What if the NCAA Tournament was the 64 best teams?

[Buffnik]

Here is how it might look for the seeds and matchups based on current RPI:

1 Arizona vs 16 St. Mary's
8 Oregon vs 9 Arizona State
5 Kentucky vs 12 Stanford
4 San Diego State vs 13 Nebraska
6 Gonzaga vs 11 Oklahoma State
3 Iowa State vs 14 Pittsburgh
7 Colorado vs 10 Baylor
2 Duke vs 15 Arkansas

1 Kansas vs 16 St. John's
8 Memphis vs 9 St. Joseph's
5 UCLA vs 12 Minnesota
4 Cincinnati vs 13 Missouri
6 St. Louis vs 11 Dayton
3 Syracuse vs 14 Providence
7 Ohio State vs 10 Kansas State
2 Creighton vs 15 Florida State

1 Florida vs 16 Stephen F. Austin
8 George Washington vs 9 BYU
5 Oklahoma vs 12 Tennessee
4 VCU vs 13 Xavier
6 Michigan State vs 11 SMU
3 Michigan vs 14 Belmont
7 Texas vs 10 Toledo
2 Wichita State vs 15 LSU

1 Villanova vs 16 Cal
8 UConn vs 9 Southern Miss
5 New Mexico vs 12 Harvard
4 UMass vs 13 Wisc-Green Bay
6 North Carolina vs 11 Iowa
3 Virginia vs 14 Georgetown
7 Louisville vs 10 North Dakota State
2 Wisconsin vs 15 Middle Tennessee State

Obviously, that would adjust based on conference affiliations and travel.

What does everyone think?

Are there better games in the opening round than we currently get?

Are there still enough mid-major Cinderella stories?

Does this do a better job of crowning a true champion?

Would this be a better tournament?

 

[cubuffs85]

It would be more "fair" it wouldn't be better. The upsets from schools we've never heard of is what makes the tourney so great. If you really wanted to do the RPI best 64, you might as well decrease the teams. I have counted the number of teams from major conferences but it would be even greater. If they moved the games to the home court of the better team, atleast you'd be making the regular season more important but as a one-off neutral site affair it gives the lesser team a much greater chance.

 

[cmgoods]

As someone who goes to Georgia State, I hate the format. Our RPI I think is in the 90s but there isn't 90 teams in the country better than us. If we have one loss early I'm the year, the rest of the season is pointless.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Buffnik]

Here would be the conference affiliations from this setup:

Pac-12 = 7
Big 12 = 7
Big 10 = 7
SEC = 6
Big East = 6
ACC = 6
A-10 = 6
AAC = 5
WCC = 3
C-USA = 2
MWC = 2
Ivy = 1
MVC = 1
Summit = 1
MAC = 1
Horizon = 1
OVC = 1
Southland = 1

Also, MAAC's best Iona is at 66 so would have a shot at getting in. I'd actually modify the selection so that if a conference's best team was in the RPI Top 85 they would get an auto-bid for that conference.

That would add Iona (66) from the MAAC, Delaware (75) from the Colonial, New Mexico State from the WAC (76), Georgia State from the Sun Belt (79), Boston U from the Patriot (80), and Mercer from the Atlantic Sun (81).

Those 6 additions would eliminate the following: St. Mary's, St. John's, Cal, Middle Tenn St, LSU, and Florida State.

I think that's the best mix of best teams while also respecting the little guys.

 

[cubuffs85]

Here would be the conference affiliations from this setup:

Pac-12 = 7
Big 12 = 7
Big 10 = 7
SEC = 6
Big East = 6
ACC = 6
A-10 = 6
AAC = 5
WCC = 3
C-USA = 2
MWC = 2
Ivy = 1
MVC = 1
Summit = 1
MAC = 1
Horizon = 1
OVC = 1
Southland = 1

Also, MAAC's best Iona is at 66 so would have a shot at getting in. I'd actually modify the selection so that if a conference's best team was in the RPI Top 85 they would get an auto-bid for that conference.

