Alternative to NCAA Tourney Expansion

[Michigan Muskie]

Personally, I think expanding the field to 96 teams weakens the tournament immensely. It also messes with an extremely popular time of year for the sport. Why ruin a great thing?

If you want to fairly recognize both the the regular season body of work (30+ games) but still also keep the conference tournaments meaningful, here is a solution:

1) Keep the NCAA field at 64 teams.

2) Require that in order to qualify for the NCAA Tournament, your team MUST have at least a .500 record in conference play. (kind of like Bowl qualification in football.)

3) The winner of the regular season conference title is guaranteed a spot in the NCAA tourney.

4) The winner of the conference tournament is guaranteed AT LEAST a spot in the NIT.

That means if someone like Duquesne or St. Joe's had gotten hot this weekend and won the A-10 tourney, they would be rewarded with an NIT bid, but not NCAA because they didn't finish with a .500 or better record in A-10 reg. season play.

Under this system, it's certainly possible for both the regular season champs and tourney champs to get NCAA bids. In fact, in most conferences, that's a given even in the current system.

Rationale: This eliminates those teams who really aren't that good, as proven by an entire body of work through the course of a 30-game season, but just found a way to win their conf. tournament. Chances are, with the current system, they'd get seeded somewhere in the 14-16 range and get blown out by the 1-3 seed anyway. What good does that do the team, and how fair is that to represent their conference?

But, to keep these teams motivated to play well in their conf. tournaments, they know they are guaranteed a spot in the NIT if they win the tournament. I think for most teams, the goal is to qualify for post-season play. So if they finish the season with a sub .500 record in conf. play, they know the tournament is their only hope to extend their season. Motivation problem solved.

This strengthens the overall NCAA tournament field because you know every team will have a winning record in their conference.

Who loses? Big power conference schools who sometimes sneak into the tourney with a 7-9 conference record. I say good riddance. If you lose 9 games in your own conference, that means there are 8 teams better than you in the tournament from your conference alone. How far are you really going to go and does your conference need more representation? Buh bye.

PRIME EXAMPLE:
Take Georgia in 2008 when they got hot and won the SEC championship. They had a regular season record of 14-16 and only 5-11 in the SEC. They did not belong in the NCAA tournament, but the current system rewarded them with an auto bid. They were promptly sent home by some team from Ohio.

Why waste a spot for them when it could have gone to VCU who finished 24-8 overall and 15-3 in their conference (a full three games ahead of 2nd place George Mason). George Mason beat VCU in the final game of the CAA tourney and got the auto bid. In this alternate format, Georgia would have been rewarded with an auto bid to the NIT for winning the SEC tournament and likely both VCU and GM would have been invited to the big stage due to the slot vacated by Georgia. At the very worst, George Mason would have received an auto bid to the NIT for winning their tourney. Is that fair to G.M? Well, they did finish the season with an RPI around 60 - so debatable. By the way, Georgia had an RPI over 100 and VCU at 54. So to recap, three teams had RPIs of 54, 60, and 111. The two at 60 and 111 went to the NCAA Tournament and the team with the 54, who also won its regular season conf. title by a whopping 3 games, was sent to the NIT.

My work is done here.

[Porkopolis]

I like it. The regular season would hold much more meaning, while the conference tourney would still offer a shot at redemption. On the Marshall board I post on someone actually said they would rather win the conference tourney after a losing season than go 23-9 and lose in the C-USA tourney quarters like they did this year. That mentality shows how devalued the regular season is due to the auto-bid process. your thoughts would do a lot to rectify the situation.

[XmAn06]

Quite a well thought out argument... and with factual evidence to back it up!

Nicely done - one of the more intriguing alternatives I've heard...

[Michigan Muskie]

One issue that could arise: Conference co-champions.

Both X and Temple are going to get invited to the NCAA tourney this year, but if this were the CAA circa 2007-08, how would you decide who gets the auto bid to the NCAA tourney?

My solution would be - if either of the two co-champs wins the conference tournament, that is the first tie-breaker. Makes the tourney even more interesting. If any other team would win the conference tourney, you use a predetermined set of tie breakers such as head to head play and so forth.

[theprofessor]

I tend to disagree. The hope of getting into the NCAA tourney adds to the excitement leading up to it, a bid in the NIT just wouldnt be the same. I don't shed many tears for the VCU type teams that get left out.

If they expand, I would prefer replacing the play-in game with a set of 8 teams playing for the 4 12 seed spots in the tourney (ie, the last 4 in play the first 4 out on tuesday), this would expand the field from 65 to 68.

[Michigan Muskie]

I tend to disagree. The hope of getting into the NCAA tourney adds to the excitement leading up to it, a bid in the NIT just wouldnt be the same.

A bid to the NIT isn't as exciting as a bid to the NCAA. But for a team that has NO SHOT at an NCAA at-large bid, I think the chance to earn an auto-bid to the NIT would provide enough excitement for them.


I don't shed many tears for the VCU type teams that get left out.

This argument suggests you think Georgia (14-16, 5-11, RPI 111) deserved an NCAA bid over VCU (24-8, 15-3 RPI 54) in 2008. I'm not saying you're wrong, because it's a matter of opinion.


If they expand, I would prefer replacing the play-in game with a set of 8 teams playing for the 4 12 seed spots in the tourney (ie, the last 4 in play the first 4 out on tuesday), this would expand the field from 65 to 68.

I like this idea, too. There are certainly multiple alternative options, but I see no need to expand to 96 teams. The NCAA tournament already has an expansion and it's called the NIT. Use it wisely.

[X-band '01]

I think it's better to eliminate the NIT if they do indeed go to 96 teams. What I would do is give each of the regular season champions and conference tournament champions auto bids. If you win both, you get an automatic bye into the field of 64, even if you're Coppin State or Lehigh.

[Michigan Muskie]

Well yeah, if they expand to 96 teams then the NIT is even more devalued than it is currently. However, in the system I outlined, the NCAA tourney field remains at 64.

[PM Thor]

I think it's better to eliminate the NIT if they do indeed go to 96 teams. What I would do is give each of the regular season champions and conference tournament champions auto bids. If you win both, you get an automatic bye into the field of 64, even if you're Coppin State or Lehigh.

If (and Gawd I hope they never do) go to 96 teams, the NIT would be smart to change their format into hosting the top 16 returning teams from the previous NCAA tourney in their preseason tourney. Take the Sweet 16 from the prior year and have them go at it in the next years NIT.

I just came up with that.

[joebba]

If they do consider expanding to 96 teams maybe enough programs with a lot a sense will say this is BS and not accept NCAA bid and go to NIT and then the NIT will become the premier tourney again.

I am only being half serious here. I am very much against a 96 team tourney. The NCAA needs to implement a DIV I football playoff first.

Any expansion to 96 teams smacks of greed to me.

[Michigan Muskie]

If they do consider expanding to 96 teams maybe enough programs with a lot a sense will say this is BS and not accept NCAA bid and go to NIT and then the NIT will become the premier tourney again.

I am only being half serious here. I am very much against a 96 team tourney. The NCAA needs to implement a DIV I football playoff first.

Any expansion to 96 teams smacks of greed to me.

I like the way you think here. The only reason to expand to 96 teams is MONEY. So screw 'em and campaign for an NIT invitation instead. A revolt of the highest scale!

And yes, fix football first. Why are we even messing with the current format? PEOPLE LIKE IT!

[smileyy]

Of course it's about greed. Well, money, but that's basically the same thing.

These comments kind of sound like biting the hand that feeds you.

[Michigan Muskie]

Houston upset UTEP to win the C-USA tournament. Their overall record is 19-15 and they finished 7-9 in the conference. Their RPI of 112 is actually worse than Sam Houston State.

Under the Michigan Muskie Alternative, Houston would have just earned themselves an invitation to the NIT based on their 7-9 conference record. They do not belong in the NCAA tournament with those credentials.

