The lack of upsets, and way to fix the tournament | Page 4 | The Boneyard

The lack of upsets, and way to fix the tournament

People just love to complain, people complained that the regular season didn't matter now it matters more now, people complained that 8 seed UNC had to play 15 seed St Peter's in the elite 8. People complained that the Cinderella was in the sweet 16.

Having extra play in teams just defeats the purpose of conference tournaments. No matter what you do the Cinderella is going to end their season in a blowout loss like it always has its just gonna be in rd 1 now.

It's a 364 team tournament on March 1st there ya go boom end of discussion. You wanna have subtle changes in the committee fine but leave the tournament alone.
 
Last edited:
The CFP had two non power 5 teams this year. That’s incorrect.
To his point though, because 2 "G5" teams made the field the format was immediately altered to guarantee the champion of the ACC, B1G, Big XII and SEC a bid. Every other format alteration that has been suggested over the past 5-6 years has taken well over a year to be implemented, if the suggested alteration was even implemented at all. But I'm pretty sure this was approved and implemented for 2026 within a month of the season ending.

It was such an obvious way of pushing the smaller conferences out of the picture as much as possible and no one (outside of fans of said conferences) even seemed to bat an eye.
 
People just love to complain, people complained that the regular season didn't matter now it matters more now, people complained that 8 seed UNC had to play 15 seed St Peter's in the elite 8. People complained that the Cinderella was in the sweet 16.

Having extra play in teams just defeats the purpose of conference tournaments. No matter what you do the Cinderella is going to end their season in a blowout loss like it always has is just gonna be in rd 1 now.

It's a 364 team tournament on March 1st there ya boom end of discussion. You wanna have subtle changes in the committee fine but leave the tournament alone.

Am I complaining the early round games into becoming blowouts? I am simply making an observation.
 
This article is posted over in the conference realignment board but it’s appropriate for this conversation.

The case is made that more than NIL or the transfer portal, conference realignment has killed Cinderella.

 
Not so sure I fully agree. Not yet anyway.

Oral Roberts (2021), Saint Peter's (2022), and Princeton (2023) are all 15-seeded teams that recently made the Sweet 16. SP made the elite 8, in fact. Robert Morris lost by just 9 last year over 2 Alabama and 5 guys from....checks notes**...Siena nearly beat 1 seeded Duke before losing by 6. And we don't need to talk about Furman, do we? 14-seed Oakland beat Kentucky in 2024, and in the same year, 13-seeded Yale beat Auburn. 5 12 seeds have won since 2024.

Most of all, we just saw the second-ever 16-seed win in 2023.

Let's see what happens in 2027, 28, and 29 before making any serious claims.
I agree with this —I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not ready to fully commit to that yet. Let’s see what happens in the next 2 to 3 years.
 
.-.
At the end of the day the best teams usually will end up in the sweet 16 anyways. It's fine the way it is.
 
Outside of the West, there is a strong chance you have 1-4 in the Sweet 16. Still lots of games to play today and I’ll be honest, I’m worried we break that trend. However, we will basically be left with teams that can schedule these games as OOC games. Lots of possible B1G/SEC match ups. Isn’t that an ESPN week thing during the season??
 
I am agreeing with the pundits who think that the era of the low major upset has come to an end. This is the second year in a row where every 1 through 4 seed won its first round game, and only two of the games were within 10 points. There is no way for these low-majors to compete with the majors for talent, or even hold onto the talent they get if they happen to get lucky on a few recruits. We are just wasting games in the first two days of the tournament with mismatches, and the casual fans are getting bored by it. The upsets were what made the tournament fun, and there may be 1 or 2 teams in the bottom 16 conferences that has even a theoretical chance of beating a college basketball team that has a $10M+ payroll. NIL and the Transfer Portal has made it really hard for these low-majors to win. They aren't winning in the regular season, and they aren't winning in the postseason.

The bottom 16 seeds this year were:

LIU, Siena, Prairie View A&M, Howard, UMBC, Lehigh, Furman, Queens, Idaho, Tennessee State, Wright State, Penn, North Dakota State, Kennesaw State, Cal Baptist, Troy

Who do you want to fight for in that group? Accounting for the current play in, that is 14 teams that are mostly guaranteed to lose their first round game in a blowout. Maybe one or two has a chance at an upset with the right matchup. Do we really need 14 games to find that 1 or 2 that may put up a fight?

My proposal: The bottom 16 conference winners should have play-in games to feed 8 teams into the 64 team field. These would be the 15 and 16 seeds in the 64 team bracket. These teams get seeded for play-in games after the low major conference tournaments, and play each other on the Saturday and Sunday before Selection Sunday and then seed the winners appropriately, most likely on the 15 and 16 lines. Only the strong survive, and maybe one of them gets lucky in the first round. Keep the money the same or even make it better for the low-majors in return for giving up the marginally better seeds. And these small schools get a showcase on those two days.

