Improvement on March Madness

[hifigator]

Personally, I have never been a fan of the "play-in" game. I think it does nothing positive, in and of itself. But there are some slight secondary benefits. The two teams are featured on TV, where they can get some publicity and some revenues for their strapped athletic budget. Ohter than that, I guess there is a slight benefit, in one more pseudo-legitimate team getting a birth, but overall I just think it's kind of silly. But given that we have one, then I think we could improve on the system significantly.

I propose 4 play-in games, with each winner getting a 16 seed. Let's face it, the play-in winner is getting a 16 seed because the competing teams have zero chance of beating a #1 seed. So why not feature 8 of these tiny conference winners paired together in 4 contests. Most of these conferences had their tournaments last week, not just this past weekend, so I don't think it would be very difficult for the committee to determine those 8 teams in advance. They could reveal those 8 spots by last Friday for example. Then travel arrangements could be made. I would propose that the 4 games be played in two regional sites, each hosting 2 games.

If we did this, then those four games could be featured as double headers on ESPN and ESPN2 for example. Again that would give exposure and revenues to these little schools and conferences that desparately need them. That would also make it more a "part" of the tournament instead of some oddball stray game stuck out by itself. That would allow these small schools a legitimate and realistic shot at WINNING a tournament game. It would essentially turn what amounts to a spectacle of no real purpose into a real event. Additionally, there would be 6 more spots for teams that have a realistic shot at actually winning a game or two in the rest of the tourney.


Again, I don't like the play-in game in general, but given that we have it, then I think this would be a drastic improvement.


THoughts?

[HeartAttackHoya]

on a national level, it would be good if they could move up labor day for it to coincide with march madness. for now, we'll have to resort to closing the office door and watching on our screens.

[jgalt]

128 teams, no NIT, no CBI, no CIT, no complaints. In every other sport about 50% of teams make the playoffs. Why not CBB?

[lightbulbbandit]

Mar 16, 2009 17:09:55 GMT -5 jgalt said:

128 teams, no NIT, no CBI, no CIT, no complaints. In every other sport about 50% of teams make the playoffs. Why not CBB?

Cause I would rather not read an article asking whether Depaul's win in the first round of the Big East Tourney was enough to get them off the bubble and into the tournament.

[The Stig]

I like the idea of a play-in game for each region. But that would diminish the value of the auto-bid, since 8 'auto-bid' teams would be stuck in the play-in game.

Instead, I think they should put every auto-bid team in the tournament proper. Give the play-in spots to the last 8 at-large teams in the tournament. Have them enter the tournament as a 12 seed, or whatever the last at-large team usually gets.

[bmartin]

The play-in game is evil. Let both of those small conference champs play in a real first round game and take away one at-large. The play-in game was put in when the WAC split so the NCAA could give the Mountain West an automatic bid without taking away an at-large. I would rather let Alabama State and Morehead State each get to be slaughtered by a #1 seed than make them play in so that Arizona gets a bid they didn't earn.
If you can't bear to give up an at-large then I like Stig's idea to let 8 bubble teams play for the four 12 seeds.

[hifigator]

Mar 16, 2009 22:35:08 GMT -5 bmartin said:

The play-in game is evil. Let both of those small conference champs play in a real first round game and take away one at-large. The play-in game was put in when the WAC split so the NCAA could give the Mountain West an automatic bid without taking away an at-large. I would rather let Alabama State and Morehead State each get to be slaughtered by a #1 seed than make them play in so that Arizona gets a bid they didn't earn.
If you can't bear to give up an at-large then I like Stig's idea to let 8 bubble teams play for the four 12 seeds.

I totally agree with your sentiment towards the play-in game, at least as it is now. But IF we are going to have a play-in game, then I am trying to come up with an improvement to the system as it is. The more I think about it, the more I really like my suggestion. Again, I just don't see much downside. To reiterate, the key components to my proposal is that the total teams involved will increase from 65, as it is now, to 68. The top 15 seeds will be determined in whatever fashion that they are now. The remaining 8 teams -- the weakest automatic bids -- will compete in the first round of the tournament, which would be held today, theoretically. Those 4 games would be held in two venues, with 2 games at each site. The 4 winning teams would earn the 16 seed. Under this proposal, here are some of the benefits:


1. Instead of the oddball play-in game, which is totally irrelevant, 8 small schools from small conferences would get their time in the sun, giving them exposure and revenues for their athletic budgets.

2. Those small schools would now have a very realistic chance to actually win a tournament game.

3. Three more at large bids would be available for teams that have at least a conceivable chance of pulling off a win or two, instead, without stealing the opportunity, remote though it is, for a David to finally beat a #1 goliath in the first (although it would then be the second) round.

4. The irrelevant spectacle that is now the oddball play-in game, would become somewhat of a legitimate, and at least marginally intriguing and attractive event.


These are the negatives:

1.


Again, remember that this is a proposal which presumes that we start from where we are now -- WITH the play-in game that we already have.

