• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Expansion

Yeah well, not much more that can be said than was already said in this article. Talk about messing up a good thing!

I keep saying a 68 team tournament would be the perfect solution to the bubble team debate. 96 teams, while allowing 3 or 4 out of the Valley, still would be a disaster.
 
The byes scares me. It is hugely important being 3 games in a short period, and who do you think will be chosen for an 8 seed if it between a team like UNC and Bradley....it is too big a decision for problems like this to arise and there isn't that much difference between and 8 and 9 seed. Yet it will effect so much, and it is all in the hands of a committee we have seen fail in seeding many times with mid majors.

I am not an expert, but in the long run with decreased attendance, decreased viewership, and a decrease in exposure including people filling out brackets, wouldn't that hurt a little financially? I mean if you think about it this not only makes the new first round more boring, but the new second round less fair and interesting as well. Who wants to watch a possible 1/24 matchup or a 2/23 matchup?

It just lessons the chances for mid-majors because they have to win 3 games in a short time. It also waters down the tourny and makes it less interesting. a 64 team bracket with 1-4 play in games is a perfect number in so many ways, don't fix what isn't broken!!
 
BUfan14 said:
The byes scares me. It is hugely important being 3 games in a short period, and who do you think will be chosen for an 8 seed if it between a team like UNC and Bradley....it is too big a decision for problems like this to arise and there isn't that much difference between and 8 and 9 seed. Yet it will effect so much, and it is all in the hands of a committee we have seen fail in seeding many times with mid majors.

I am not an expert, but in the long run with decreased attendance, decreased viewership, and a decrease in exposure including people filling out brackets, wouldn't that hurt a little financially? I mean if you think about it this not only makes the new first round more boring, but the new second round less fair and interesting as well. Who wants to watch a possible 1/24 matchup or a 2/23 matchup?

It just lessons the chances for mid-majors because they have to win 3 games in a short time. It also waters down the tourny and makes it less interesting. a 64 team bracket with 1-4 play in games is a perfect number in so many ways, don't fix what isn't broken!!
Click to expand...

Let me address each of your points. First regarding seeding, I don't think it will be the 8 or 9 seeds affected as much as say the 12 and 13 seeds and below. Using Northern Iowa as an example, there's no way that UNI would be displaced by North Carolina even under an expanded field. Even the most fair weather college basketball fans would know that a 16-16 North Carolina would not get seeded ahead of top 25 UNI. However, I could see a setup where a 16-16 UNC and 17-15 UConn would routinely get seeded higher than a 24-8 UTEP or a 28-4 Utah St. So I don't believe the highest ranked mid-majors would be affected by the new format as much as the mid-major bubble teams under the old format. You would still see Butler as a 5 seed (still underseeded IMO) and New Mexico seeded 3rd. Also teams like UNI and Richmond would still be seeded in the 8 to 10 range. But bubble teams like UTEP and Utah St. probably would be seeded 15 or 16 if the selection committee acts the way I think they will!

Regarding attendance, the national powers and smaller conference schools won't be affected. The national powers always sell out, and the smaller schools usually draw flies unless a particular team is battling for their regular season conference championship. And even the conferences in between will probably continue to draw well as all teams will compete for an average of 2 or 3 spots. The teams that might get hit hard attendance wise will probably be the middle tiered BCS teams who only need to finish at or just slightly above .500 to make the tournament. Who wants to pay to see a team that will ultimately make the Big Dance while not playing all that well to begin with?

Finally, I couldn't agree more about the 3 games in 6 nights situation. The expanded field will allow more mid-majors and subpar BCS teams in, but you will see fewer mids make the Sweet 16 and beyond. Well maybe the higher seeded teams like Butler and Gonzaga won't have problems, but 9 seeded teams and below will really have to work so much harder just to make it into the round of the final 32 teams! Not good when this is why most people watch the tournament the first week!
 
Bravesfan said:
Let me address each of your points. First regarding seeding, I don't think it will be the 8 or 9 seeds affected as much as say the 12 and 13 seeds and below. Using Northern Iowa as an example, there's no way that UNI would be displaced by North Carolina even under an expanded field. Even the most fair weather college basketball fans would know that a 16-16 North Carolina would not get seeded ahead of top 25 UNI. However, I could see a setup where a 16-16 UNC and 17-15 UConn would routinely get seeded higher than a 24-8 UTEP or a 28-4 Utah St. So I don't believe the highest ranked mid-majors would be affected by the new format as much as the mid-major bubble teams under the old format. You would still see Butler as a 5 seed (still underseeded IMO) and New Mexico seeded 3rd. Also teams like UNI and Richmond would still be seeded in the 8 to 10 range. But bubble teams like UTEP and Utah St. probably would be seeded 15 or 16 if the selection committee acts the way I think they will!

