Why conference realignment might force the NCAA Tournament to expand to survive (The Athletic)

[huskymedic]

More posturing…



Behind the back <<

-> Multiple sources who have worked with or served on the NCAA Tournament selection committee agree that a small compromise in expanding the field — somewhere north of the current 68, but ideally less than 96 teams — could serve as the ideal best olive branch to prevent the real threat to the whole operation: namely that the football-playing schools opt out of the tourney altogether, and form their own.

Since conference realignment began, folks have feared a fracture between the football-playing power schools and everyone else. That led, initially, to a decent dose of football autonomy/forgiveness from the NCAA 10 years ago, and even more independence this year, with the restructuring of the NCAA governance model allowing sport-specific silos. But the threat never really went away, and as the football Power 5 shrinks to the Power 4, and the expense of doing college athletic business continues to rise via name, image and likeness, it feels even more real now than a decade ago. “It’s definitely TBD right now, I’d say,’’ says a former NCAA Tournament selection committee member, who was granted anonymity in exchange for candor. “I don’t think it’s imperative, but it’s also not off the table.” <-

 

[auror]

Why does expanding help? It just dilutes the shares that the P4 already get unless you're restructuring the media deal. I'm not aware of a pro-rata clause. They'd get more teams in, but there's no guarantee the ratio of P4 teams would increase, so the total amount of $ going to P4 wouldn't necessarily increase.

 

[uconnfan68]

Just about 68 P4 member teams... coincidence?

 

[alphasigko]

What is wrong with the math in this sentence:

"... arguing that for sports sponsored by at least 200 schools, at least 25 percent of the teams ought to have access to the championship. In other words, grow the 68-team NCAA Tournament bracket."?

Is not 68 > (greater than) 50? Yep! So, what is the problem?

What am I missing?

 

[87Xfer]

What is wrong with the math in this sentence:

"... arguing that for sports sponsored by at least 200 schools, at least 25 percent of the teams ought to have access to the championship. In other words, grow the 68-team NCAA Tournament bracket."?

Is not 68 > (greater than) 50? Yep! So, what is the problem?

What am I missing?

Didn't read the article, but based on what you've quoted, the "at least 200" is just the metric used to identify when the 25% rule applies. So for D-1 BB, with 351 programs, you're looking at ~88 that would "have access" to the championship.

 

[alphasigko]

Didn't read the article, but based on what you've quoted, the "at least 200" is just the metric used to identify when the 25% rule applies. So for D-1 BB, with 351 programs, you're looking at ~88 that would "have access" to the championship.

Thx! There you go... That is what I missed...

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Awful. Every single sport has sold it soul for additional post season tv slots at the expense of the game.

 

[UConnJim]

The problem with expanding the tournament is that the current, say 45 to 68 seeds will come seeds in the 70s to 90. Then, instead of a 4 game play in, we get a play in from the lower part of the bracket.

 

[Tenspro2002]

What is wrong with the math in this sentence:

"... arguing that for sports sponsored by at least 200 schools, at least 25 percent of the teams ought to have access to the championship. In other words, grow the 68-team NCAA Tournament bracket."?

Is not 68 > (greater than) 50? Yep! So, what is the problem?

What am I missing?

Basketball is sponsored by ~360 schools. 360 > 200.

Ergo, basketball should have >25% of its 360 schools in the postseason.

Ergo, the NCAA Tournament should have >90 teams.

Edit: that said, I think expansion would go to 80, with play-in games among the bottom 16 conference champs and the bottom 16 at-larges to get to the usual 64-team 1st round.

 

[alphasigko]

Basketball is sponsored by ~360 schools. 360 > 200.

Ergo, basketball should have >25% of its 360 schools in the postseason.

Ergo, the NCAA Tournament should have >90 teams.

Edit: that said, I think expansion would go to 80, with play-in games among the bottom 16 conference champs and the bottom 16 at-larges to get to the usual 64-team 1st round.

Yikes! IMO that would suck big time!

