(03-06-2020 02:27 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:55 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 09:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:26 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It feels like a rule to discourage upgrading. With conferences now being the gatekeeper it seems like an unnecessary rule

I am all for any rule that discourages schools from moving up to D-I. Nearly half the schools already there don't belong, and are only there to suck on the NCAAT teat.

I'd love to see the NCAA do away with the autobids to the NCAAT entirely. At least half the current 32 conferences would go back to D-II overnight, and that would be a good thing.

I'm actually in favor of more D1 schools. There's less reason to schedule outside of division 1. Play a bottom tier D1 instead of a NAIA or NCCCAA school. I'm actually for having non D1 games tanking NET rankings.

I suggest a compromise solution. There are 32 D-I basketball conferences. About 22 of these are one bid leagues, and will always be one bid leagues. My suggestion is this.

There are six power conferences that consistently produce most of the at large entries in the NCAAT. Their conference championship tournaments generate a lot of revenue for them. They aren't going away. With a very few exceptions, the other 26 conference tournaments are at best revenue neutral. I propose that during the week when the P6 conference tournaments are being played, the other 26 conferences have a one game play-in tournament consisting of their champions plus 22 at large teams (48 in all).

The 24 highest seeded teams in this field host the bottom 24 teams on their home court, to save on travel costs and ensure larger crowds. The 24 winners then move on the following week to the round of 64 (thereby giving the six power conference 40 spots in that field (a few more than their combined 5 year average). All 64 teams are reseeded based on a composite ranking using major ranking services like NET, Massey, Sagarin, BPI and KenPom.

In this system, all D-I schools still have a path to the national championship, but the truly non-competitive leagues won't clutter up the round of 64. Instead, very good hoops leagues like the A-10, AAC, WCC and MWC will have significantly more teams in the field than they do now. With rare exceptions, the lowest ranked team in the field will be no worse than #80-85, rather than the #250 we see now. First round games will be much more competitive and attractive matchups.

In this scenario, a few more weak D-I teams won't dilute the NCAAT. The compensation for teams in the play-in tournament would be significantly less than the subsequent 64 team tourney, so the P6 conferences wouldn't be hurt financially (a circumstance that would ensure they wouldn't support the change).

How about just shifting conference champs of the lowest conferences into play in games for the 16 and 15 seeds? There is no 11 seed play in games. At large consideration gets you into the tournament. It's basically 4 extra games have 2 on Tuesday and 2 on Wednesday. If conference tournaments can run four games a day so can the NCAA tournament.let alone all day Thursday and Friday. If need be maybe add a play-in for some 14 seeds.

That will just result in more P6 teams with double digit losses getting in ahead of more teams from the A10, AAC, WCC and MWC. IMO, those conferences already have enough seats at the table. We don't need more of them with sub-.500 conference records.

(03-06-2020 03:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 02:27 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:55 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 09:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  I am all for any rule that discourages schools from moving up to D-I. Nearly half the schools already there don't belong, and are only there to suck on the NCAAT teat.

I'd love to see the NCAA do away with the autobids to the NCAAT entirely. At least half the current 32 conferences would go back to D-II overnight, and that would be a good thing.

I'm actually in favor of more D1 schools. There's less reason to schedule outside of division 1. Play a bottom tier D1 instead of a NAIA or NCCCAA school. I'm actually for having non D1 games tanking NET rankings.

I suggest a compromise solution. There are 32 D-I basketball conferences. About 22 of these are one bid leagues, and will always be one bid leagues. My suggestion is this.

There are six power conferences that consistently produce most of the at large entries in the NCAAT. Their conference championship tournaments generate a lot of revenue for them. They aren't going away. With a very few exceptions, the other 26 conference tournaments are at best revenue neutral. I propose that during the week when the P6 conference tournaments are being played, the other 26 conferences have a one game play-in tournament consisting of their champions plus 22 at large teams (48 in all).

The 24 highest seeded teams in this field host the bottom 24 teams on their home court, to save on travel costs and ensure larger crowds. The 24 winners then move on the following week to the round of 64 (thereby giving the six power conference 40 spots in that field (a few more than their combined 5 year average). All 64 teams are reseeded based on a composite ranking using major ranking services like NET, Massey, Sagarin, BPI and KenPom.

In this system, all D-I schools still have a path to the national championship, but the truly non-competitive leagues won't clutter up the round of 64. Instead, very good hoops leagues like the A-10, AAC, WCC and MWC will have significantly more teams in the field than they do now. With rare exceptions, the lowest ranked team in the field will be no worse than #80-85, rather than the #250 we see now. First round games will be much more competitive and attractive matchups.

In this scenario, a few more weak D-I teams won't dilute the NCAAT. The compensation for teams in the play-in tournament would be significantly less than the subsequent 64 team tourney, so the P6 conferences wouldn't be hurt financially (a circumstance that would ensure they wouldn't support the change).

How about just shifting conference champs of the lowest conferences into play in games for the 16 and 15 seeds? There is no 11 seed play in games. At large consideration gets you into the tournament. It's basically 4 extra games have 2 on Tuesday and 2 on Wednesday. If conference tournaments can run four games a day so can the NCAA tournament.let alone all day Thursday and Friday. If need be maybe add a play-in for some 14 seeds.

That will just result in more P6 teams with double digit losses getting in ahead of more teams from the A10, AAC, WCC and MWC. IMO, those conferences already have enough seats at the table. We don't need more of them with sub-.500 conference records.

Your only adding 4 spots as of a hour ago:
1) Utah State (MWC)
2) Cincinnati (AAC)
3) Richmond (A-10)
4) Wichita State (AAC)

Your basically adding 4 mid major teams to the tournament. Based off of Joe Lombardi the above teams are first 4 out.

(03-07-2020 07:10 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 03:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 02:27 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:55 PM)46566 Wrote:  I'm actually in favor of more D1 schools. There's less reason to schedule outside of division 1. Play a bottom tier D1 instead of a NAIA or NCCCAA school. I'm actually for having non D1 games tanking NET rankings.

I suggest a compromise solution. There are 32 D-I basketball conferences. About 22 of these are one bid leagues, and will always be one bid leagues. My suggestion is this.

There are six power conferences that consistently produce most of the at large entries in the NCAAT. Their conference championship tournaments generate a lot of revenue for them. They aren't going away. With a very few exceptions, the other 26 conference tournaments are at best revenue neutral. I propose that during the week when the P6 conference tournaments are being played, the other 26 conferences have a one game play-in tournament consisting of their champions plus 22 at large teams (48 in all).

The 24 highest seeded teams in this field host the bottom 24 teams on their home court, to save on travel costs and ensure larger crowds. The 24 winners then move on the following week to the round of 64 (thereby giving the six power conference 40 spots in that field (a few more than their combined 5 year average). All 64 teams are reseeded based on a composite ranking using major ranking services like NET, Massey, Sagarin, BPI and KenPom.

In this system, all D-I schools still have a path to the national championship, but the truly non-competitive leagues won't clutter up the round of 64. Instead, very good hoops leagues like the A-10, AAC, WCC and MWC will have significantly more teams in the field than they do now. With rare exceptions, the lowest ranked team in the field will be no worse than #80-85, rather than the #250 we see now. First round games will be much more competitive and attractive matchups.

In this scenario, a few more weak D-I teams won't dilute the NCAAT. The compensation for teams in the play-in tournament would be significantly less than the subsequent 64 team tourney, so the P6 conferences wouldn't be hurt financially (a circumstance that would ensure they wouldn't support the change).

How about just shifting conference champs of the lowest conferences into play in games for the 16 and 15 seeds? There is no 11 seed play in games. At large consideration gets you into the tournament. It's basically 4 extra games have 2 on Tuesday and 2 on Wednesday. If conference tournaments can run four games a day so can the NCAA tournament.let alone all day Thursday and Friday. If need be maybe add a play-in for some 14 seeds.

That will just result in more P6 teams with double digit losses getting in ahead of more teams from the A10, AAC, WCC and MWC. IMO, those conferences already have enough seats at the table. We don't need more of them with sub-.500 conference records.

Your only adding 4 spots as of a hour ago:
1) Utah State (MWC)
2) Cincinnati (AAC)
3) Richmond (A-10)
4) Wichita State (AAC)

Your basically adding 4 mid major teams to the tournament. Based off of Joe Lombardi the above teams are first 4 out.

...umm...

Cincinnati is a power program. The other 3 are high major - with WSU next in line to break through as a proper hoops power.

(03-07-2020 07:10 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 03:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 02:27 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:55 PM)46566 Wrote:  I'm actually in favor of more D1 schools. There's less reason to schedule outside of division 1. Play a bottom tier D1 instead of a NAIA or NCCCAA school. I'm actually for having non D1 games tanking NET rankings.

I suggest a compromise solution. There are 32 D-I basketball conferences. About 22 of these are one bid leagues, and will always be one bid leagues. My suggestion is this.

