In the major conferences above 14 teams (ACC, Big Ten, SEC), the top four seeds currently have "double byes" and start play in the QF of the tournament, only having to play three games to win the tournament.

Why am I saying this is a misnomer? In the ACC, each of the top four seeds played an opponent in their first round that had a first round bye. The assumption of "double bye" is you get to skip two rounds. But if your opponent gets to skip one round, you really only have one round advantage over your opponent. Now all four top seeds won their games but their advantage for the most part only becomes a "double bye" if a team that wins in the first round wins in the second round. ACC teams in the first round went 0-3 in the second round and only Ohio State won in the second round in the Big Ten.

The other part is that in the Big Ten the one team that got a double bye is Michigan State, the #4 seed. The way the Big Ten Tournament is set up, the top two seeds, Purdue and Northwestern, had no chance at getting a team that played twice. In the ACC, the top seed had no chance at a double bye advantage. Once the Big Ten and SEC go up to 16 and if they keep the 9-16, 5-8, 1-4 format, all four top seeds will have a chance at a double bye advantage.

I'm not a fan of the double bye advantage, at least in the power conferences, I'd rather just go to a straight bracket. In conferences like the MAAC, only one team gets in and you want the top seed or seeds having an advantage of playing one fewer game. In the Big Ten or ACC, do the top teams really care if they win or is it really a crime if they have to play a fourth game to win it? If the #1 seed can't beat the #16 seed in the first round, go home. If Virginia (ACC #2) can't beat Louisville (ACC #15), go home. They'd have to play the exact number of games in the overall tournament and I'd rather in general see the higher seeded teams play extra games.

In a 16 team format, I would do.

Day 1: 1 vs. 16, 4 vs. 13, 2 vs. 15, 3 vs. 14
Day 2: 5 vs. 12, 8 vs. 9, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10
Day 3: 1/16 vs. 8/9, 4/13 vs. 5/12, 2/15 vs. 7/10, 3/14 vs. 6/11
Day 4: SF
Day 5: C

The advantage for the top 4 seeds (or the bottom 4 seeds if they pull the upset) is a day off if they win in the first round). Teams seeded 5-12 have to win four games in four days (like they do now), teams 1-4 and 13-16 have to win four games but in five days.

(03-10-2023 10:14 AM)schmolik Wrote:  In the major conferences above 14 teams (ACC, Big Ten, SEC), the top four seeds currently have "double byes" and start play in the QF of the tournament, only having to play three games to win the tournament.

Why am I saying this is a misnomer? In the ACC, each of the top four seeds played an opponent in their first round that had a first round bye. The assumption of "double bye" is you get to skip two rounds. But if your opponent gets to skip one round, you really only have one round advantage over your opponent. Now all four top seeds won their games but their advantage for the most part only becomes a "double bye" if a team that wins in the first round wins in the second round. ACC teams in the first round went 0-3 in the second round and only Ohio State won in the second round in the Big Ten.

The other part is that in the Big Ten the one team that got a double bye is Michigan State, the #4 seed. The way the Big Ten Tournament is set up, the top two seeds, Purdue and Northwestern, had no chance at getting a team that played twice. In the ACC, the top seed had no chance at a double bye advantage. Once the Big Ten and SEC go up to 16 and if they keep the 9-16, 5-8, 1-4 format, all four top seeds will have a chance at a double bye advantage.

I'm not a fan of the double bye advantage, at least in the power conferences, I'd rather just go to a straight bracket. In conferences like the MAAC, only one team gets in and you want the top seed or seeds having an advantage of playing one fewer game. In the Big Ten or ACC, do the top teams really care if they win or is it really a crime if they have to play a fourth game to win it? If the #1 seed can't beat the #16 seed in the first round, go home. If Virginia (ACC #2) can't beat Louisville (ACC #15), go home. They'd have to play the exact number of games in the overall tournament and I'd rather in general see the higher seeded teams play extra games.

In a 16 team format, I would do.