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Basketball is sponsored by ~360 schools. 360 > 200.

Ergo, basketball should have >25% of its 360 schools in the postseason.

Ergo, the NCAA Tournament should have >90 teams.

Edit: that said, I think expansion would go to 80, with play-in games among the bottom 16 conference champs and the bottom 16 at-larges to get to the usual 64-team 1st round.

I'm not sure if you're explaining the logic or advocating for it, but to me it's kind of nonsense as if the 100 or so teams that have transitioned to D1 hoop should be weighted equally (as far as determining a % that make the tournament) than the schools that were in previously.

I mean it's as a simple as saying NJIT isn't the same as Duke and can't be counted that way in the proposed logic.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Why does expanding help? It just dilutes the shares that the P4 already get unless you're restructuring the media deal. I'm not aware of a pro-rata clause. They'd get more teams in, but there's no guarantee the ratio of P4 teams would increase, so the total amount of $ going to P4 wouldn't necessarily increase.

Because most of the at large bids are P4 (and Big East) teams. Right now, the small conferences get auto-bids and rarely send anybody else. Some might get two teams, very rarely three. So most of those additional tournament credits will go to the P4.

 

[auror]

Because most of the at large bids are P4 (and Big East) teams. Right now, the small conferences get auto-bids and rarely send anybody else. Some might get two teams, very rarely three. So most of those additional tournament credits will go to the P4.

The math of % of at-large bids changes as you get to the double digit seeds, which is where the expansion will slot in. The committee tends not to reward teams with losing conference records (with rare exceptions), so by the conferences expanding in size, they're also burdening more of the at-large caliber teams with losing records (and worse strength of record metrics due to the losses). Meanwhile the mids have had some of their best swiped, so the remaining ones get to beat up on everybody else.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I'm not sure if you're explaining the logic or advocating for it, but to me it's kind of nonsense as if the 100 or so teams that have transitioned to D1 hoop should be weighted equally (as far as determining a % that make the tournament) than the schools that were in previously.

I mean it's as a simple as saying NJIT isn't the same as Duke and can't be counted that way in the proposed logic.

I am explaining the math.

The poster I quoted said 68 > 50 (25% of 200) so we're good.

I corrected him by pointing out that the criteria is not 25% of 200, but 25% of however many teams there are, as long as that number is >200.

I don't think expansion is needed or even wanted, but I think it's likely that it happens, not straight to 96, but probably 72, 80, something like that.

 

[aburks41]

The ONLY way I would be okay with this is if they just expanded the play-in round. Leave the actual tournament at 64 teams. If they want to increase the field, make 8 spots available as play-in seeds, and then have 32 teams compete for those 8 spots.

You'd probably have to pool the teams in a way that you don't have a power conference team ending up in the 16 seed though.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The math of % of at-large bids changes as you get to the double digit seeds, which is where the expansion will slot in. The committee tends not to reward teams with losing conference records (with rare exceptions), so by the conferences expanding in size, they're also burdening more of the at-large caliber teams with losing records (and worse strength of record metrics due to the losses). Meanwhile the mids have had some of their best swiped, so the remaining ones get to beat up on everybody else.

LOL if you think that's going to happen. The pressure for expansion is because the P4/5 schools are the last 4 out and they want more of the pie. They'll get it. Sure, a 27 win team that gets upset in the conference tournament may also get in, and should. But mostly it will go to the big schools.

 

[visitingcock]

And the NIT would then become absolutely meaningless.

Cut the NCAA back to 32 conference champs (or conference tournament champ as each conference may choose) and let the NIT have 96 participants. (Actually, I think the number of conferences may reduce to 31 if the PAC actually disappears)

 

[Tyler2Rings]

The ONLY way I would be okay with this is if they just expanded the play-in round. Leave the actual tournament at 64 teams. If they want to increase the field, make 8 spots available as play-in seeds, and then have 32 teams compete for those 8 spots.

You'd probably have to pool the teams in a way that you don't have a power conference team ending up in the 16 seed though.

