NCAA Tourney Changes?

[NickRU714]

Want to keep AQ but not put them in the First Four?
Seed them higher.
Make every AQ seeded ahead of all at-large bids - like other sports do.
Actually make an AQ a reward then.

 

[The RUT]

There is a large % of fans that would lose at least some interest as soon as their team is out if it becomes a power conference only tournament.

#14 NC State vs #1 Kansas in the Sweet 16 is less interesting to me than #14 UNC Wilmington vs Kansas.

Agreed that fans would lose interest once their team gets knocked.

Completely disagree that NC State vs Kansas would be less interesting. My line of thinking is at least NC State has a chance to win

 

[Groz]

It is my hope that when the next inevitable expansion happens, they will rectify this by also giving autobids to outright conf winners if their NET is above 100. It’s horrible when teams that are 28-4 don’t get in because of one bad game.

The only reason that there are conference tournaments is to line the pockets of the conferences and supposedly create great interest in each tournament. In general, most teams are just looking forward to the NCAA tournament, rather than their respective tourneys.

Best of Luck,
Groz

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Agreed that fans would lose interest once their team gets knocked.

Completely disagree that NC State vs Kansas would be less interesting. My line of thinking is at least NC State has a chance to win

I think your overlooking an important factor. There are multiple round of 64 games going on all day. I don’t think your arguing here that that NC State match up is going to increase overall general interest in viewing the first round of the tourney, right? In general - outside of watching their own teams people flip channels among the games and spend more time watching the close games. I think your arguing that there is a higher probability that the NC state game ends up being close but that only matters if no other good first round games are on (and 14 seed mid majors put on a good show more than you think by the way even in losing efforts). I don’t think this change is getting that many more eyes on the first round of March Madness - if any. Regardless - it’s losing a massive, uncountable number of viewers in many games leading up to the tourney since basically every major conference team with half a pulse has punched their tickets and the difference between a 1 seed and a 3 seed is almost non-existent.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

The only reason that there are conference tournaments is to line the pockets of the conferences and supposedly create great interest in each tournament. In general, most teams are just looking forward to the NCAA tournament, rather than their respective tourneys.

Best of Luck,
Groz

For sure - but I don’t expect the conference tournaments to go away. If the push to get more SEC teams in becomes inevitable I’d rather see a 96 team model with the same autobids but a provision that requires selection of conference champs who accomplished a NET of a certain level before other At Large teams. There would still be open slots for more SEC teams. If the top 4 teams were protected to the round of 32 and the top 8 to the round of 64 the change would probably end up working - at least eventually in terms of national appeal. You’d still have a watered down at large bubble but not as much so. It would basically mean that the littlest guys that are currently 15-16 seeds would play 9-10 seeds for a spot in the round of 64. Top 8 finish would have a lot of meaning. The reveal of top 4 would also mean more and could really be hyped up.

 

[Russ Wood]

Ok, so?
Those coaches don’t make sense either then.

Simple yes/no:
The lowest seeds should be forced to play extra games.


If they are going to seed teams then how is making the lowest seeds play more a controversial idea?


Don’t want AQ in the “First Four”?
Then seed them higher.
Seed all AQ 1-32.
At-Large bids start at 33 to 68.

I didn't say I agreed with those coaches. In fact, I think it was dumb to increase the field from 64 to 68. But the NCAA could make more 💵 so 68 it is.

 

[Russ Wood]

There is a large % of fans that would lose at least some interest as soon as their team is out if it becomes a power conference only tournament.

#14 NC State vs #1 Kansas in the Sweet 16 is less interesting to me than #14 UNC Wilmington vs Kansas.

What if it was #14 NC State vs #1 Kansas in the elite eight? IIRC, that is the only way a 14-seed and a 1-seed would meet in the same region.

 

[RUtrumpet92]

What if it was #14 NC State vs #1 Kansas in the elite eight? IIRC, that is the only way a 14-seed and a 1-seed would meet in the same region.

I miscalculated by a round. Thanks for the correction. I still think it would be a bigger story to see someone from a lower tier conference playing for a spot in the Final Four than a P5 team that went on a postseason run.

 

[Nycrusupporter]

The only reason that there are conference tournaments is to line the pockets of the conferences and supposedly create great interest in each tournament. In general, most teams are just looking forward to the NCAA tournament, rather than their respective tourneys.

Best of Luck,
Groz

I personally believe the conference tournaments have directly contributed to a lot of upsets in the NCAA Tournament. All season long teams play a couple of games a week, and then during the conference championships, they all of a sudden play every day. Some teams are not affected by this, but certainly some teams are, and I think some of the upsets you see in the NCAA Tournament are directly correlated with some teams feeling blown out after the conference championships.

 

[Russ Wood]

I miscalculated by a round. Thanks for the correction. I still think it would be a bigger story to see someone from a lower tier conference playing for a spot in the Final Four than a P5 team that went on a postseason run.

I would be excited af to see if a 14-seed could, not only send a 1-seed home but, advance to the Final Four. But that's me.

Different strokes...😊