Well, here's your new NCAA tournament format

[TheAsianSensation]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5374116

On a scale from 1 to 10 on terms of messing it up, I give it an 8.

The summary:
The final four at-large teams play each other and feed into whatever seed line the committee deems appropriate.
The final four AQ teams meet in 2 games that will be similar to the play-in game of the past few years.

This will absolutely wreck office pools as you'll have winners of the at-large games be serious threats to do further damage in the tourney. And now 2 of the 4 #1 seeds play teams that already played while the other 2 don't. And bracketing procedures are 10x more difficult as at-large teams' conference afilliations cause all sorts of problems.

[amckillip]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5374116


On a scale from 1 to 10 on terms of messing it up, I give it an 8.

The summary:
The final four at-large teams play each other and feed into whatever seed line the committee deems appropriate.
The final four AQ teams meet in 2 games that will be similar to the play-in game of the past few years.

This will absolutely wreck office pools as you'll have winners of the at-large games be serious threats to do further damage in the tourney. And now 2 of the 4 #1 seeds play teams that already played while the other 2 don't. And bracketing procedures are 10x more difficult as at-large teams' conference afilliations cause all sorts of problems.

This is asinine, go way one or the other, not half-heartedly do both.

[BradleyBrave]

This is asinine, go way one or the other, not half-heartedly do both.

Agreed. Make them play in for pre-determined seeds (#12 or #13 seems right to me), or have the low majors play.

[TheAsianSensation]

The prevailing opinion seems to be that the TV people (namely Tru TV) pushed the NCAA to have "name" programs in at least some of the play-in games to make the TV contract worth their while.

[TheAsianSensation]

In fact, this is easier: Katz' twitter has all the relevant details/speculation:

http://twitter.com/ESPNAndyKatz

[tornado]

CBSSports has an early 68-team mock tournament selection...
they have the Valley getting TWO teams in...
UNI is 9-seed and Missouri State is a play-in 13-seed

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13634027/mock-2010-68team-ncaa-tournament-bracket

[Nacho]

CBSSports has an early 68-team mock tournament selection...
they have the Valley getting TWO teams in...
UNI is 9-seed and Missouri State is a play-in 13-seed
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...nament-bracket

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that play-in 13 seed is Mississippi St... not Missouri State... or am I missing something else?

[Bravesfan]

This is asinine, go way one or the other, not half-heartedly do both.

Yeah, I heard Dan Bernstein talking about this earlier on the Score today. He was shaking his head for the same reason. He basically stated that this was most likely the "compromise" solution, but probably the solution that few people would like. He also mentioned that the NCAA thought this would keep more big names in the picture with the two games involving the last four teams in. But like Dan concluded, how would anyone know if this system would keep more of the high-majors in unless they actually win these games?!

In my opinion, this new "system" does absolutely nothing to help or hurt the mid-majors except at the bottom of the chain as two low-major auto bids will not make the final 64 team format. At the same time though, it's obvious that the NCAA certainly would not mind if fewer mid-majors made the tournament, this despite the fact that you had a mid-major team (or a major team from a mid-major conference depending on one's point of view) that came within two three point made shots from winning the national championship this past April.

I guess the powers-that-be in the NCAA never learn!

[Air Petey]

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that play-in 13 seed is Mississippi St... not Missouri State... or am I missing something else?

Nacho - I believe you are correct. That is Mississippi State's logo.

[TheAsianSensation]

This is neutral to mid-majors and majors alike. The at-larges that are going to play these games wouldn't have been in the tournament last year, and 2 more low-majors get "punished".

[TheAsianSensation]

Actually, there will be one thing in particular to watch.

You all know about bracket procedures, avoiding conference affiliation problems, etc.

Well, both participants in the at-large play in games cannot conflict with the bracket spot the game feeds into. For example, if the game is SEC vs. ACC, there can't be a SEC team OR an ACC team in that same sub-regional the game feeds into. It's basically bracket procedures on steroids. It will be very, very tough to bracket it up such that you avoid conflicts.

If the games are mostly filled with power conference schools......where do they feed into?

The solution: the opponent and type of 5 seed or 6 seed that creates the least conflict? Mid-majors. Butler, for example. If the 5 line has Butler, an ACC team, a Big 10 team, and a Big 12 team, the play-in game winner is most likely to feed into Butler's slot as to avoid the most conflicts.



Now, any conspiracy theory that thinks this is a super-secret ploy to get rid of mid majors is just plain stupid, so let's kill that idea now. What I described is simply the simplest solution to bracket procedure problems.

[MDCowboy]

Actually the simplest procedure and what they will probably do is have 2 mid-majors play in the last 4 in game, thereby knocking out a mid-major in the process. This also will make bracketing procedures easier.

So in this scenario for last year, they may have had St. Mary's play another mid-major like Rhode Island in one of the games.

The reality is the committee is probably going to say bracket rules were too complex if you had a Big East team playing a Big Ten team, so they are going to likely give them free rides in and they will just say "well 2 of the last 4 in were mid-major teams".

[TheAsianSensation]

Actually the simplest procedure and what they will probably do is have 2 mid-majors play in the last 4 in game, thereby knocking out a mid-major in the process. This also will make bracketing procedures easier.

So in this scenario for last year, they may have had St. Mary's play another mid-major like Rhode Island in one of the games.

The reality is the committee is probably going to say bracket rules were too complex if you had a Big East team playing a Big Ten team, so they are going to likely give them free rides in and they will just say "well 2 of the last 4 in were mid-major teams".

The one thing that "debunks" this theory is that according to bracket procedures, they select the entire 68 teams and order them before they actually bracket them. So it's the bracket process that's comprimised, not actually which teams have to play in the games.

[dogsrus]

[QUOTE=Bravesfan;186631](or a major team from a mid-major conference depending on one's point of view) that came within two three point made shots from winning the national championship this past April.



Butler is a NON BCS just like Bradley, SIU, Loyola, etc.,......they are NOT a major team from a mid-major conf if you prefer that term.

[MacabreMob]

TAS - as you suggest, it could cause problems with bracketing based on matchups with same conferences and the like.

From the article, it says "This is the first time the last four at-large teams will be revealed publicly. Traditionally, the at-large teams are scattered throughout the seeding process, rarely going past No. 12, making it relatively easy to identify them. Yet the committee now will formally announce the last at-large teams by putting them in the first round."

I think the "last 4" won't be openly declared THE last 4 since there might be seed movement due to matchup problems. This is where they'll move teams up or down a line.... and I think it'll screw the mid-majors over more than the BCS teams.

At any rate - I personally am getting more turned off each year by the NCAA. This should help speed things along. Pretty soon - I won't have a care in the world for NCAA hoops.