xubrew
09-20-2010, 01:08 PM
before you reply to this, please don't bother listing all of the reasons that this won't ever happen. i know it won't ever happen, and i know many of the reasons why. i just like talking about the concept.
it's the same concept as the bracket buster, but expanded on in a major way.
college basketball teams play thirty game schedules (29 for those that are in conference tournaments because that counts as one of the thirty games).
i think it would be great if three of those thirty games were determined by the ncaa to be played in late february. in other words, everyone would be placed in a group of four and play a round robin within that group as part of the regular season. no common opponents allowed within each group.
-like the bracket buster, the idea is to give teams a chance at a quality opponent late in the year. only instead of one chance, teams would get three, and instead of just the teams in non-major conferences, it would be everyone.
i believe the ideal make-up of the top sixty teams (fifteen groups), would be as follows...
-a team that appears positioned to be seeded #4 or better
-a team that appears to be solidly in, but not on the top line
-a bubble team that appears to be inside the bubble
-a bubble team that appears to be outside the bubble
as far as the 280+ teams that aren't in the top sixty...well...just place them in groups of four and try and keep everyone close to home. technically the bracket buster has over 100+ participants, but only 14 of the games are considered "media" games. this would be teh same concept. the main focus would be on teams who are in the tournament discussion.
my main motivation for this is a selfish one. i'd love it if good teams from bad conferences were given three shots to prove themselves late in the year. murray state and elon both appear have strong teams this year. murray was a second round team that nearly knocked off butler and elon nearly knocked off wisconsin. both return pretty much everyone. however, other than one bracket buster game, neither team gets a chance to really make a statement for themselves after about mid-december. the best thing they can hope for is that they don't stub their toes against a weak conference opponent and/or they win the conference tournament and don't need an at-large bid. this would change that, and give them three chances to either prove they belong in the at-large discussion, or solidify that they don't belong.
other potential benefits. i think it would make things a little more clear to the selection committee.
-i believe that it would create far more interest in college basketball during that part of the regular season than what currently exists. you would have a multitude of games with huge tournament implications all in one weekend. the ratings would be high.
-you get to see intriguing match-ups that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten to see (okay, that's another selfish reason). going off of my rough guidelines from earlier, some potential groups would have been: (kentucky, xavier, murray state, illinois) or (butler, utah state, west virginia, richmond) or (louisville, utep, saint mary's, duke) or...you get the idea. any number of combinations.
as far as where these would be played....well...i'm still working on that. you'd need 15 neutral sites (ideally) for the top fifteen groups. (you could play all other groups of four on someone's home court for all i care). similiar to the ncaas, you'd want to keep teams close to home if possible.
but, most importantly, you get intriguing games, and teams from lower level conferences who try to schedule tough opponents but can't get games on equal terms would be given the opportunity to play tough competition late in the year IF they've had an impressive enough season to play their way into the consensus top sixty.
i like it. it won't happen, but i like it. i've had this idea for awhile. i know compelling all 350+ teams to agree to this is a near impossibility. they don't want to sacrifice three of their thirty games. i just think it would be great if they did.
it's the same concept as the bracket buster, but expanded on in a major way.
college basketball teams play thirty game schedules (29 for those that are in conference tournaments because that counts as one of the thirty games).
i think it would be great if three of those thirty games were determined by the ncaa to be played in late february. in other words, everyone would be placed in a group of four and play a round robin within that group as part of the regular season. no common opponents allowed within each group.
-like the bracket buster, the idea is to give teams a chance at a quality opponent late in the year. only instead of one chance, teams would get three, and instead of just the teams in non-major conferences, it would be everyone.
i believe the ideal make-up of the top sixty teams (fifteen groups), would be as follows...
-a team that appears positioned to be seeded #4 or better
-a team that appears to be solidly in, but not on the top line
-a bubble team that appears to be inside the bubble
-a bubble team that appears to be outside the bubble
as far as the 280+ teams that aren't in the top sixty...well...just place them in groups of four and try and keep everyone close to home. technically the bracket buster has over 100+ participants, but only 14 of the games are considered "media" games. this would be teh same concept. the main focus would be on teams who are in the tournament discussion.
my main motivation for this is a selfish one. i'd love it if good teams from bad conferences were given three shots to prove themselves late in the year. murray state and elon both appear have strong teams this year. murray was a second round team that nearly knocked off butler and elon nearly knocked off wisconsin. both return pretty much everyone. however, other than one bracket buster game, neither team gets a chance to really make a statement for themselves after about mid-december. the best thing they can hope for is that they don't stub their toes against a weak conference opponent and/or they win the conference tournament and don't need an at-large bid. this would change that, and give them three chances to either prove they belong in the at-large discussion, or solidify that they don't belong.
other potential benefits. i think it would make things a little more clear to the selection committee.
-i believe that it would create far more interest in college basketball during that part of the regular season than what currently exists. you would have a multitude of games with huge tournament implications all in one weekend. the ratings would be high.
-you get to see intriguing match-ups that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten to see (okay, that's another selfish reason). going off of my rough guidelines from earlier, some potential groups would have been: (kentucky, xavier, murray state, illinois) or (butler, utah state, west virginia, richmond) or (louisville, utep, saint mary's, duke) or...you get the idea. any number of combinations.
as far as where these would be played....well...i'm still working on that. you'd need 15 neutral sites (ideally) for the top fifteen groups. (you could play all other groups of four on someone's home court for all i care). similiar to the ncaas, you'd want to keep teams close to home if possible.
but, most importantly, you get intriguing games, and teams from lower level conferences who try to schedule tough opponents but can't get games on equal terms would be given the opportunity to play tough competition late in the year IF they've had an impressive enough season to play their way into the consensus top sixty.
i like it. it won't happen, but i like it. i've had this idea for awhile. i know compelling all 350+ teams to agree to this is a near impossibility. they don't want to sacrifice three of their thirty games. i just think it would be great if they did.