Day 1: 1 vs. 16, 4 vs. 13, 2 vs. 15, 3 vs. 14
Day 2: 5 vs. 12, 8 vs. 9, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10
Day 3: 1/16 vs. 8/9, 4/13 vs. 5/12, 2/15 vs. 7/10, 3/14 vs. 6/11
Day 4: SF
Day 5: C

The advantage for the top 4 seeds (or the bottom 4 seeds if they pull the upset) is a day off if they win in the first round). Teams seeded 5-12 have to win four games in four days (like they do now), teams 1-4 and 13-16 have to win four games but in five days.

I’d say that they care a lot. Having to a play a 4th game in the week before the NCAA Tournament is a much bigger lift than “only” 3 games (which can already be a slog) in that timeframe. It doesn’t matter how weak of an opponent is for that first round game is on paper. Avoiding a 4th game is much more important than a day off (but still having to play that extra game). I’ve had a lot of PTSD from Illini teams that have made it to the Big Ten Championship Game and then look like they’re totally gassed in the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament.

I’m almost the opposite: I think the regular season champs should get as great of an advantage in the conference tournament as possible. It may not be realistic to slot them directly in the semifinals in the power conferences, but that’s what the mid major conferences ought to be doing (if they haven’t been doing so already).

(03-10-2023 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 10:14 AM)schmolik Wrote:  In the major conferences above 14 teams (ACC, Big Ten, SEC), the top four seeds currently have "double byes" and start play in the QF of the tournament, only having to play three games to win the tournament.

Why am I saying this is a misnomer? In the ACC, each of the top four seeds played an opponent in their first round that had a first round bye. The assumption of "double bye" is you get to skip two rounds. But if your opponent gets to skip one round, you really only have one round advantage over your opponent. Now all four top seeds won their games but their advantage for the most part only becomes a "double bye" if a team that wins in the first round wins in the second round. ACC teams in the first round went 0-3 in the second round and only Ohio State won in the second round in the Big Ten.

The other part is that in the Big Ten the one team that got a double bye is Michigan State, the #4 seed. The way the Big Ten Tournament is set up, the top two seeds, Purdue and Northwestern, had no chance at getting a team that played twice. In the ACC, the top seed had no chance at a double bye advantage. Once the Big Ten and SEC go up to 16 and if they keep the 9-16, 5-8, 1-4 format, all four top seeds will have a chance at a double bye advantage.

I'm not a fan of the double bye advantage, at least in the power conferences, I'd rather just go to a straight bracket. In conferences like the MAAC, only one team gets in and you want the top seed or seeds having an advantage of playing one fewer game. In the Big Ten or ACC, do the top teams really care if they win or is it really a crime if they have to play a fourth game to win it? If the #1 seed can't beat the #16 seed in the first round, go home. If Virginia (ACC #2) can't beat Louisville (ACC #15), go home. They'd have to play the exact number of games in the overall tournament and I'd rather in general see the higher seeded teams play extra games.

In a 16 team format, I would do.

Day 1: 1 vs. 16, 4 vs. 13, 2 vs. 15, 3 vs. 14
Day 2: 5 vs. 12, 8 vs. 9, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10
Day 3: 1/16 vs. 8/9, 4/13 vs. 5/12, 2/15 vs. 7/10, 3/14 vs. 6/11
Day 4: SF
Day 5: C

The advantage for the top 4 seeds (or the bottom 4 seeds if they pull the upset) is a day off if they win in the first round). Teams seeded 5-12 have to win four games in four days (like they do now), teams 1-4 and 13-16 have to win four games but in five days.

I’d say that they care a lot. Having to a play a 4th game in the week before the NCAA Tournament is a much bigger lift than “only” 3 games (which can already be a slog) in that timeframe. It doesn’t matter how weak of an opponent is for that first round game is on paper. Avoiding a 4th game is much more important than a day off (but still having to play that extra game). I’ve had a lot of PTSD from Illini teams that have made it to the Big Ten Championship Game and then look like they’re totally gassed in the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament.

I’m almost the opposite: I think the regular season champs should get as great of an advantage in the conference tournament as possible. It may not be realistic to slot them directly in the semifinals in the power conferences, but that’s what the mid major conferences ought to be doing (if they haven’t been doing so already).

And how much good does it do the mid major champs(or even smaller conferences) to get the bye to the semifinals? See a ton of upsets with those setups as well.