Meanwhile, a team like Rhode Island or UAB who finished 11-6 in C-USA (4 games better than Houston) will be left behind.

Adopt the MMA and all will be right in the college basketball world.

[xu05usmc]

Not allowing teams sub .500 in conference play really does nothing. Why not just eliminate conference tournaments and just award auto-bids to regular season conference champions, and make each conference have tie breakers in case of a tie (i.e. head to head match-up, rpi ranking, ect.).

The main problem with conference tournaments are that players miss too much class time, at a very important time for some of them. The schools on a quarter system (e.g. Ohio St., Ohio U, UC) all have finals next week. So they miss a week of class before finals, which really doesn't help them out much. Schools on semesters, well they still miss a week of class, and up to nearly 3 consecutive whole weeks if they advance to the Sweet 16 (since most teams travel Tuesday for a Thursday game).

Basically disband conference tournaments. Grant Auto-Bids to regular season conference winners.

If they expand to 96 teams seed the conference winners 1-32, give them byes, then seed the the next 64 so they fall in line accordingly.

[Michigan Muskie]

Not allowing teams sub .500 in conference play really does nothing. Why not just eliminate conference tournaments and just award auto-bids to regular season conference champions, and make each conference have tie breakers in case of a tie (i.e. head to head match-up, rpi ranking, ect.).

The main problem with conference tournaments are that players miss too much class time, at a very important time for some of them. The schools on a quarter system (e.g. Ohio St., Ohio U, UC) all have finals next week. So they miss a week of class before finals, which really doesn't help them out much. Schools on semesters, well they still miss a week of class, and up to nearly 3 consecutive whole weeks if they advance to the Sweet 16 (since most teams travel Tuesday for a Thursday game).

Basically disband conference tournaments. Grant Auto-Bids to regular season conference winners.

If they expand to 96 teams seed the conference winners 1-32, give them byes, then seed the the next 64 so they fall in line accordingly.

You're arguing a different topic. It's not about student athletes missing class time. It's about weakening the overall strength of the field if it expands from 64 to 96 teams. The current system doesn't address class time, and the Michigan Muskie Alternative doesn't either, because it's not part of this equation.

I'm not saying your opinion on this issue isn't worthy - it's just not relevant to this proposal.

[wkrq59]

First Michigan Muskie's proposal will never work. Why? Because it makes too much sense and the NCAA never, repeat never does anything that makes too much sense.
Second, you'll never get rid of the conference tournaments because why? Same reason the NCAA field will expand to 96 or some more teams--M O N E Y!!! Many, almost all, depend on that conference tournament revenue to make the nut and give them what makes the most difference in a successful program, TV exposure that will aid recruiting. I'll venture to say a number of Xavier's recruits in the past would never have come to X if they hadn't seen some of X's finest games ("Do it, BJ, Do it," remember?).
Those who oppose the expansion, and I'm one of them, forget one huge thing--the NCAA owns the NIT. Both pre-season and post-season. The NCAA could if it wished elminate the post-season NIT, and bring back the previous Round of 32 Teams to open the season. But that would probably eliminate the Maui, the Orlando tournament X played in, the Puerto Rico classic and all the other season-opening tourneys, especially those in Hawaii.
But say they do make the NCAA men's tournament a true MARCH MADNESS (and it would be mad indeed,) how about changing it from March Madness to A Mid-Winter's Nightmare and start the post-season tourneys the last week or two in February and begin the season in October rather than November?
Then August, September and October could truly be the cruelest months--with baseball season closing and the World Series, the NFL opening and in full swing, the NBA and NHL kicking off their seasons, college football (all divisions) in full swing and the golf tournaments hitting their peak and NASCAR and the IRL going full blast or winding down. Talk about a TV scheduling nightmare.
Hey, how about Mission Impossible 7, 8 and 9?
But count on one thing. where there is money to be made, the NCAA will make it and all the time declare there are such animals as student athletes.:D:D:D