Regarding attendance, the national powers and smaller conference schools won't be affected. The national powers always sell out, and the smaller schools usually draw flies unless a particular team is battling for their regular season conference championship. And even the conferences in between will probably continue to draw well as all teams will compete for an average of 2 or 3 spots. The teams that might get hit hard attendance wise will probably be the middle tiered BCS teams who only need to finish at or just slightly above .500 to make the tournament. Who wants to pay to see a team that will ultimately make the Big Dance while not playing all that well to begin with?

Finally, I couldn't agree more about the 3 games in 6 nights situation. The expanded field will allow more mid-majors and subpar BCS teams in, but you will see fewer mids make the Sweet 16 and beyond. Well maybe the higher seeded teams like Butler and Gonzaga won't have problems, but 9 seeded teams and below will really have to work so much harder just to make it into the round of the final 32 teams! Not good when this is why most people watch the tournament the first week!
Click to expand...

As far as attendance major teams will always sell out, but many casual fans who fill out brackets and watch just because it is a huge event like the super bowl, won't follow as much. They won't watch as much, so viewership and interest will still decline.

Also I don't mean UNC this year, but on a particular year. It is a huge decision between an 8 and 9 seed, and who with a similar resume do you think would get it, a power school or a mid major? Like you said UNI would still be seeded 8-10, but the difference between 8 and then 9-10 is huge. That is the problem, 8 and 9 seeds aren't that much different, yet the path to advance is way different and the majors will be given byes with similar resumes over mid majors.

UNI would have had to play in the first round this year, is that fair?? There chances of defeating Kansas would have went way down. Mid-majors still lose out here, because maybe they get a few more in (although I doubt it is much, probably just more lower power conference teams) it will take a lot more to advance. A team like Butler can still do it every once in a while, but George Mason nor Bradley nor UNI probably would have happened in this system. That is what makes the tourny great is the under dog, why take that away?
 
Keeping in mind all the office pools and gambling-related activities that go with the current 65-team setup, I don't think the NCAA minds if gambling-related activities are reduced by going to 96.

This all basically falls to ESPN. Will they spend enough to get the tournament rights? If not, the NCAA is trapped with CBS and 64.
 
BUfan14 said:
As far as attendance major teams will always sell out, but many casual fans who fill out brackets and watch just because it is a huge event like the super bowl, won't follow as much. They won't watch as much, so viewership and interest will still decline.

Also I don't mean UNC this year, but on a particular year. It is a huge decision between an 8 and 9 seed, and who with a similar resume do you think would get it, a power school or a mid major? Like you said UNI would still be seeded 8-10, but the difference between 8 and then 9-10 is huge. That is the problem, 8 and 9 seeds aren't that much different, yet the path to advance is way different and the majors will be given byes with similar resumes over mid majors.

UNI would have had to play in the first round this year, is that fair?? There chances of defeating Kansas would have went way down. Mid-majors still lose out here, because maybe they get a few more in (although I doubt it is much, probably just more lower power conference teams) it will take a lot more to advance. A team like Butler can still do it every once in a while, but George Mason nor Bradley nor UNI probably would have happened in this system. That is what makes the tourny great is the under dog, why take that away?
Click to expand...

Hey, I agree. Fewer Cinderellas will take away much of the charm that makes the tournament great. I hope ESPN bids low, which in turn would probably allow CBS to keep the tournament and the current format.
 
Bravesfan said:
Hey, I agree. Fewer Cinderellas will take away much of the charm that makes the tournament great. I hope ESPN bids low, which in turn would probably allow CBS to keep the tournament and the current format.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I sounded argumentative, didn't mean to. :biggrin:

I'm hoping the same thing!
 
I would only increase it as far as 76, giving extra play-ins for who faces the 1, 2, and 3's in each region...


Also, something needs to be done about the sub-regions...this was by far the worst year for where they placed teams...