That would add Iona (66) from the MAAC, Delaware (75) from the Colonial, New Mexico State from the WAC (76), Georgia State from the Sun Belt (79), Boston U from the Patriot (80), and Mercer from the Atlantic Sun (81).

Those 6 additions would eliminate the following: St. Mary's, St. John's, Cal, Middle Tenn St, LSU, and Florida State.

I think that's the best mix of best teams while also respecting the little guys.

Ideally speaking over half the teams in any conference shouldn't get in the tournament in the first place. There's too many teams as it is the make March Madness. It's not realistic, but I'd decrease the total amount of teams before I add more major teams.

 

[Buffnik]

Ideally speaking over half the teams in any conference shouldn't get in the tournament in the first place. There's too many teams as it is the make March Madness. It's not realistic, but I'd decrease the total amount of teams before I add more major teams.

That would really get unfair to the major conferences if you reduced the size of the tournament while leaving all these auto-bids in place. I mean, look at the way Arizona recruits and then consider the fact that they play 8 guys. Take those 5 scholarship bench guys, make them the starters on a Southland team, and that's a conference champ. Does anyone here think that any of the 16 seeds is actually a better team than a Washington or Oregon State? Or a Maryland or NC State? Or an Indiana or Illinois? Part of the problem is that D1 has gotten too large.

 

[cubuffs85]

That would really get unfair to the major conferences if you reduced the size of the tournament while leaving all these auto-bids in place. I mean, look at the way Arizona recruits and then consider the fact that they play 8 guys. Take those 5 scholarship bench guys, make them the starters on a Southland team, and that's a conference champ. Does anyone here think that any of the 16 seeds is actually a better team than a Washington or Oregon State? Or a Maryland or NC State? Or an Indiana or Illinois? Part of the problem is that D1 has gotten too large.

It would be, but making the tournament doesn't save your job anymore. Whenever I see proposals to add teams that's always a reason. If anything you'd be devaluing it more.

As much as I like the tournament, it does water down the regular season. People complain about the lack of expanded tournament in college football; in college basketball, there's too many teams. And even if you want to get into the whole seeding argument, that doesn't matter as much as it once did.

I don't like the fact that half the teams make the playoffs in the NBA/NHL, I don't think finishing at the 50% percentile in your conference should be rewarded.

I think we all know it's about the best 42 teams or so than the 26 teams that get bids. Yes, D-1 is too big, it should probably split off like the FBS/FCS. But I love the fact that some school I've never heard of can try to knock off Kentucky.

 

[Buffnik]

It would be, but making the tournament doesn't save your job anymore. Whenever I see proposals to add teams that's always a reason. If anything you'd be devaluing it more.

As much as I like the tournament, it does water down the regular season. People complain about the lack of expanded tournament in college football; in college basketball, there's too many teams. And even if you want to get into the whole seeding argument, that doesn't matter as much as it once did.

I don't like the fact that half the teams make the playoffs in the NBA/NHL, I don't think finishing at the 50% percentile in your conference should be rewarded.

I think we all know it's about the best 42 teams or so than the 26 teams that get bids. Yes, D-1 is too big, it should probably split off like the FBS/FCS. But I love the fact that some school I've never heard of can try to knock off Kentucky.

You're arguing against yourself a bit here.

On the one hand, you're saying you love the Cinderella stories. Yet those are the cases where the regular season is completely meaningless. They can go undefeated in their conference regular season but have someone else get the conference bis by upsetting them in the conference tourney.

And if you don't have such a big tournament, which you say you don't like, then you're pretty much down to the auto-bids since they would make up the 32 bids.

What I'm talking about (especially in my follow-up post) would actually do a bit to make the regular season matter more since simply winning a conference tournament wouldn't be enough. A team would have had to do enough during the regular season to be an RPI Top 64 (or 85).

