(03-13-2024 12:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I just don't see the power conferences agreeing to 76 where there are more games with at larges than the bottom conferences. I think that's DOA for the bigger conferences.

I agree. I think the bottom-8 champions and bottom-4 at-larges are being eliminated in the "First Dozen" round. That leaves 23 conference champions and 41 at-large in the Round of 64. So 1-bid champions on the 14-16 lines (wth play-ins on the 15/16). At-large play-ins on the 13-line. And 1-12 lines are all byes to the 1st Round.

(03-13-2024 12:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 12:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I just don't see the power conferences agreeing to 76 where there are more games with at larges than the bottom conferences. I think that's DOA for the bigger conferences.

I don’t know - I don’t think this is the same as the CFP where the power conferences are going to be quite as concerned. Even if there are 8 one-bid conference teams and 16 at-large teams in a play-in round, that’s still both (a) moving more one-bid leagues out of the main bracket and (b) adding more at-large spots for the power teams for both the play-in round and, by extension, the main bracket.

There’s a balance with the TV partners, too. CBS/Paramount and Turner/Warner Bros. aren’t exactly in the mood for spending more money on anything right now. For expansion to work, the TV partners need to fund it, so they’re not going to want the play-in round to be mostly one-bid leagues and fewer power teams. They’re going to insist upon it being the other way around. I think the power conferences understand this here: it’s less about selling an expanded tournament to the rest of the NCAA (where it seems like everyone wants it), but more about selling a format that CBS and Turner are going to willing to pay more money for here. This is where the competitive self-interest of the power conferences (where they want more teams directly in the main bracket) is in somewhat of a conflict with the financial self-interest of the power conferences (where additional TV money for the play-in round is realistically going to require more power teams to play in that round). Usually, the financial side wins.

It would be a different story if the NCAA Tournament rights were going up for open bidding soon, but that’s not happening until the 2030s. So, the power conferences have to make that play-in round more enticing to CBS and Turner if they’re going to pay for expansion.

I just don't think every region has to have the same number of play in teams. We don't have that now.

I think if we go to 76, adding 8 teams, we add 4 games with the at large teams(making 6), and we add 4 games with the AQ(also making 6).

72 is fine but no more.

(03-13-2024 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:58 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So besides more money and teams, why 76 specifically? And with 76, are we talking bottom 12 champs and bottom 12 at-large or bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large? Maybe bottom 10 champs and bottom 14 at-large as a compromise (top 2/3s of champs and at-large advance to main 64 team field).

76 teams would mean 24 teams playing 12 play-in games. In my own brain, it’s either going to be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams or the bottom 16 champs and bottom 8 at-large teams. This way, you’re getting an even distribution of bottom champ and at-large play-ins for each region.

My educated guess is that it would be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams. There has to be a balance between the number of power teams and small conference teams in the play-in round, with the realty is that more power teams in that round is going to help the TV negotiations much more. (That being said, just putting all conference champs automatically back in the main bracket is a non-starter.) The result would be each region would have 2 at-large play-in games and 1 bottom conference champ play-in game.

The more I think about it, I think Frank is right. If it's 8 champs and 16 at-large for 76 teams, a region will look like this most years.

1 seed playing bottom champ play-in (16 seed)
2-4 seeds play a mid-major champ (13-15 seeds)
5-6 seeds play a bottom at-large play-in (11-12 seeds)
7-10 seeds play each other (7 v. 10 and 8 v. 9)

I was skeptical about 76 teams, but as long as it keeps the bracket intact (especially filling out brackets), I could see some value added to the regular season despite adding teams because this adds tiers for seeds.

(03-13-2024 01:53 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:58 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So besides more money and teams, why 76 specifically? And with 76, are we talking bottom 12 champs and bottom 12 at-large or bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large? Maybe bottom 10 champs and bottom 14 at-large as a compromise (top 2/3s of champs and at-large advance to main 64 team field).

76 teams would mean 24 teams playing 12 play-in games. In my own brain, it’s either going to be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams or the bottom 16 champs and bottom 8 at-large teams. This way, you’re getting an even distribution of bottom champ and at-large play-ins for each region.

My educated guess is that it would be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams. There has to be a balance between the number of power teams and small conference teams in the play-in round, with the realty is that more power teams in that round is going to help the TV negotiations much more. (That being said, just putting all conference champs automatically back in the main bracket is a non-starter.) The result would be each region would have 2 at-large play-in games and 1 bottom conference champ play-in game.

The more I think about it, I think Frank is right. If it's 8 champs and 16 at-large for 76 teams, a region will look like this most years.

1 seed playing bottom champ play-in (16 seed)
2-4 seeds play a mid-major champ (13-15 seeds)
5-6 seeds play a bottom at-large play-in (11-12 seeds)
7-10 seeds play each other (7 v. 10 and 8 v. 9)

I was skeptical about 76 teams, but as long as it keeps the bracket intact (especially filling out brackets), I could see some value added to the regular season despite adding teams because this adds tiers for seeds.

the regions aren't universal right now. I don't think it needs to be universal if they went to 76. I just don't see the power conferences wanting to subject more of their teams to play in games.

I mean- get rid of Pac 12.....
31 auto bids, 37 at larges. 34-37 play now in Dayton

if you do 8/16, you have
31 auto bids, 45 at larges. 29-45 play in first games...

I don't see that flying with the power conferences one iota. Not for one second. 5 teams that currently go to the tourney now having to play first game? lol, not happening.

(03-13-2024 01:53 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:58 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So besides more money and teams, why 76 specifically? And with 76, are we talking bottom 12 champs and bottom 12 at-large or bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large? Maybe bottom 10 champs and bottom 14 at-large as a compromise (top 2/3s of champs and at-large advance to main 64 team field).

76 teams would mean 24 teams playing 12 play-in games. In my own brain, it’s either going to be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams or the bottom 16 champs and bottom 8 at-large teams. This way, you’re getting an even distribution of bottom champ and at-large play-ins for each region.

My educated guess is that it would be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams. There has to be a balance between the number of power teams and small conference teams in the play-in round, with the realty is that more power teams in that round is going to help the TV negotiations much more. (That being said, just putting all conference champs automatically back in the main bracket is a non-starter.) The result would be each region would have 2 at-large play-in games and 1 bottom conference champ play-in game.

The more I think about it, I think Frank is right. If it's 8 champs and 16 at-large for 76 teams, a region will look like this most years.

1 seed playing bottom champ play-in (16 seed)
2-4 seeds play a mid-major champ (13-15 seeds)
5-6 seeds play a bottom at-large play-in (11-12 seeds)
7-10 seeds play each other (7 v. 10 and 8 v. 9)

I was skeptical about 76 teams, but as long as it keeps the bracket intact (especially filling out brackets), I could see some value added to the regular season despite adding teams because this adds tiers for seeds.

I’m a fan of 64. However, if the bracket format stays the same, it will be a net plus for the top dozen conferences.

(03-13-2024 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:58 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So besides more money and teams, why 76 specifically? And with 76, are we talking bottom 12 champs and bottom 12 at-large or bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large? Maybe bottom 10 champs and bottom 14 at-large as a compromise (top 2/3s of champs and at-large advance to main 64 team field).

76 teams would mean 24 teams playing 12 play-in games. In my own brain, it’s either going to be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams or the bottom 16 champs and bottom 8 at-large teams. This way, you’re getting an even distribution of bottom champ and at-large play-ins for each region.

My educated guess is that it would be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams. There has to be a balance between the number of power teams and small conference teams in the play-in round, with the realty is that more power teams in that round is going to help the TV negotiations much more. (That being said, just putting all conference champs automatically back in the main bracket is a non-starter.) The result would be each region would have 2 at-large play-in games and 1 bottom conference champ play-in game.

You are stuck on thinking the extra games as being "play-in".

Expand to 88 which is roughly 25% of DI schools.

Top 40 get byes to second round (seeds 1 to 10).

First round on Tuesday and Wednesday: 11 v 22, 12 v 21, 13 v 20, 14 v 19, 15 v 18, 16 v 17.

1 vs. 16 is no longer hopeless (except when you have a B1G champion as #1).

Based on NET and an attempt to make regional match-ups you might have:

11/12 vs. 21/22

Cincinnati v Oakland
Mississippi State-Southern
Oklahoma-Lipscomb
Pitt-Norfolk State
WSU-EWU
Texas A&M-Merrimack
Drake-South Dakota State
Princeton-Fairfield

13/14 vs. 19/20

South Carolina-Charleston
Northwestern-Akron
Virginia-High Point
Utah-Vermont
Grand Canyon-Colgate
James Madison-Morehead State
SMU-Louisiana Tech
Virginia Tech-Samford

15/16 vs. 17/18

Iowa-K-State
McNeese-Memphis
Bradley-Butler
Ohio State-Xavier
Seton Hall-Oregon
UCF (FL)-Appalachian State
USF (CA)-UCI (CA)
Providence-Washington

(03-13-2024 08:40 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:58 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So besides more money and teams, why 76 specifically? And with 76, are we talking bottom 12 champs and bottom 12 at-large or bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large? Maybe bottom 10 champs and bottom 14 at-large as a compromise (top 2/3s of champs and at-large advance to main 64 team field).

76 teams would mean 24 teams playing 12 play-in games. In my own brain, it’s either going to be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams or the bottom 16 champs and bottom 8 at-large teams. This way, you’re getting an even distribution of bottom champ and at-large play-ins for each region.

My educated guess is that it would be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams. There has to be a balance between the number of power teams and small conference teams in the play-in round, with the realty is that more power teams in that round is going to help the TV negotiations much more. (That being said, just putting all conference champs automatically back in the main bracket is a non-starter.) The result would be each region would have 2 at-large play-in games and 1 bottom conference champ play-in game.

You are stuck on thinking the extra games as being "play-in".

Expand to 88 which is roughly 25% of DI schools.

Top 40 get byes to second round (seeds 1 to 10).

First round on Tuesday and Wednesday: 11 v 22, 12 v 21, 13 v 20, 14 v 19, 15 v 18, 16 v 17.

1 vs. 16 is no longer hopeless (except when you have a B1G champion as #1).

Based on NET and an attempt to make regional match-ups you might have:

11/12 vs. 21/22

Cincinnati v Oakland
Mississippi State-Southern
Oklahoma-Lipscomb
Pitt-Norfolk State
WSU-EWU
Texas A&M-Merrimack
Drake-South Dakota State
Princeton-Fairfield

13/14 vs. 19/20

South Carolina-Charleston
Northwestern-Akron
Virginia-High Point
Utah-Vermont
Grand Canyon-Colgate
James Madison-Morehead State
SMU-Louisiana Tech
Virginia Tech-Samford

15/16 vs. 17/18

Iowa-K-State
McNeese-Memphis
Bradley-Butler
Ohio State-Xavier
Seton Hall-Oregon
UCF (FL)-Appalachian State
USF (CA)-UCI (CA)
Providence-Washington

I don’t think that I’m stuck on it. It was already reported in multiple places last week that the power conferences were pushing for either 72 or 76 while they felt 80 was too large. Yormark is now directly saying that he wants 76. That appears to be where this is headed.

(03-13-2024 02:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 01:53 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:58 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  So besides more money and teams, why 76 specifically? And with 76, are we talking bottom 12 champs and bottom 12 at-large or bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large? Maybe bottom 10 champs and bottom 14 at-large as a compromise (top 2/3s of champs and at-large advance to main 64 team field).

76 teams would mean 24 teams playing 12 play-in games. In my own brain, it’s either going to be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams or the bottom 16 champs and bottom 8 at-large teams. This way, you’re getting an even distribution of bottom champ and at-large play-ins for each region.

My educated guess is that it would be the bottom 8 champs and bottom 16 at-large teams. There has to be a balance between the number of power teams and small conference teams in the play-in round, with the realty is that more power teams in that round is going to help the TV negotiations much more. (That being said, just putting all conference champs automatically back in the main bracket is a non-starter.) The result would be each region would have 2 at-large play-in games and 1 bottom conference champ play-in game.

The more I think about it, I think Frank is right. If it's 8 champs and 16 at-large for 76 teams, a region will look like this most years.

1 seed playing bottom champ play-in (16 seed)
2-4 seeds play a mid-major champ (13-15 seeds)
5-6 seeds play a bottom at-large play-in (11-12 seeds)
7-10 seeds play each other (7 v. 10 and 8 v. 9)

I was skeptical about 76 teams, but as long as it keeps the bracket intact (especially filling out brackets), I could see some value added to the regular season despite adding teams because this adds tiers for seeds.

the regions aren't universal right now. I don't think it needs to be universal if they went to 76. I just don't see the power conferences wanting to subject more of their teams to play in games.

I mean- get rid of Pac 12.....
31 auto bids, 37 at larges. 34-37 play now in Dayton

if you do 8/16, you have
31 auto bids, 45 at larges. 29-45 play in first games...

I don't see that flying with the power conferences one iota. Not for one second. 5 teams that currently go to the tourney now having to play first game? lol, not happening.

Oh - I get that the regions aren’t equal now. To paraphrase the great Dr. Ian Malcolm, just because they could doesn’t mean that they should.

It was 43 years ago, today.
https://www.si.com/college/2012/03/14/1981-madness

Another good article.
https://www.si.com/longform/princeton-ge...index.html

Here's an idea: let every division 1 college into the NCAA tournament. I was so looking forward to seeing Mississippi Valley State knock out Purdue. I mean, if Chicaco State can beat Northwestern, surely the Delta Devils can upset the Boilermakers.

Here's an idea: let's destroy conferences for the sake of football and then cry about not getting enough bids for our bloated basketball conferences.

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.

(03-14-2024 03:33 PM)Porcine Wrote:  It was 43 years ago, today.
https://www.si.com/college/2012/03/14/1981-madness

Another good article.
https://www.si.com/longform/princeton-ge...index.html

Loved the article. It was my first year in college. The tournament was madness. UVa won its final game in the NCAA Tournament. Unfortunately, it wasn’t for the championship. That was the last time that there was a consolation (third place) game.

This season could give the Major conferences more reason to justify expanding to 72 or 76.

Additionally, I noticed the Women's NIT was 64 teams, but is dropping to 48. If FOX is willing to pay for it (since they threatened to create their own tourney) and if the NCAA Tourney expands, why not expand the NIT to 44 or 48 teams to give them content, and bring back mid-major 1 seeds who missed the NCAA Tourney earning an autobid to the NIT.

On a personal note, I'm opposed because I already hate the Tuesday/Wednesday start because it gives me barely 2 days to fill out a bracket. More of them will just make it worse.

(03-17-2024 08:30 AM)bronconick Wrote:  On a personal note, I'm opposed because I already hate the Tuesday/Wednesday start because it gives me barely 2 days to fill out a bracket. More of them will just make it worse.

I don’t think more of them will really do anything for 99% of brackets where the play-in game participants are considered to be “one team” in the bracket (where it doesn’t matter who wins the play-in).

(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.

This has long been my preference, too — the First Four (or however many it ends up being) is too clunky. Byes for the top 32 teams is more streamlined and sensible.

Joe Lunardi argues 80 is the approximate cutoff after which selections seem more about padding out the field as opposed to including legitimate "NCAA Tournament calibre" teams

So I'd go:

1. Expand to 96 teams
1A. Expand to 80 teams
3. Remain at 68

(03-14-2024 03:33 PM)Porcine Wrote:  It was 43 years ago, today.
https://www.si.com/college/2012/03/14/1981-madness

Another good article.
https://www.si.com/longform/princeton-ge...index.html

I remember the 1981 tournament well. So many great events - US Reid's half court game winner, BYU and Danny Ainge's run to the regional final, the biggest one though was St Joe's upset of mighty DePaul (yes, for you youngsters, there was a time when DePaul was mighty).

Great tournament. And then the weirdness of the final being played the day President Reagan was shot.

Hey, one at-large is being added because the Big Ten killed the Pac. So there's that.