[The Stig]

The negative: The public doesn't see the play-in game as a part of the tournament. So instead of having one small-conference school left out of the tournament, you'd have 4. Having 4 games instead of 1 wouldn't change that. It would still be 4 games without a recognizable name school.

The only way the play-in game becomes noticed is if you have bubble teams play it. A game between Arizona and Auburn will get a lot more attention than a game between Morehead State and Alabama State.

[hifigator]

Stig, I totally agree with that. But I can't devise a solution that addresses that issue without creating more problems. As it is now, the play-in game is certainly not viewed as "part" of the tournament, as you word it. Hell, it's called a friggin "play-IN" game, regardless of whether the NCAA considers it "part" of the tournament. But I think that that perception would change to at least a slight degree, if there were 4 "featured" competitive games, rather than what is clearly little more than the slap in the face that it is now.

I do like the idea of the last bubble teams competing in the play-in games, rather than those that actually earned their way in, but obviously you couldn't have an Auburn-San Diego St. play-in game to earn the 16th seed. That would be totally unfair to the #1 seeds.

Maybe the suggestion that someone had of making the play-in game for the #12 seeds is worth considering.

[whatmaroon]

The one nice aspect of the play-in game is it's treated the same, financially, as winning a first round game. These are conferences that hardly ever, if ever, have a team that win a game, and thus represents a nice revenue boost for the conference and team. The non-power conference teams get screwed enough, and need the money more than the 6th best team in the Pac-10 or 8th best team in the Big Ten. I suspect part of that is why the Selection Committee also normally likes to match up mid-majors against mid-majors and BCS teams v BCS teams in games where they have a choice (5-12, 6-11, 7-10), though they've mostly forgone that this year.

[jgalt]

One improvement would be to move the who thing to ABC/ESPN so there arent cut aways every five minutes to other games

[theexorcist]

Mar 16, 2009 17:09:55 GMT -5 jgalt said:

128 teams, no NIT, no CBI, no CIT, no complaints. In every other sport about 50% of teams make the playoffs. Why not CBB?

In the NCAA, this isn't the case. The usual NCAA dictum is that around 20% of schools should make the postseason. In football, there are around 100 I-A teams, and 16 make the playoffs.

The play-in game is EVIL. Evil and darkness. No one cares about it - everyone's drinking tonight. And the four play-in games idea makes it easier for more mediocre Big 10, SEC, or Big East teams to get in. Bah.

The fun of the NCAA tourney, if you're a small school, is waiting to see what school with an impressive pedigree you're going to play in the first round. It's not being excited to play Florida A&M in the play-in game before you play Louisville.

I propose removing the play-in game, removing every single mention of the play-in game from the historical record, and publicly shaming the NCAA ad wizard who came up with that one.

[jgalt]

Mar 17, 2009 19:27:08 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

In the NCAA, this isn't the case. The usual NCAA dictum is that around 20% of schools should make the postseason. In football, there are around 100 I-A teams, and 16 make the playoffs.

They may want only 20% to make the post season, but they are not doing a very good job of it. The NIT is also controlled by the NCAA so those 32 plus 65 is almost 30% of teams

Also, i dont know what you are considering Post Season in DI-A football. But to me, and most other normal observers, post season means Bowl games and in 2008 there were 34, meaning 68 teams or 68 percent of teams, went to the post season.

[mchoya]

Mar 17, 2009 19:36:34 GMT -5 jgalt said:

Mar 17, 2009 19:27:08 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

In the NCAA, this isn't the case. The usual NCAA dictum is that around 20% of schools should make the postseason. In football, there are around 100 I-A teams, and 16 make the playoffs.

They may want only 20% to make the post season, but they are not doing a very good job of it. The NIT is also controlled by the NCAA so those 32 plus 65 is almost 30% of teams

Also, i dont know what you are considering Post Season in DI-A football. But to me, and most other normal observers, post season means Bowl games and in 2008 there were 34, meaning 68 teams or 68 percent of teams, went to the post season.

I think he means I-AA.

Talking about bowl games, I make the argument that 34 bowl games is too many and inhibits the ability to find a real national champion. No one really cares about the papajohns.com bowl. In fact, Rutgers lost 180k due to it.

128 teams is too many teams for the NCAA tournament. That number dilutes the quality of the tournament As it stands, the first round is a cakewalk for the top 16 teams. That number doesn't need to be expanded to 2 meaningless games and then a meaningless game for teams 17-32.

Move the play-in game to the two lowest at-large teams on the seed line. The auto-bids shouldn't be penalized for playing in a small conference. They did what they needed to do to get into the NCAA tournament. By virtue of being in a bigger conference, the at-large teams were able to get away with more key losses and not winning their conference tournament. They should be forced to play their way into the tournament.

[theexorcist]

Mar 17, 2009 19:36:34 GMT -5 jgalt said:

Mar 17, 2009 19:27:08 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

In the NCAA, this isn't the case. The usual NCAA dictum is that around 20% of schools should make the postseason. In football, there are around 100 I-A teams, and 16 make the playoffs.

They may want only 20% to make the post season, but they are not doing a very good job of it. The NIT is also controlled by the NCAA so those 32 plus 65 is almost 30% of teams

Also, i dont know what you are considering Post Season in DI-A football. But to me, and most other normal observers, post season means Bowl games and in 2008 there were 34, meaning 68 teams or 68 percent of teams, went to the post season.

1. The NCAA doesn't run a football championship in I-A. If you go to the NCAA site - www.ncaa.com/champ/index.html - and click on Division I, you get the I-AA championship information.

2. The NIT was originally a competitor to the NCAA tournament. The NCAA bought it out.

Not to emphasize our pain, but the NIT isn't for a national championship.

[HoyaTejano]

Re NCAA football -- the corpulence of the bowl system means it is soon (painfully) going to die as a result of eating itself whole. The BCS created a situation where if it only creates a single national champion, why the hell are you playing 33 other games? Other than the money -- which isn't a guarantee?

Re the NCAA -- how about doing a "short" NIT -- the last four out play 1st round Monday, second round Tuesday to determine who gets the final at-large? Want March madness? That is short on sanity and high on tv ratings potential.

[Hilltopper]

In lieu of such a radical change, the play-in game shouldn't be for a #16 seed, it should be for a #12 or so, and be between the first two major conference teams left out, a small conference and large conference team on the bubble, battling for that 64th slot, etc.

I thought this was the best idea for a time, too. But it does make it terrible to earn a 5 seed. Less time to game plan. Playing a team that has gotten through its tourney jitters. I know I would hate for the Hoyas to be a 5 in this scenario.

[hifigator]

Yeah, there are some issues to address for sure. Under my original suggestion, which was for the ultra-small conference automatic bids to be paired up in the first round of the tourney -- a 4 game "play-in" if you will. THe advantages of exposure and revenues are rather obvious and as whatmaroon stated, this is often the only time that many of these teams will get their time in the limelight and the revenues would represent a sizable chunk of their athletic budget. Again, I know some disagree, but I think focusing on that "first round" would in fact change the total atmosphere from what it is now -- an oddball spectacle of a game -- to a competitive contest between very small schools in the first round of the tourney. Also, because many of the smaller conferences have their tournaments a week earlier than the major conferences, there would still be plenty of time to make travel arrangements. Originally, my idea was to have the 4 games paired in 2 venues, with each hosting 2 gmaes. But what might be better would be to have one contest at each of the four pods which will be hosting first and second round matchups. That would make travel even easier.

As for the idea of having the first round feature 8 bubble teams vying for to advance on to the 12 seeds, I don't see how that really screws the 5 seeds at all. Presumably, they will be playing teams of similar caliber either way. The only question is whether that team already has a game under its belt. Certainly playing a game can be an advantage, but it could also be a detriment, due to fatigue. This would only be more of a liability if that team had also advanced along in its conference tourney.

I think this could be worked out.

Sure, the issue of having a short time to prepare would need to be addressed. But I don't think that's an unsolvable problem.

[jgalt]

Mar 17, 2009 20:27:54 GMT -5 mchoya said:

128 teams is too many teams for the NCAA tournament. That number dilutes the quality of the tournament As it stands, the first round is a cakewalk for the top 16 teams. That number doesn't need to be expanded to 2 meaningless games and then a meaningless game for teams 17-32.

The teams that are added arent going to be the 66th through 128th best teams in the country. They would be the 35th though about 105th best team in the country. You would actually be improving the quality because there would be fewer pointless teams like CS Northridge proportionally in the tournament. A team like Gtown or Miami or San Diego St. are better than Morgan St. and have a much better chance of winning a game than the 14 through 16 teams.

[hifigator]

jg, I don't think you are actually arguing with his point, but rather agreeing.

In any case, trying to cut through the chaste and get down to the real issue:

Firstly, this entire discussion is based on the assumption that we will continue to have at least the one play-in game that we have now. From what I have seen, we are in almost unanimous agreement that we would prefer not having it as it is now, and get rid of the game altogether.

But IF we have at least the 1 play-in game, then I ask the question why just 1? Four would seem to make a lot more sense. That being said, I think the real debate is whether we should make 8 teams that haven't automatically qualified for the big dance compete for 4 spots in the remaining 64 or whether we should have the 8 weakest teams compete for the 4 lowest spots. While I understand that it would seemingly diminish the accomplishments of those teams by forcing them into an extra round of games, we all realize that they aren't going to be playing into the round of 32 anyway. So I still see it as a win-win situation. Look at it this way:

4 teams will get premium exposure that will exceed what they would otherwise get.

4 small teams will get 2 games of exposure and revenues instead of only 1

3 more teams, such as Auburn, San Diego St. or Providence this year, would get a shot in the dance.


Once again, I just don't see any real downside to this.


While I am also intrigued by the idea of having 8 bubble teams compete for those last four at large spots, I think that overall, my original idea is better. Teams like Arizona, Michigan and Auburn aren't desperate for the extra exposure and revenues. Plus the NIT would take a big hit as it would skim off the top 4 teams from its tourney. Granted, that shouldn't be a very important factor, but it's a consideration nonetheless.