|
Post by JG Panthers on Mar 14, 2017 8:48:17 GMT -6
It's been awhile since I made a meaningful contribution to this board, and since the department itself has been such a dumpster fire over the past 12 months (years?), I haven't felt inspired to do so. With that said, I had an idea yesterday that I'm sure isn't original, but I thought I'd share anyways to generate some conversation. Here goes: Expand the field of 68 to 100 and get rid of the NIT, CBI & CIT. Also, let's limit or eliminate the powers of the selection committee. Instead, seed based on a composite rankings system, such as the Massey Ratings. I would keep the auto bid in place for conference tournament winners, and then fill in with at large teams based on their standing in the Composite Ratings. Also, you are automatically eliminated if you don't have a record above .500. Get the Georgetowns and Pitts and Tennessees of the world out of here. By doing these things, scheduling concerns for mid majors aren't as pronounced since there's more inclusion into the tournament. We've eliminated meaningless post-season tournaments and added a weekend of competitive games to create the NCAA 100. Also, let's stop calling them play-in games to eliminate the negative stigma with having to "play your way into" the field of 64. What do you guys think? How can we improve this even further? See the link below for my proposed 2017 NCAA 100 tournament. NCAA 100 on Google Sheets
|
|
|
Post by skrapheap on Mar 14, 2017 9:39:36 GMT -6
A top 100 appeals to me, but since the Men's NIT is 32 teams and the CBI is 16 (I don't know if any other tournaments are still viable; the Vegas 16 has already crapped out after one year), i think you'd get push-back because at least 16 fewer teams would have a chance at playing. Whether or not that push-back would be enough to scrap the plan, i don't pretend to know.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Mar 15, 2017 11:46:56 GMT -6
Absolutely love the concept, JG. I would just take it a half-step further and expand it to 128 teams, which would eliminate all byes and essentially assimilate all of the 132 teams currently playing in a postseason tournament somewhere.
As it presently stands, seeds are awarded too arbitrarily and there remains not nearly enough transparency in the selection process. I think that you're on to something that would work.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Mar 15, 2017 12:24:32 GMT -6
It's as good a suggestion as any. Mid-major programs are screwed year after year by the ridiculous selection process in favor of second-rate power 5 teams that go nowhere in the tournament anyway.
Not that it will help us when we drop to D3, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Mar 15, 2017 13:51:40 GMT -6
Let's go back to 64 and call it a day.
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Mar 18, 2017 11:43:51 GMT -6
Let's go back to 64 and call it a day. Hey man, not all of us have Marquette to root for too! 68 teams out of 351 is lower by percentage than any major postseason. And the difference between the top teams and the bottom teams gets smaller every year as more and more talent plays basketball. Upsets like Western Illinois at the Kohl Center were far more rare 20 years ago. I like JG's idea, but to eliminate the CBI and CIT they'd have to make it so those teams can get in, which means the 128 number brought up by ghostofdylan. The NCAA doesn't own those tournaments, or the Vegas 16 that may or may not come back next season. They do own the NIT. And with parity in the sport, it makes sense to eliminate the NIT and just fold it into the big dance. While it wouldn't make for a perfect bracket, the "NCAA 100" sounds super badass. Sent from my SM-G930R4 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Mar 19, 2017 7:57:10 GMT -6
Let's go back to 64 and call it a day. 68 teams out of 351 is lower by percentage than any major postseason. And the difference between the top teams and the bottom teams gets smaller every year as more and more talent plays basketball. Upsets like Western Illinois at the Kohl Center were far more rare 20 years ago. I like JG's idea, but to eliminate the CBI and CIT they'd have to make it so those teams can get in, which means the 128 number brought up by ghostofdylan. The NCAA doesn't own those tournaments, or the Vegas 16 that may or may not come back next season. They do own the NIT. And with parity in the sport, it makes sense to eliminate the NIT and just fold it into the big dance. While it wouldn't make for a perfect bracket, the "NCAA 100" sounds super badass. Sent from my SM-G930R4 using proboards Dayton doesn't feel like the tourney. I very much dislike the 16 seeds versus each other. Why does a 11 seed have to win 7 games for the title, but a 12 seed only needs to win six. Isn't all 351 teams in the tourney, when everyone starts fresh in the conference tourney?
|
|
|
Post by MKEPanthers45 on Mar 19, 2017 20:04:52 GMT -6
68 teams out of 351 is lower by percentage than any major postseason. And the difference between the top teams and the bottom teams gets smaller every year as more and more talent plays basketball. Upsets like Western Illinois at the Kohl Center were far more rare 20 years ago. I like JG's idea, but to eliminate the CBI and CIT they'd have to make it so those teams can get in, which means the 128 number brought up by ghostofdylan. The NCAA doesn't own those tournaments, or the Vegas 16 that may or may not come back next season. They do own the NIT. And with parity in the sport, it makes sense to eliminate the NIT and just fold it into the big dance. While it wouldn't make for a perfect bracket, the "NCAA 100" sounds super badass. Sent from my SM-G930R4 using proboards Why does a 11 seed have to win 7 games for the title, but a 12 seed only needs to win six. I have always wondered this myself.