I like the Cinderella stories as much as anyone. But those stories don't happen with teams that have RPIs of 200 or worse and end up in the Dance. There's something illogical about a Bubble team from a major conference being left out because its resume shows a "bad loss" to a mid-major or low-major that gets in based on being the best of the crap basketball its conference plays.

 

[cubuffs85]

You're arguing against yourself a bit here.

On the one hand, you're saying you love the Cinderella stories. Yet those are the cases where the regular season is completely meaningless. They can go undefeated in their conference regular season but have someone else get the conference bis by upsetting them in the conference tourney.

And if you don't have such a big tournament, which you say you don't like, then you're pretty much down to the auto-bids since they would make up the 32 bids.

What I'm talking about (especially in my follow-up post) would actually do a bit to make the regular season matter more since simply winning a conference tournament wouldn't be enough. A team would have had to do enough during the regular season to be an RPI Top 64 (or 85).

I like the Cinderella stories as much as anyone. But those stories don't happen with teams that have RPIs of 200 or worse and end up in the Dance. There's something illogical about a Bubble team from a major conference being left out because its resume shows a "bad loss" to a mid-major or low-major that gets in based on being the best of the crap basketball its conference plays.

Yeah I realize I'm contradicting myself, I love the tournament but I don't think it's fair. Does that sum it up?

It's probably best to keep it as is, it was better when there were 64 teams, there was no good reason IMO to increase it to 65 or 68.

I'm not sure about that with the RPIs 200 or worse, I haven't studied it but teams like FGCU is what makes the Tournament great. And the day we see a 16 beating a 1 will be cause for celebration.

 

[cubuffs85]

The polls seems to indicate people don't want it to change FWIW.

 

[Buffnik]

The polls seems to indicate people don't want it to change FWIW.

People never want change. If you look at the opinions on changing college football, the arguments against are all the things they don't like about how college basketball de-emphasizes the regular season and how every game matters in college football. If you look at the opinions on changing college basketball, the arguments against are all the things about how the conference and NCAA tournaments are so much fun and you don't want to lose that.

I'm talking about balancing regular season importance with the fun of a tournament at the end of the season that is representative of the best beating the best to be crowned champion. (And my opinions are consistent if we talk about college football.)

 

[cubuffs85]

People never want change. If you look at the opinions on changing college football, the arguments against are all the things they don't like about how college basketball de-emphasizes the regular season and how every game matters in college football. If you look at the opinions on changing college basketball, the arguments against are all the things about how the conference and NCAA tournaments are so much fun and you don't want to lose that.

I'm talking about balancing regular season importance with the fun of a tournament at the end of the season that is representative of the best beating the best to be crowned champion. (And my opinions are consistent if we talk about college football.)

I don't agree that people don't want change -- although change can be hard -- seems the majority of people want a college football playoff. People want replay in sports.

Even if college basketball isn't fair, you can still like how fun it is like I do.

If we really wanted to be fair only non-major teams like Wichita, Gonzaga, and Harvard in some years would make the best 68. That's why I think the fairest way is probably going to the basketball version of the FBS and reducing the total amount of teams. But I don't want that.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

This was a discussion on Gameday this morning (I assume that's where you got the idea from). It's a good discussion. Yes it would be more indicative of the best 64 teams in the country playing for the right to win a national title, but I still like giving these no-name schools their shot. Some of the first and second round games might be closer but quite frankly I'm not all that thrilled about seeing more of the mid-to-lower tier teams in from the big conferences. Even with the 34 auto bids or however many it is, there's still plenty of spots for even marginal teams to make the dance. Just look at this year.

The one thing they should change is how the auto bids are handed out - it should go the regular season champion and not the conference tournament champion. Not only does this often knocks out the regular champ from a 1-bid league, it also gives an unfair shot to some team who simply doesn't deserve a shot at the NCAA tournament by simply getting hot for 3 games in a conference tourney.