(03-10-2023 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m almost the opposite: I think the regular season champs should get as great of an advantage in the conference tournament as possible.

It may not be realistic to slot them directly in the semifinals in the power conferences, but that’s what the mid major conferences ought to be doing (if they haven’t been doing so already).

I totally agree.

Conferences should be putting forth their best teams to the NCAA Tournament; And if your conference tourney isn't bringing in the same amount of PROFIT that an NCAA unit would bring, just don't have a tournament.

And I think the conferences should just "unveil" their bracket or format with only necessary participants after the conclusion of the regular season. Like all games of the conference tournament will be Q1/Q2 games.

The C-USA tourney should be: UAB vs North Texas, winner gets FAU. And it should be a neutral site, but in Miami.


(I've felt this way about the CFP for about decade. A 4-team playoff, an 8-team playoff, the committee... it's all dumb. The point is to have an undisputed national champ. If you have 3 undefeated teams, you need a 3-team bracket. If you have nine teams one loss and no one is undefeated, you need a nine-team bracket).

(03-10-2023 11:46 AM)JSchmack Wrote:  And I think the conferences should just "unveil" their bracket or format with only necessary participants after the conclusion of the regular season. Like all games of the conference tournament will be Q1/Q2 games.

(I've felt this way about the CFP for about decade. A 4-team playoff, an 8-team playoff, the committee... it's all dumb. The point is to have an undisputed national champ. If you have 3 undefeated teams, you need a 3-team bracket. If you have nine teams one loss and no one is undefeated, you need a nine-team bracket).

To the CFP, I think 4 teams is still small enough that any of the 4 will be undisputed champion after winning. With 12, that 2- or 3-loss champ might not be able to make that claim over a 1-loss team who might have lost to another team.

In BBall I generally agree about the Q1/Q2 format. Unfortunately for both sports the structure (or at least the game and team count) need to be decided pre-season. I had a post on the 12-team where flexing some teams to double-byes based on loss-count could be done WITHOUT altering qualification requirements or game times.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-960787.html

A bracket idea I worked out for the CFP, if it is decided that 3 games are the optimum number for the early rounds.

#1 gets a bye to the semis.
#2, 3, 4 get byes to the quarterfinals
#5 vs #10, #6 vs #9, #7 vs #8.

You ARE leaving schools out of your postseason. But you're strengthening the regular season (Bye to the semis is a big boost. Doesn't fix the issue of conference championships not meaning as much). Adds drama to some end-of-season games among #12, 11, 10, 9 as you're playing for your conference tournament life.

Just something to throw out there.

(03-10-2023 12:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  A bracket idea I worked out for the CFP, if it is decided that 3 games are the optimum number for the early rounds.

#1 gets a bye to the semis.
#2, 3, 4 get byes to the quarterfinals
#5 vs #10, #6 vs #9, #7 vs #8.

You ARE leaving schools out of your postseason. But you're strengthening the regular season (Bye to the semis is a big boost. Doesn't fix the issue of conference championships not meaning as much). Adds drama to some end-of-season games among #12, 11, 10, 9 as you're playing for your conference tournament life.

Just something to throw out there.

Here's a dirty little secret for football especially, but even in hoops. Byes don't work as well as you would think. How did the bye to the semifinal work out for Morehead State?

For a 16 team hoops CCT, you could give the top two teams a bye to the semifinals, but it makes for a very long tournament week, and not every team would make it to the tournament site.

Finish regular season on Saturday.

On Monday, #13 hosts #16 and #14 hosts #15 on the home court of the higher seed. Two play-in winners travel to the tourney site for a second round game on Wednesday.

Wednesday: #7-#14, #8-#13, #9-#12, #10-#11 (4 games)
Thursday: #3-#10, #4-#9, #5-#8, #6-#7 (4 games)
Friday: #3-#6, #4-#5 (2 games)
Saturday: #1-#4, #2-#3 (2 games)
Sunday #1-#2 (Championship)

Or, drop the play-in game and #15-16 don't get to play at all. If they did have to play in they would have to win six games if they made it to the tourney finals. On the plus side, #1-2 only have to play two games before the NCAAT so they can come in fresh as a daisy. Everybody else has to play at least four games to reach the finals.