The next 6 conference champs (this year: Hawaii, Akron, Hofstra, Mcneese, Northern Iowa, High Point) would get slid down to the 13/14 line, although if one of them is better than the extra at-large, seed them appropriately. This would open 4 more slots for at-large. Assume Seton Hall, San Diego State, New Mexico, Indiana at the 13/12 lines, that have a better chance of beating a 4 or 5. I won't put up a stink if you want to keep play ins for at-large, but I am not sure what the point is. Just seed in the teams into the bracket, so SMU and NC State would just get seeded as 12's rather than playing on Tuesday and Wednesday. If you go much deeper with at-large teams, it gets really close to .500 teams getting in.

The result is a better tournament that recognizes the changes in the sport, creates more chances for upsets, expands the tournament, and actually creates more opportunities for mid-majors. This gives the A10, WCC, American and MWC a reasonable shot at getting a second or third team in the dance every year.
The tournament isn't in need of fixing.
 
I think it’s the best tournament in the world especially held annually.
Not the biggest , the World Cup is that
But the format of the World Cup with qualifiers and group play is not as exciting as one and done. However if the USMT goes to the finals ‘I might change my mind
It makes a lot of money well over a billion , when you consider its college and only encompasses the US that’s Amazing
It really is the backbone of American college sports because it pays most of the billls.
 
We had a 6,11, and 9 seed in the S16. A region of Duke/st John’s and MichSt/UConn yet you dopes will still find stuff to complain abo
 
.-.
I am agreeing with the pundits who think that the era of the low major upset has come to an end. This is the second year in a row where every 1 through 4 seed won its first round game, and only two of the games were within 10 points. There is no way for these low-majors to compete with the majors for talent, or even hold onto the talent they get if they happen to get lucky on a few recruits. We are just wasting games in the first two days of the tournament with mismatches, and the casual fans are getting bored by it. The upsets were what made the tournament fun, and there may be 1 or 2 teams in the bottom 16 conferences that has even a theoretical chance of beating a college basketball team that has a $10M+ payroll. NIL and the Transfer Portal has made it really hard for these low-majors to win. They aren't winning in the regular season, and they aren't winning in the postseason.

The bottom 16 seeds this year were:

LIU, Siena, Prairie View A&M, Howard, UMBC, Lehigh, Furman, Queens, Idaho, Tennessee State, Wright State, Penn, North Dakota State, Kennesaw State, Cal Baptist, Troy

Who do you want to fight for in that group? Accounting for the current play in, that is 14 teams that are mostly guaranteed to lose their first round game in a blowout. Maybe one or two has a chance at an upset with the right matchup. Do we really need 14 games to find that 1 or 2 that may put up a fight?

My proposal: The bottom 16 conference winners should have play-in games to feed 8 teams into the 64 team field. These would be the 15 and 16 seeds in the 64 team bracket. These teams get seeded for play-in games after the low major conference tournaments, and play each other on the Saturday and Sunday before Selection Sunday and then seed the winners appropriately, most likely on the 15 and 16 lines. Only the strong survive, and maybe one of them gets lucky in the first round. Keep the money the same or even make it better for the low-majors in return for giving up the marginally better seeds. And these small schools get a showcase on those two days.

The next 6 conference champs (this year: Hawaii, Akron, Hofstra, Mcneese, Northern Iowa, High Point) would get slid down to the 13/14 line, although if one of them is better than the extra at-large, seed them appropriately. This would open 4 more slots for at-large. Assume Seton Hall, San Diego State, New Mexico, Indiana at the 13/12 lines, that have a better chance of beating a 4 or 5. I won't put up a stink if you want to keep play ins for at-large, but I am not sure what the point is. Just seed in the teams into the bracket, so SMU and NC State would just get seeded as 12's rather than playing on Tuesday and Wednesday. If you go much deeper with at-large teams, it gets really close to .500 teams getting in.

The result is a better tournament that recognizes the changes in the sport, creates more chances for upsets, expands the tournament, and actually creates more opportunities for mid-majors. This gives the A10, WCC, American and MWC a reasonable shot at getting a second or third team in the dance every year.
The issue here is that I don't think the NCAA views this as a problem, nor do I, nor do a lot of people. Give me a couple upsets round 1 and maybe 1 in round 2 and that's all I need. This tournament outcome so far is perfect. Duke, St Johns, MSU and UCONN is much more intriguing and higher level of basketball than TCU St Johns MSU UCF right? So what's the problem.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,842
Messages
4,542,102
Members
10,421
Latest member
Huskyball22


Top Bottom