 

[cubuffs85]

This was a discussion on Gameday this morning (I assume that's where you got the idea from). It's a good discussion. Yes it would be more indicative of the best 64 teams in the country playing for the right to win a national title, but I still like giving these no-name schools their shot. Some of the first and second round games might be closer but quite frankly I'm not all that thrilled about seeing more of the mid-to-lower tier teams in from the big conferences. Even with the 34 auto bids or however many it is, there's still plenty of spots for even marginal teams to make the dance. Just look at this year.

The one thing they should change is how the auto bids are handed out - it should go the regular season champion and not the conference tournament champion. Not only does this often knocks out the regular champ from a 1-bid league, it also gives an unfair shot to some team who simply doesn't deserve a shot at the NCAA tournament by simply getting hot for 3 games in a conference tourney.

A lot less fun and I think the regular season matters even matters less in that scenario for the major conferences, although it would be more for the mid-to-lower conferences because they couldn't rely on a week. Different topic as you addressed, but it's unfair those conferences reward a week versus the entire regular season in the first place so they can get their two hour showcase at some odd time on some network that you have to look at the TV listings for. I wouldn't mind it so much if the top 4 teams or so played in a mini-tournament and I like it better when they give home court advantage to the higher seed in these scenarios.

Ivy League does it right by doing the one-game neutral site tiebreaker in the event of a tie.

 

[Buffnik]

This was a discussion on Gameday this morning (I assume that's where you got the idea from). It's a good discussion. Yes it would be more indicative of the best 64 teams in the country playing for the right to win a national title, but I still like giving these no-name schools their shot. Some of the first and second round games might be closer but quite frankly I'm not all that thrilled about seeing more of the mid-to-lower tier teams in from the big conferences. Even with the 34 auto bids or however many it is, there's still plenty of spots for even marginal teams to make the dance. Just look at this year.

The one thing they should change is how the auto bids are handed out - it should go the regular season champion and not the conference tournament champion. Not only does this often knocks out the regular champ from a 1-bid league, it also gives an unfair shot to some team who simply doesn't deserve a shot at the NCAA tournament by simply getting hot for 3 games in a conference tourney.

:nod:

As usual, Bilas went overboard with his elitism. Digger couldn't think on his feet to mount a defense as self-proclaimed champion of the little guy. And they only used BPI to set their matchups.

But it had the makings of an intriguing debate.

 

[jgisland]

You couldn't use the RPI as the rating system, it's a descriptive measure not a predictive. You'd have to use a blend/combo of a predictive system (LRMC, Massey, BPI, KenPom or Sagarin). You'd want the #1 team to be favored over the #2 team and on down, with the RPI that wouldn't be the case.

 

[Buffnik]

You couldn't use the RPI as the rating system, it's a descriptive measure not a predictive. You'd have to use a blend/combo of a predictive system (LRMC, Massey, BPI, KenPom or Sagarin). You'd want the #1 team to be favored over the #2 team and on down, with the RPI that wouldn't be the case.

I agree with that. For instance, in the one I did above I think that Villanova as the #4 overall ended up with a less rigorous path to the Final Four than #1 overall Arizona. There's no one ratings system that's head and shoulders better than the others. They'd need to use a composite plus the human polls (which should maybe go to 40).

 

[rolandftw]

I wouldn't be a fan, because it would hurt the smaller conferences from getting a good shot at experiencing March Madness. It would be a better tournament as far as having more talented teams in it though.

 

[cubuffs85]

I wouldn't be a fan, because it would hurt the smaller conferences from getting a good shot at experiencing March Madness. It would be a better tournament as far as having more talented teams in it though.

I'm largely in agreement with this. I think the quality might be better but the intrigue wouldn't be there. Arguably the best day of the tournament is the first one since everyone is alive with their brackets. Well there would still be upsets it's a lot easier to pick NC State as a #12 seed than a non-brand name like Cleveland State.