By the way, the current NET average of the teams in a 128-team with the rules I propose:

80 AVG NET (21-10 Average record).

In this year's actual 68-team field, it's 64 AVG NET (22-9 average record).

So the idea that you'd "diminish" things by adding in so many team is silly.

They're leaving out NINE of the Top 50 in the NET now, and you have NET #28 and #67 both mad they're "First Four Out."

yeah sorry but no thanks. Don't need ******* Losing teams like we see in the SWAC or NEC making the tourney. This ain't a charity case. SWAC and NEC don't really deserve 1 team in, let alone 2.

(03-18-2024 03:10 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(03-18-2024 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Follow the money. Follow the money. Follow the money.

The NCAA Tournament is locked into a significantly worse financial deal with CBS and Turner until 2032. Both Paramount (owner of CBS) and Warner Bros. Discovery (owner of Turner) are broke, so they aren't going to pay much or anything more for a larger tournament expansion. You might be able to get them to pay some for a very modest increase to 72 or 76, but almost doubling the size of the entire field is not going to *financially* work for the TV networks… and that’s all that matters here.

So, the power conferences are really looking for more access points for their teams in and of themselves

Instead of CBS/Turner paying much or anything more for tournament expansion, the power conferences will get their money by taking away greater shares of the NCAA Tournament revenue from the non-power conferences, similar to what they’re doing to the G5 in the CFP system.

Don’t look at it as, “What’s the best format for competition?”

Instead, look at it as, “What’s the best format to appease the power conferences in a combo of revenue and access to prevent from breaking off and killing the NCAA Tournament entirely?”

You don't have to tell me to follow the money. I always do.

The key part is "prevent from breaking off and KILLING THE TOURNAMENT ENTIRELY."

#1 - The Big Boys are against expansion if it reduces their shares of the TV money.
#2 - Eliminating auto-bids or increasing the one-bid play-in games is going to kill the tournament, because it's the David vs Goliath that's the main selling point. #13 Ohio State vs #4 Kansas in the R64 might be a decent game, but if #14 Samford is leading #4 Kansas, everyone talking about and flipping to that game.

#3 - There's no reason you can't do BOTH the best format for competition and best way to make everyone more money or the same money.

For starters, did you clock how ESPN's coverage Sunday was a blend of MBB and WBB coverage, talking about two tournaments at once? Because they're a rights holder for the WBB, and a massive stakeholder in MBB in general.

The way to do it isn't by asking CBS/Turner for double the money to nearly double the field to 128.

Instead you consolidate the MBB/WBB properties, and carve up into 2 or 3 packages that includes both MBB and WBB tournament games. (You have to plan your schedule a little better so MBB and WBB conflict with each other a little less in R64, R32, S16).

CBS/Turner doesn't have to double their contract for 60 more games, you get 1.5x the money for them adding SOME of the extra games, and 33 to 50% of the WBB R128, and maybe a little women's coverage late in the tournament (when they can show the 4 Regional Finals per day).

And ESPN can pay a lot more money, trade a late WBB round to get its hands on a few S16 MBB tournament games, and MOST the new R128 games.

And you sell a tertiary package for the days when MBB/WBB overlap, so FOX or NBC gets the games that would be on TruTV and ESPNU.

CBS/Turner have exclusivity for all men’s tournament games until 2032 and it’s at an *insanely* favorable ACC-like undervalued price, so what you’ve suggested straight up cannot happen. As stated in the last ESPN article on tournament expansion, it is one of the worst TV deals (meaning among the best for the networks) in modern sports history. There is no availability of a secondary or tertiary package - it has to go to CBS/Turner unless they waive their rights to allow in a direct competitor in on a wildly undervalued deal, which makes no sense at all. Either CBS/Turner pays for it and/or the power conferences are OK with keeping the tourney rights fees at the same price even in the event of expansion or it doesn’t happen.

In any event, there’s not exactly subterfuge here. Yormark directly said he wants 76 and reports are the other power conferences want 72 or 76 (with 80 being too much). It’s very likely due to what I said above: CBS/Turner isn’t paying much or anything more, so any expansion inherently has to be limited.

I hear that, but 72-76 is just dumb. No one wants an ugly bracket with more "play in" games.

The NCAA (and Dayton) have worked ridiculously hard to avoid the First Four from feeling like "play-in" games. But the perception is that the Tournament starts Thursday with 64 teams.

The only way to prevent that is giving us 128 teams, an extra week, and doing "the first two days of the NCAA tournament" (in all it's glory) for six of eight days.

(03-19-2024 12:05 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  I hear that, but 72-76 is just dumb. No one wants an ugly bracket with more "play in" games.

The NCAA (and Dayton) have worked ridiculously hard to avoid the First Four from feeling like "play-in" games. But the perception is that the Tournament starts Thursday with 64 teams.

The only way to prevent that is giving us 128 teams, an extra week, and doing "the first two days of the NCAA tournament" (in all it's glory) for six of eight days.

That's where we are going. With more play in games with an equal number of at large and AQ games.

There's another reason to drastically change the tournament and bring CBS/Turner and ESPN in to talk about how to make everyone more money:

The men's and women's tournaments are going head-to-head Friday through Sunday the first two weeks, and all the growth of women's TV ratings and attendance is IN SPITE of that.

There's dozens of format options that could basically give the TV partners double what they have now in terms of ad dollars if they sat down, looked at both tourneys as one big event that's shared and stopped competing.

You could shift the women's season earlier by three days, giving them opening weekend (in Nov) to themselves, launching the women's First Four after the men's Selection Show, having the Women's R64 start Monday and just give us six or seven straight days of games each week.

You could keep the one-day off from each other schedule, but take an extra day for each round and coordinate the TV schedule so you get less of each tourney each day competing with one another and an extra day we all just watch hoops.

My bet is that it goes to 76 with a First Dozen consisting of six matchups between conference champs and six matchups between the last twelve teams on the bubble to get in.

(03-20-2024 05:27 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  My bet is that it goes to 76 with a First Dozen consisting of six matchups between conference champs and six matchups between the last twelve teams on the bubble to get in.

“First Dozen” has a catchy, marketable ring to it.

Now bring on Hinkle and the Palestra to join Dayton.

(03-20-2024 05:52 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 05:27 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  My bet is that it goes to 76 with a First Dozen consisting of six matchups between conference champs and six matchups between the last twelve teams on the bubble to get in.

“First Dozen” has a catchy, marketable ring to it.

Now bring on Hinkle and the Palestra to join Dayton.

I was trying to think of places who would host, what about Albuquerque in The Pit? I figured you'd want a more western location for west teams traveling east or east/central teams who may have to travel out west if they win their play-in game.

(03-20-2024 05:52 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 05:27 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  My bet is that it goes to 76 with a First Dozen consisting of six matchups between conference champs and six matchups between the last twelve teams on the bubble to get in.

“First Dozen” has a catchy, marketable ring to it.

Now bring on Hinkle and the Palestra to join Dayton.

Don't forget the legendary curtained venue in hoops Mecca Frisco, TX

(03-18-2024 12:25 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-17-2024 10:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 02:03 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  I'm not necessarily gung ho on expansion, but if they're going to do it, they should do it right. Imho, that means a 96-team field. 31 AQ's going forward (the Pac-12 is dissolving), and 65 at-large bids.

Start the tournament Tuesday. Seeds 9-24 in each regional play in the first round. Seeds 1-8 in each regional have a first round bye. Get rid of the First Four (I've always thought that the concept of 11 seeds having to play in the First Four was ridiculous), don't expand it.

Part of the charm of the NCAA tournament is the upsets. This field will make upsets more likely imho. Current 16 seeds will be 24 seeds in the expanded field, only instead of having to face the 1 seed right off the bat, they'll start out with a 9 seed, then an 8 seed if they win that game. Those matchups make for more competitive games. On the other side of the coin, the 1 seeds will draw the 16-17 winner, but that will now be a team with a much stronger NET rating than they currently draw.

They’re not going to 96 teams.The power conferences want to expand it just enough to get a few more of their bubble teams, but not so much that a lot more non-power teams get in.

I have a suggestion for expanding the field to 72 teams, but changing the selection committee to one that only seeds the participants and sets the brackets.

After this year, there will be 31 D-I conferences. [bI would give 5 AQ to each of the power conferences (ACC, B12, B1G, BE, SEC), 2 AQ to each of the 5 mid-majors (AAC, A10, MVC, MWC, WCC), and 1 each to the 21 perennial one-bid leagues.

That's a total of 56 AQ. Have 16 at-large teams play in to reduce the field to the round of 64.[/b]

All teams are seeded in their conference tournaments. Using these seeds (which are based on regular season conference W-L records), the 56 AQ teams are determined as follows. Every CCT champion gets an AQ. That's 31 teams. In each of the mid-majors, the highest seeded non-tournament winner also gets an AQ (5). In each of the power conferences, the four highest seeded non-winners are AQ (20).

The 16 play-in teams are those with the highest ranking, using an average of at least three widely recognized services. Personally, I used the NET, KenPom and Massey Composite rankings compiled based on games completed by the day before Selection Sunday. This gives an opportunity for all regular season champions to earn their way in, even those from one bid leagues. In practice, it would be likely that most of these would come from the top ten conferences, which gives the TV networks more attractive games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Play-in winners are seeded #10-11 in the Round of 64. The rest of the field is seeded by their composite ranking using the same services described above. The seeding committee may move a team up or down by one seed to balance the brackets and/or help keep as many teams as possible closer to home for their first round game. What they can't do is use some sort of eye test to subjectively pick one team over another for inclusion in the field of 72 teams.

That's not even a possibility. Under NCAA rules, at least 1/2 of all available bids to any championship tournament must be at-large.

It will be interesting how fast expansion to 72 or 76 is accelerated after the tournament.