(03-10-2023 11:59 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 11:46 AM)JSchmack Wrote:  And I think the conferences should just "unveil" their bracket or format with only necessary participants after the conclusion of the regular season. Like all games of the conference tournament will be Q1/Q2 games.

(I've felt this way about the CFP for about decade. A 4-team playoff, an 8-team playoff, the committee... it's all dumb. The point is to have an undisputed national champ. If you have 3 undefeated teams, you need a 3-team bracket. If you have nine teams one loss and no one is undefeated, you need a nine-team bracket).

To the CFP, I think 4 teams is still small enough that any of the 4 will be undisputed champion after winning. With 12, that 2- or 3-loss champ might not be able to make that claim over a 1-loss team who might have lost to another team.

I call shenanigans on that because an undefeated team has been left out of the CFP.

In 2021 we finished with TWO one-loss teams. They did not play each other, and both teams lost to Alabama. How is that undisputed?

Fans of the CFP say that the results of the CFP determine an undisputed champion of the season, simply because they accept the CFP outcome.

Just like we accept the basketball champion as the tournament winner even if someone goes 37-1 and loses in the Final Four and a 27-9 team wins the title; or better yet.. NFL 2007 season: New England finishes 18-1, New York Giants finish 14-6, and we accept the Giants as champions.

(03-10-2023 04:28 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 11:59 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 11:46 AM)JSchmack Wrote:  And I think the conferences should just "unveil" their bracket or format with only necessary participants after the conclusion of the regular season. Like all games of the conference tournament will be Q1/Q2 games.

(I've felt this way about the CFP for about decade. A 4-team playoff, an 8-team playoff, the committee... it's all dumb. The point is to have an undisputed national champ. If you have 3 undefeated teams, you need a 3-team bracket. If you have nine teams one loss and no one is undefeated, you need a nine-team bracket).

To the CFP, I think 4 teams is still small enough that any of the 4 will be undisputed champion after winning. With 12, that 2- or 3-loss champ might not be able to make that claim over a 1-loss team who might have lost to another team.

I call shenanigans on that because an undefeated team has been left out of the CFP.

In 2021 we finished with TWO one-loss teams. They did not play each other, and both teams lost to Alabama. How is that undisputed?

Fans of the CFP say that the results of the CFP determine an undisputed champion of the season, simply because they accept the CFP outcome.

Just like we accept the basketball champion as the tournament winner even if someone goes 37-1 and loses in the Final Four and a 27-9 team wins the title; or better yet.. NFL 2007 season: New England finishes 18-1, New York Giants finish 14-6, and we accept the Giants as champions.

Are you arguing Cincinnati should have been crowned before or after the 2021 playoff? I see your point that humans will declare even a 14-6 Giants team #1 just because they won the last game. But, even among non-humans, I am unaware of any selector who thought the Bearcats were #1 at any point in the season.

(03-10-2023 07:41 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Are you arguing Cincinnati should have been crowned before or after the 2021 playoff? I see your point that humans will declare even a 14-6 Giants team #1 just because they won the last game. But, even among non-humans, I am unaware of any selector who thought the Bearcats were #1 at any point in the season.

So you're saying it's really a money grab and not actually determining a true champion? Agreed.

For a conference tourney, if you want to reward your "elite" teams with byes, but don't want to award "mostly good" teams with byes, you can use a flexible bracket.

Given a 16-team tournament, you'd likely stagger the games across 5 days, 4-4-4-2-1. Now, you 'could' use the first two days as a sweet sixteen OR you could give the top 4 teams byes and have the bottom 8 teams use the first day as a play-in round. In fact, you could choose whether to give 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 teams byes, still keep the same schedule, and still have 8 fanbases crowding your tournament venue Day 1.

Take the Big Ten, for example. Purdue was 3 games ahead of anyone else. Do Northwestern, Indiana, and Michigan State need to be given the same advantage? especially when their record is more like the #10 conference team than the #1?

What does the Big Ten tourney look like with only Purdue getting a bye and keeping the same 4-4-4-2-1 schedule? Let us assume the two extra teams slot just ahead of Ohio State and Minnesota

Wednesday, March 8th
#15 Ohio State vs. #16 Minnesota
#8 Michigan vs. #9 Rutgers
#5 Iowa vs. #12 Wisconsin
#4 Michigan St vs. #13 extra team A

Thursday, March 9th
#7 Illinois vs. #10 Penn State
#6 Maryland vs. #11 Nebraska
#3 Indiana vs. #14 extra team B
#2 Northwestern vs. #15 Ohio State

Friday, March 10th
#4 Michigan St vs. #5 Iowa
#3 Indiana vs. #6 Maryland
#2 NW/#15OSU vs. #10 Penn State
#1 Purdue vs. #9 Rutgers

And, for more flavor, here is the SAME schedule but with UCLA and USC added in as the #1 and #3 seeds and given byes.

Wednesday, March 8th
#13 Nebraska vs. #14 Wisconsin
#12 Penn State vs. #15 Ohio State
#11 Rutgers vs. #16 Minnesota
#8 Maryland vs. #9 Illinois

Thursday, March 9th
#7 Iowa vs. #10 Michigan
#6 Michigan St vs. #11 Rutgers
#5 Indiana vs. #15 Ohio State
#4 Northwestern vs. #13 Nebraska

Friday, March 10th
#4 Northwestern vs. #5 Indiana
#3 USC vs. #6 MSU/#11RU
#2 Purdue vs. #7 Iowa
#1 UCLA vs. #8 Maryland

(03-10-2023 08:16 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 07:41 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Are you arguing Cincinnati should have been crowned before or after the 2021 playoff? I see your point that humans will declare even a 14-6 Giants team #1 just because they won the last game. But, even among non-humans, I am unaware of any selector who thought the Bearcats were #1 at any point in the season.

So you're saying it's really a money grab and not actually determining a true champion? Agreed.

I suppose I am. 12-teams will result in the occasional fluke champion. Byes (and, double byes) could help mitigate that scenario, allowing the CFP to keep the money it grabs while seldom crowning a fluke champion. I was also saying your Cincinnati example was a poor one; 2017 UCF may have been better.

(03-11-2023 07:54 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 08:16 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 07:41 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Are you arguing Cincinnati should have been crowned before or after the 2021 playoff? I see your point that humans will declare even a 14-6 Giants team #1 just because they won the last game. But, even among non-humans, I am unaware of any selector who thought the Bearcats were #1 at any point in the season.

So you're saying it's really a money grab and not actually determining a true champion? Agreed.

I suppose I am. 12-teams will result in the occasional fluke champion. Byes (and, double byes) could help mitigate that scenario, allowing the CFP to keep the money it grabs while seldom crowning a fluke champion. I was also saying your Cincinnati example was a poor one; 2017 UCF may have been better.

There will rarely if ever be a "fluke" champion in a 12 team playoff. By definition, the winner of a tournament is the champion. For a #5 seed or worse, you would have to win four straight games against the best competition in college football. If you can do that, you're hardly a fluke - just underrated.

In a four team playoff, it's quite easy to imagine that some team not invited could have won two straight games.

(03-11-2023 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-11-2023 07:54 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 08:16 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 07:41 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Are you arguing Cincinnati should have been crowned before or after the 2021 playoff? I see your point that humans will declare even a 14-6 Giants team #1 just because they won the last game. But, even among non-humans, I am unaware of any selector who thought the Bearcats were #1 at any point in the season.

So you're saying it's really a money grab and not actually determining a true champion? Agreed.

I suppose I am. 12-teams will result in the occasional fluke champion. Byes (and, double byes) could help mitigate that scenario, allowing the CFP to keep the money it grabs while seldom crowning a fluke champion. I was also saying your Cincinnati example was a poor one; 2017 UCF may have been better.

There will rarely if ever be a "fluke" champion in a 12 team playoff. By definition, the winner of a tournament is the champion. For a #5 seed or worse, you would have to win four straight games against the best competition in college football. If you can do that, you're hardly a fluke - just underrated.

In a four team playoff, it's quite easy to imagine that some team not invited could have won two straight games.

Technically 5 games if you consider the CCG for some teams.

