in over the last 40 years necessitating more auto bids.

I would be okay with a setup where it goes back to 64 teams but only the top 24-ranked conference champs get in. 40 at-large selections satisfy the P4, and the teams that are mooching at the bottom have to actually work for it.
Expand ...
I have a slightly different view. I like having all league champs getting in. They earned it by winning. I want fewer mediocre majors. There is no world where a team that finishes under .500 in its league belongs in the NCAA tournament never mind under .500 on its season. And there is no way a team that finished in the bottom half of its league belongs there either. They had 2 chances to qualify. Win in the regular season or win the conference tourney. If they failed in both, go home and figure out how to get better for next season. Don’t penalize winners to reward mediocrity.
 
shizzle787 said:
I would be okay with a setup where it goes back to 64 teams but only the top 24-ranked conference champs get in. 40 at-large selections satisfy the P4, and the teams that are mooching at the bottom have to actually work for it.
Expand ...
So you'd eliminate UMBC and UVA never loses an all-time upset?

All 32 AQs get in, preferably to the main 64. All the at-larges had their shot and didn't win their leagues. Let the most mediocre of them fight it out in the play-ins.
 
storrsroars said:
So you'd eliminate UMBC and UVA never loses an all-time upset?

All 32 AQs get in, preferably to the main 64. All the at-larges had their shot and didn't win their leagues. Let the most mediocre of them fight it out in the play-ins.
Expand ...
UVA would have a played a better AQ as a 16 seed. Still might have lost.
 
Feels like we are a few years away from the B1G and SEC seeking a guarantee that any school in their leagues that finish .500 or better in conference play gets an auto bid.

I’m actually surprised they haven’t already tried to do that.
 
I would personally like no expansion and to do away with the committee altogether. Just take like the 3 most respected metrics (kenpom, etc), aggregate the data to come up with a 1-64 superlist. For every team that wins an autobid who are not on the list, just drop off the lowest team on the list. No crying about getting snubbed, no leaving it up to subjective committee members who go completely against their own ranking system that they created.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,640
Messages
4,587,328
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom