Idea for NCAA Tournament

[Navin R. Johnson]

How about expand the NCAA tournament to 128 teams?  Do away with the NIT and other tournaments.  Have 8 teams play at one site the first week on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday or on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday.  It would be just one more game and they have the play in games those dates anyway.  If you are not in one of the top 128 teams you really don't have much of an argument about not getting in.  Just an idea.  Fire away if you want to slam me for it.

[HuskerFever]

Does the national championship football team and their school's intramural teams get invited to the tournament as well?

[LNKtrnsplnt]

Lunardi to NEB re:128 team field ‘next four out’

[uneblinstu]

I think I’d prefer to get rid of the play in games and go back to the original 64 team bracket rather than double the size of the field. 

[Huskerpapa]

Do away with the automatic qualifiers.  The best 64 (or 68) teams should vie for the NCAA championships.  The bottom tier conference teams can/should qualify for the NCAA tournament if their body of work qualifies them.  If not, they can move to the NIT tournament. 

 

Sure, sure, sure, you see the occasional David slaying Goliath.  But I would rather see the top 68 teams display their talent...

[hskr4life]

If you are expanding, then keep the AQ.  I agree that something needs to be done about the best teams not getting in.

 

If you are going to go back to 64, then drop the AQ and let the best 64 teams in.

 

I had an idea that any 1 bid conference that is deemed not to have made it into the tourney under normal circumstances has to play a play in game on Tuesday or Wednesday.  Then the best 64 teams get in and the AQ is somewhat kept.

[Navin R. Johnson]

I like the idea of giving the Mid-majors a chance to qualify for the tournament but I also feel teams like this year's Huskers were left out because of the AQ teams.  If you expand the tourney it would allow both in and they could prove their worth in the tournament. Also, we already have the NIT, CIT and CBI tournaments which puts you up to 64 extra teams in.  It seems to work for college football bowl games.  I think expanding would just add more excitement.  Wouldn't you have been more excited to see Nebraska as a 60-70 some seed in the NCAA than in the NIT?

[hskr4life]

7 minutes ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

I like the idea of giving the Mid-majors a chance to qualify for the tournament but I also feel teams like this year's Huskers were left out because of the AQ teams.  If you expand the tourney it would allow both in and they could prove their worth in the tournament. Also, we already have the NIT, CIT and CBI tournaments which puts you up to 64 extra teams in.  It seems to work for college football bowl games.  I think expanding would just add more excitement.  Wouldn't you have been more excited to see Nebraska as a 60-70 some seed in the NCAA than in the NIT?

 

I like expanding and getting rid of the lesser tier tournaments.  Especially for Power 5 teams, no one wants to be in the NIT.

[uneblinstu]

Not a fan of getting rid of the AQs. 

[hskr4life]

7 minutes ago, uneblinstu said:

Not a fan of getting rid of the AQs. 

 

Yeah, me either.  Which I think is why the tourney needs expanded.  I have been on that train for years though.

 

However, I will say that your always going to have a team pissed cause they were the "first 4 out"

Edited March 16, 2018 by hskr4life

[NUPHAN]

1 hour ago, huskercwg said:

Do away with the automatic qualifiers.  The best 64 (or 68) teams should vie for the NCAA championships.  The bottom tier conference teams can/should qualify for the NCAA tournament if their body of work qualifies them.  If not, they can move to the NIT tournament. 

 

Sure, sure, sure, you see the occasional David slaying Goliath.  But I would rather see the top 68 teams display their talent...

 

This x 1,000. Felt this way long ago and has nothing to do with NU being on the bubble this year. I'd rather it be best 64 teams and also do away with the "play in games." You either make the tournament and play on Thursday/Friday or you don't.

Edited March 16, 2018 by NUPHAN

[Huskerpapa]

4 minutes ago, NUPHAN said:

 

This x 1,000. Felt this way long ago and has nothing to do with NU being on the bubble this year. I'd rather it be best 64 teams and also do away with the "play in games." You either make the tournament and play on Thursday/Friday or you don't.

Welcome

 

[HuskerFever]

Or what if we did a round robin with the other 346 teams? Then you really know who's the better team.

[jason2486]

My thought was incorporating the NIT in some way as a play-in tourney. It would generate a ton of money, and it would make it relevant again, especially with some many bubble teams in years like this. My original thought was the winner of the NIT plays the winner of the NCAA, but the NIT gets treated like the losers' bracket of the College World Series and has to beat the NCAA champion twice, whereas the NCAA winner just has to win once. 

 

Then a friend of mine, who is also a member on this board, suggested having the NIT Elite 8 being teams 61-68 instead, so that'd be your Dayton play-in games. I like both ideas. With the NIT elite 8 deal, conference tourneys and selection Sunday would have to change obviously.

[demone]

This is an interesting topic and boy, do I have some mixed feelings:

 

I like the AQ but have always wondered why the AQ bid is given to the conference tourney winner vs. the regular season winner. I think you prove yourself more over the course of the conference season vs. getting hot for a 3-4 days to win the conference tourney. This, of course, only truly works out if you have a 'balanced' schedule.

 

I also like the smaller schools having a chance to get in and do some damage. Buffalo is just the latest example from last night.

 

Could you do a moderate expansion to say, 80 without going all the way to 128? Perhaps expand the "play-in" round to 16 teams (4 per region) and make it a 4-team playoff to get into each regional? 

[hskr4life]

9 minutes ago, jason2486 said:

My thought was incorporating the NIT in some way as a play-in tourney. It would generate a ton of money, and it would make it relevant again, especially with some many bubble teams in years like this. My original thought was the winner of the NIT plays the winner of the NCAA, but the NIT gets treated like the losers' bracket of the College World Series and has to beat the NCAA champion twice, whereas the NCAA winner just has to win once. 

 

Then a friend of mine, who is also a member on this board, suggested having the NIT Elite 8 being teams 61-68 instead, so that'd be your Dayton play-in games. I like both ideas. With the NIT elite 8 deal, conference tourneys and selection Sunday would have to change obviously.

 

The final four teams in the NIT in previous year are guaranteed a spot in the play in game the following year.  If any or all of the teams that were final four in the NIT year before are higher seeded than in the NCAA the next year, you select extra bubble teams to fill the field.

[uneblinstu]

I guess I just don’t see much wrong with the format as it stands. I’d personally get rid of the play in games but I don’t think they’re going anywhere. I’d at least like to see them not have AQs play in those games. Make them all true playin games. Make the last 8 at-large spots play for the opportunity to play in the big bracket.  64 teams and having two rounds on three consecutive weekends is about the perfect formula. I don’t really think you need to tinker with it too much. 

[HuskerFever]

32 minutes ago, uneblinstu said:

I don’t think they’re going anywhere.

 

Yeah, they were very adamant about branding it as the "First Round" from the very beginning (instead of "Play-In Game"). So from that point I figured they would try to expand the field at some point in the future.

[49r]

4 hours ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

How about expand the NCAA tournament to 128 teams?  Do away with the NIT and other tournaments.  Have 8 teams play at one site the first week on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday or on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday.  It would be just one more game and they have the play in games those dates anyway.  If you are not in one of the top 128 teams you really don't have much of an argument about not getting in.  Just an idea.  Fire away if you want to slam me for it.

 

If you did it that way you'd have to have 8 GAMES (not teams) in the first round at each site, and in order to do that you'd need to play games from like 6 am to midnight or host cities would need to have two venues to play in for that first day.

 

Or each of the host cities could have games on every day of the first week like this:

-4 games Tuesday

-4 games Wednesday

-Tuesday winners play on Thursday

-Wednesday winners play on Friday

-First sweet 16 qualifying game on Saturday

-Second sweet 16 qualifying game on Sunday

 

Problem with all of it though is each host city would need to have enough hotel capacity within a close distance to host 16 teams, their staffs and fans.  It'd be a logistics nightmare.  Maybe a better solution would be to play that first game at the higher seed's home arena.

[HuskerFever]

22 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

If you did it that way you'd have to have 8 GAMES (not teams) in the first round at each site, and in order to do that you'd need to play games from like 6 am to midnight or host cities would need to have two venues to play in for that first day.

 

Or each of the host cities could have games on every day of the first week like this:

-4 games Tuesday

-4 games Wednesday

-Tuesday winners play on Thursday

-Wednesday winners play on Friday

-First sweet 16 qualifying game on Saturday

-Second sweet 16 qualifying game on Sunday

 

Problem with all of it though is each host city would need to have enough hotel capacity within a close distance to host 16 teams, their staffs and fans.  It'd be a logistics nightmare.  Maybe a better solution would be to play that first game at the higher seed's home arena.

 

This would likely replace the conference tournaments, right?

[tcp]

abolish conferences. start a triple elimination national tourney at the beginning of the year! think of the excitement! If your team really sucks, it'll be a super short season. If they're decent, they could be playing until July! Awesome! 

 

(runs away)

[hskr4life]

1 hour ago, tcp said:

abolish conferences. start a triple elimination national tourney at the beginning of the year! think of the excitement! If your team really sucks, it'll be a super short season. If they're decent, they could be playing until July! Awesome! 

 

(runs away)

 

My head hurt trying to think of the size of that gosh darn bracket.

[Handy Johnson]

Is there some way we can get Nebraska Wesleyan in?

[Navin R. Johnson]

2 hours ago, 49r said:

 

If you did it that way you'd have to have 8 GAMES (not teams) in the first round at each site, and in order to do that you'd need to play games from like 6 am to midnight or host cities would need to have two venues to play in for that first day.

 

Or each of the host cities could have games on every day of the first week like this:

-4 games Tuesday

-4 games Wednesday

-Tuesday winners play on Thursday

-Wednesday winners play on Friday

-First sweet 16 qualifying game on Saturday

-Second sweet 16 qualifying game on Sunday

 

Problem with all of it though is each host city would need to have enough hotel capacity within a close distance to host 16 teams, their staffs and fans.  It'd be a logistics nightmare.  Maybe a better solution would be to play that first game at the higher seed's home arena.

 

My plan was to have 8 teams at one site, which would be four first round games. Some sites would start on Tuesday the others on Wednesday. You would need 16 sites which I would not think would be a problem. I thought about the conference tournaments being too close to the start of the tournament. Move them up a couple days. 

[aphilso1]

In light of tonight's UMBC vs Virginia game, any plans to toss out AQ's are clearly not going to gain much traction.