(03-11-2023 07:54 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 08:16 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 07:41 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Are you arguing Cincinnati should have been crowned before or after the 2021 playoff? I see your point that humans will declare even a 14-6 Giants team #1 just because they won the last game. But, even among non-humans, I am unaware of any selector who thought the Bearcats were #1 at any point in the season.

So you're saying it's really a money grab and not actually determining a true champion? Agreed.

I suppose I am. 12-teams will result in the occasional fluke champion. Byes (and, double byes) could help mitigate that scenario, allowing the CFP to keep the money it grabs while seldom crowning a fluke champion. I was also saying your Cincinnati example was a poor one; 2017 UCF may have been better.

teams being off longer in football don't help at all especially if it's a month we're talking about. 1 week sure. Anything more than that and nope.

They aren't doing double byes and never will I feel safe in saying. They aren't going to do things like it's a bowling table with teams joining the tourney as we go along.

(03-11-2023 07:54 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I suppose I am. 12-teams will result in the occasional fluke champion. Byes (and, double byes) could help mitigate that scenario, allowing the CFP to keep the money it grabs while seldom crowning a fluke champion. I was also saying your Cincinnati example was a poor one; 2017 UCF may have been better.

I don't like using the UCF example, even if it's more obvious, because people just have the mindset/perception that UCF doesn't matter because they were G5. Like, 1998 Undefeated Tulane, or Bowling Green when Urban Meyer was the head coach; Cincinnati was more respected last season than those teams ever were.

(03-11-2023 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  By definition, the winner of a tournament is the champion.

THIS is the thing I'm arguing against. Because the people sending out invites are dictating the terms, and it's NOT determining a champion: It's rigging the game so their conferences get the most money.

I really don't LIKE being the old man yelling at the clouds, but I've kind of been forced into it by consolidation of power and monopolies here. It's all a cartel.

(03-11-2023 01:19 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(03-11-2023 07:54 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I suppose I am. 12-teams will result in the occasional fluke champion. Byes (and, double byes) could help mitigate that scenario, allowing the CFP to keep the money it grabs while seldom crowning a fluke champion. I was also saying your Cincinnati example was a poor one; 2017 UCF may have been better.

I don't like using the UCF example, even if it's more obvious, because people just have the mindset/perception that UCF doesn't matter because they were G5. Like, 1998 Undefeated Tulane, or Bowling Green when Urban Meyer was the head coach; Cincinnati was more respected last season than those teams ever were.

(03-11-2023 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  By definition, the winner of a tournament is the champion.

THIS is the thing I'm arguing against. Because the people sending out invites are dictating the terms, and it's NOT determining a champion: It's rigging the game so their conferences get the most money.

I really don't LIKE being the old man yelling at the clouds, but I've kind of been forced into it by consolidation of power and monopolies here. It's all a cartel.

Oh boo hoo. Whoever wins the 12 team CFP will be the champion. Period the end. Just like whoever wins the NCAA basketball tourney is the champion. Period the end.

(03-11-2023 01:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Oh boo hoo. Whoever wins the 12 team CFP will be the champion. Period the end. Just like whoever wins the NCAA basketball tourney is the champion. Period the end.

So all the CFP talk came from my aside comment when talking about conference tournaments. And your response here shows off exactly what I mean:

If the CFP is deciding what format a playoff is so they can steer funds the way they want, and everyone will accept the outcome because they hand out a trophy and call the last team to win the champion...

it's REALLY stupid for CONFERENCES to keep having a fair/open conference tournament, letting actual competition decide who gets the auto-bid when they can just go CFP-style themselves.

Don't have a tournament that allows a CAA team to take Charleston's bid when Charleston is your best chance to get NCAA wins (which bring in money).

OR protect the hell out of your best teams by not inviting anyone who isn't at least on the bubble.

OR, just format it in a way where you're trying to get a bid-stealer (like, WCC putting Gonzaga/Saint Mary's as the 9/10 seeds and trying to get Santa Clara/LMU to be the winner so they get a third bid.

I'm for double byes or bye rounds in general. It's a reward for winning in the regular season. Why they may only play a team that only won 1 tournament game instead of 2 they in theory have a extra days rest over other teams. It also limits the chance for higher seeded schools from having a potential bad loss from a #14 seed or something similar by forcing them to play at least 2 games in a double bye tournament.