This is where I'm at. Not quite "okay" with it but I hope when this happens (I'm resigned to the fact that it will), it is at large play ins for the 8-11 seeds. That is 16 additional games, they can be played Tues/Weds and get similar viewership as the First Four.

But the tournament would basically be unchanged from the first weekend on

 

[bendm]

Basketball is sponsored by ~360 schools. 360 > 200.

Ergo, basketball should have >25% of its 360 schools in the postseason.

Ergo, the NCAA Tournament should have >90 teams.

Edit: that said, I think expansion would go to 80, with play-in games among the bottom 16 conference champs and the bottom 16 at-larges to get to the usual 64-team 1st round.

expanding to 80 would be relatively painless imo. would simply mean making all 16, 15, 11, and 10 seeds play-ins.

gets 6 more midmajors and 6 more bubble teams in.

 

[storrsroars]

Basketball is sponsored by ~360 schools. 360 > 200.

Ergo, basketball should have >25% of its 360 schools in the postseason.

Ergo, the NCAA Tournament should have >90 teams.

Edit: that said, I think expansion would go to 80, with play-in games among the bottom 16 conference champs and the bottom 16 at-larges to get to the usual 64-team 1st round.

If this is gonna happen, couple of things I'd like to see as part of the arrangement:

• if a conference holds a tourney to determine the champion, that champion skips the play in and goes directly into the actual tourney
• if the regular season champ from a typical one-bid conference does not win the championship game, they automatically go to the play-in round instead of the NIT

 

[Tenspro2002]

expanding to 80 would be relatively painless imo. would simply mean making all 16, 15, 11, and 10 seeds play-ins.

gets 6 more midmajors and 6 more bubble teams in.

Probably 12 and 11 for the last at-larges, but yes.

• Byes for the top 48 (at-large and conference champ)
• Play-ins for the bottom 16 conference champs (formerly 13-16 seeds) become 15-16 seeds
• Play-ins for the bottom 16 at-larges (formerly 9-12 seeds) become 13-14 seeds

I think it goes something like that.

 

[bendm]

If this is gonna happen, couple of things I'd like to see as part of the arrangement:

• if a conference holds a tourney to determine the champion, that champion skips the play in and goes directly into the actual tourney
• if the regular season champ from a typical one-bid conference does not win the championship game, they automatically go to the play-in round instead of the NIT

dont some autobids get put into the 16 seed play-in already? i dont see a way around it, especially if all 16 and 15 seeds become play-ins. the comittee isnt going to reward them w/ a 14 seed just because they wont their conference tourneys.

 

[storrsroars]

dont some autobids get put into the 16 seed play-in already? i dont see a way around it, especially if all 16 and 15 seeds become play-ins. the comittee isnt going to reward them w/ a 14 seed just because they wont their conference tourneys.

Typically four autobids go to Dayton, along with four middling teams from multibid conferences.

If you automatically add those autobids to the regular field instead of play ins, you can still seed them as 15 or 16 seeds. The NCAA does that now.

My point is simply if you're going to allow more mediocre dreck from P4 conferences to get into the tournament, the tradeoff at a minimum should be rewarding actual conference winners from one bid conferences.

I'd like to see regular season winners that didn't win the conference tourney also rewarded with a play in game.

 

[August_West]

LOL if you think that's going to happen. The pressure for expansion is because the P4/5 schools are the last 4 out and they want more of the pie. They'll get it. Sure, a 27 win team that gets upset in the conference tournament may also get in, and should. But mostly it will go to the big schools.

And yet Kansas will still have less titles than UConn

 

[pj]

I'm not sure if you're explaining the logic or advocating for it, but to me it's kind of nonsense as if the 100 or so teams that have transitioned to D1 hoop should be weighted equally (as far as determining a % that make the tournament) than the schools that were in previously.

I mean it's as a simple as saying NJIT isn't the same as Duke and can't be counted that way in the proposed logic.

As more bottom feeders join D1, more P4 teams get tourney invites. What's not logical about that, if you're a P4 school?