There are six power conferences that consistently produce most of the at large entries in the NCAAT. Their conference championship tournaments generate a lot of revenue for them. They aren't going away. With a very few exceptions, the other 26 conference tournaments are at best revenue neutral. I propose that during the week when the P6 conference tournaments are being played, the other 26 conferences have a one game play-in tournament consisting of their champions plus 22 at large teams (48 in all).

The 24 highest seeded teams in this field host the bottom 24 teams on their home court, to save on travel costs and ensure larger crowds. The 24 winners then move on the following week to the round of 64 (thereby giving the six power conference 40 spots in that field (a few more than their combined 5 year average). All 64 teams are reseeded based on a composite ranking using major ranking services like NET, Massey, Sagarin, BPI and KenPom.

In this system, all D-I schools still have a path to the national championship, but the truly non-competitive leagues won't clutter up the round of 64. Instead, very good hoops leagues like the A-10, AAC, WCC and MWC will have significantly more teams in the field than they do now. With rare exceptions, the lowest ranked team in the field will be no worse than #80-85, rather than the #250 we see now. First round games will be much more competitive and attractive matchups.

In this scenario, a few more weak D-I teams won't dilute the NCAAT. The compensation for teams in the play-in tournament would be significantly less than the subsequent 64 team tourney, so the P6 conferences wouldn't be hurt financially (a circumstance that would ensure they wouldn't support the change).

How about just shifting conference champs of the lowest conferences into play in games for the 16 and 15 seeds? There is no 11 seed play in games. At large consideration gets you into the tournament. It's basically 4 extra games have 2 on Tuesday and 2 on Wednesday. If conference tournaments can run four games a day so can the NCAA tournament.let alone all day Thursday and Friday. If need be maybe add a play-in for some 14 seeds.

That will just result in more P6 teams with double digit losses getting in ahead of more teams from the A10, AAC, WCC and MWC. IMO, those conferences already have enough seats at the table. We don't need more of them with sub-.500 conference records.

Your only adding 4 spots as of a hour ago:
1) Utah State (MWC)
2) Cincinnati (AAC)
3) Richmond (A-10)
4) Wichita State (AAC)

Your basically adding 4 mid major teams to the tournament. Based off of Joe Lombardi the above teams are first 4 out.

By my count, I have Lunardi predicting 8 teams from those four conferences will make the field (including Cincy as a last four in).

Using data from a couple of weeks ago, which will likely change a little, my method would have 22 teams from those conferences in the play-in field, with 17 likely to advance to the round of 64 (barring upsets in the play-in).

When the rankings come out Monday (the point in the season when the field would have to be selected) I will compile brackets for the 48 team play-in field and post them here.

These are the brackets for a 48 team play-in. There would be six games each day from Tuesday to Friday, with the winners advancing to the round of 64, where they would be seeded by their composite rank. The higher ranked team for the play-in round hosts the lower ranked team.

The composite rank (an average of five major ranking services) preceeds each team name. Where a conference champion has not yet been determined (because this system isn't in place yet) I used the highest seeded team remaining in the conference's tournament. Those schools are in blue. Conference champions already determined are in bold. All others are at large.

#2 Gonzaga vs #263 NC Central
#5 Dayton vs #210 Robert Morris
#6 San Diego State vs #219 Prairie View A&M
#14 BYU vs #153 Siena
#18 Houston vs #141 UA Little Rock
#37 Utah State vs #136 Winthrop
#36 St Mary's vs #111 UC Irvine
#39 Wichita State vs #128 North Dakota State
#44 Richmond vs #114 Hofstra
#44 Cincinnati vs #146 Northern Kentucky
#48 East Tennessee State vs #170 Boston University
#55 Memphis vs #121 Eastern Washington
#55 UConn vs #107 Bradley
#61 Northern Iowa vs #96 S.F. Austin
#64 Rhode Island vs #93 Belmont
#65 St Louis vs #92 San Francisco
#67 Yale vs #86 New Mexico State
#70 Vermont vs #87 Northern Colorado
#73 Davidson vs #91 SMU
#75 Liberty vs #92 North Texas
#75 VCU vs #86 UNC Greensboro
#77 Furman vs #83 Boise State
#78 Tulsa vs #83 Louisiana Tech
#79 Akron vs #86 Nevada

From the four strongest of the mid major conferences (A10, AAC, WCC and MWC) a total of 21 schools would be in the play-in round. If all the favorites were to win, those conferences would place 17 into the round of 64.