|
|
|
Post by nickpanther on Mar 19, 2017 23:21:48 GMT -6
well the playins arent set at the 11 line, they vary, sometimes you have had 10 seed playins, other times 12. part of it is due to the split between low seeds (The 16s) and the last at larges in ( the 11, 12s etc). I think going to 80 ( and having playins at all 11, 12, 15, and 16 lines, would work. But anything fuirther than that, would dilute the field even more than it already is. 68 works well. remember , VCU made it to the Final 4 from the playin, under the old 64 format they would have missed the dance entirely
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Mar 20, 2017 9:28:25 GMT -6
Dayton doesn't feel like the tourney. I very much dislike the 16 seeds versus each other. Why does a 11 seed have to win 7 games for the title, but a 12 seed only needs to win six. Isn't all 351 teams in the tourney, when everyone starts fresh in the conference tourney? Not really. It's a nice sentiment, but it's not really accurate when everyone is in the same "sectional" from year-to-year and those "sectionals" are not close to being equal. I agree about the play-in games. In a 96, 100 or 128-team tournament, those "play-in" games would be all but eliminated. Getting a certain seed could afford you a bye, rather than a few teams getting stuck in the equivalent of remedial classes just to get in the Dance.
|
|
|
Post by nickpanther on Mar 21, 2017 13:02:53 GMT -6
The conference tournaments arent part of the NCAA tourney, but they do serve the purpose of Sectionals by winnowing out teams until you get the autobids handed out. For teams like Bucky, the conference tourney doesnt really matter, because they're getting in regardless of what happens. but for UWM, and to a lesser extent, Marquette they matter, Because they arent the 'Pencil them in" team Wisconsin is, for that matter, only a handful of teams are. If you expand the tournament, all you guarantee is the appearance streaks that are ongoing by Michigan St, Wisconsin, Gonzaga etc will basically continue indefinitely, they would have to go 4-14 in conference and lose 20 games in a season to not make it, and given the talent those schools have (and the conference Gonzaga plays in) thats very unlikely to happen. I do agree that Mid-majors should get more spots, but i think for that to happen, the RPI needs to go.
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Mar 21, 2017 19:35:10 GMT -6
The conference tournaments arent part of the NCAA tourney, but they do serve the purpose of Sectionals by winnowing out teams until you get the autobids handed out. For teams like Bucky, the conference tourney doesnt really matter, because they're getting in regardless of what happens. but for UWM, and to a lesser extent, Marquette they matter, Because they arent the 'Pencil them in" team Wisconsin is, for that matter, only a handful of teams are. If you expand the tournament, all you guarantee is the appearance streaks that are ongoing by Michigan St, Wisconsin, Gonzaga etc will basically continue indefinitely, they would have to go 4-14 in conference and lose 20 games in a season to not make it, and given the talent those schools have (and the conference Gonzaga plays in) thats very unlikely to happen. I do agree that Mid-majors should get more spots, but i think for that to happen, the RPI needs to go. Watch out there, you're gonna awake one of the Marquette demon lurkers like crazyfred, unclejohn or xtownfan.
|
|
|
Post by JG Panthers on Mar 22, 2017 13:33:56 GMT -6
I sometimes forget how beneficial a competitive post-season tournament can be for a young team like UIC. I wouldn't be opposed to leaving the CBI/CIT in place and just merging the NCAA/NIT. There are 68 teams in the NCAA tournament and another 32 in the NIT. 100 teams was my logic there.
|
|
|
Post by Super King on Mar 23, 2017 15:54:05 GMT -6
I do not believe the NCAA Tournament needs to be expanded. It would simply be too long, with too many games, early disinterest, and much smaller crowds. If anything, the NIT should expand. (It would also be fun to see an exhibition meeting between the NIT and NCAA champions just for kicks.)
However, the NCAA Tournament ABSOLUTELY needs to eliminate the horrific seeding system, which amounts to functionally rigging early-round games to ensure cash cows progress, and go to a randomized draw a la European soccer tournaments. It would alleviate the 30-point beatdowns that make the first round so unbearable -- and so demoralizing for mid-major programs -- and it would make selection Sunday much more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Mar 23, 2017 20:07:24 GMT -6
I do not believe the NCAA Tournament needs to be expanded. It would simply be too long, with too many games, early disinterest, and much smaller crowds. If anything, the NIT should expand. (It would also be fun to see an exhibition meeting between the NIT and NCAA champions just for kicks.) However, the NCAA Tournament ABSOLUTELY needs to eliminate the horrific seeding system, which amounts to functionally rigging early-round games to ensure cash cows progress, and go to a randomized draw a la European soccer tournaments. It would alleviate the 30-point beatdowns that make the first round so unbearable -- and so demoralizing for mid-major programs -- and it would make selection Sunday much more interesting. I'm all for the next season tipped off with the NCAA Champs at the NIT Champs. Gives a nice bonus for winning the NIT - if any postseason needs higher stakes, it's the NIT. Sent from my SM-G930R4 using proboards
|
|