That being said, these are things that need to be done as far as at-large consideration:

1) Teams need to be considered based on W-L out of conference

2) Teams out of conference RPI should be weighted and considered MUCH higher than in conference RPI....this prevents those like UConn from playing 12 home games against MD-ES and Quinnipiac

3) Teams considered should have above a .500 in conference record...that means no 7-9 or 8-8 Big East teams get in

4) Feb/Mar (last X games) should be considered once again

5) Get rid of stupid eye test as it never works and just sounds ignorant to bring up

6) Take team names off the top line when going through resumes as some teams get in based on name alone

7) For the love of all that is good in the name of basketball, GET BASKETBALL PEOPLE FOR THE COMMITTEE!




Thoughts?
 
MDCowboy said:
What do you mean about Subregions and where teams were sent STLBrave?
Click to expand...

Lets see...

Sending Michigan St and Maryland to Spokane while sending Gonzaga to Buffalo...


Tennessee to Rhode Island...


Xavier and Pitt to Milwaukee...


Temple and Wisconsin to Jacksonville...


Marquette to San Jose


West Virginia a 2 seed to Buffalo


TX A&M and Purdue to Spokane...


Thats what I meant...
 
SaintLouBrave22 said:
1) Teams need to be considered based on W-L out of conference
Click to expand...

They theoretically already do.

2) Teams out of conference RPI should be weighted and considered MUCH higher than in conference RPI....this prevents those like UConn from playing 12 home games against MD-ES and Quinnipiac
Click to expand...

I don't know about much higher, but yes. Then again, they did keep out Virginia Tech this year, so this isn't as bad a problem.

3) Teams considered should have above a .500 in conference record...that means no 7-9 or 8-8 Big East teams get in
Click to expand...

No, no, no, and I'll continue to fight this idea forever.

4) Feb/Mar (last X games) should be considered once again
Click to expand...
Absolutely

5) Get rid of stupid eye test as it never works and just sounds ignorant to bring up
Click to expand...

I actually like the eye test. Not how the TV talking heads use it, though. They don't use it right. But the selection committee should be allowed to. They attend games. They are assigned conferences and teams to keep tabs on. They can and should be able to use the eye test.

6) Take team names off the top line when going through resumes as some teams get in based on name alone
Click to expand...
Sounds good in theory, but as a bracketeer, I can pretty much pinpoint the identity of every blind resume, so it wouldn't work.


7) For the love of all that is good in the name of basketball, GET BASKETBALL PEOPLE FOR THE COMMITTEE!
Click to expand...
yep
 
SaintLouBrave22 said:
Also, something needs to be done about the sub-regions...this was by far the worst year for where they placed teams...
Click to expand...

And to be honest, there's not much you can do about this. Once you get to bracketing rules, avoiding rematches, avoiding conference conflicts, and trying to stay true to the seeding line you spent 3 days voting on, there's about half the field whose destination is fixed without even having a choice to move them around for location purposes.
 
Doesn't seem to mean much to make it into a field of almost 100!
You can't really be too proud of that unless you haven't made it to the Big Dance in 10+ years. (I think all MVC schools have made it in that time)
Seems like a bad deal for normal seeds of 9-12, but maybe it will give teams that haven't played in a week or more to get the rust off before playing in the next round.
The seeding will be much more difficult and more teams will be shafted in seeding than before even though more will make it.
I still don't like to see conference tournament champs get automatic bids - especially for the worst 15 conferences.
I think we'll finally get to see a #1 team get knocked off in their 1st game under this new plan. The #16 teams will be a little stronger and may come from a power conference.
 
To me all this is doing is swallowing up the NIT and putting lipstick on those 32 teams by now saying they are NCAA tourney teams.

This has everything to do with more BCS schools. The more BCS schools who play the more eyeballs for ESPN, dont kid yourself this has everything to do with ESPN, and more eyeballs means more advertising dollars.

This thing generates a ton of money now, more games more dollars.

32 auto bids

Leaving 64 at large.

73 BCS total schools - the 6 auto bids leaving 67 BCS schools.

Virtually any BCS who can get to .500 will be in the tourney. This also brings up why ever would any BCS ever knowingly schedule a non BCS ever again?

They have not eliminated non BCS but this is doing non BCS no favors. You might get a few more in the tourney who will now have to play more games but the overall % of BCS in the tourney and likely not having to play any additional games will be increased bigtime.

This has nothing to do with WSU getting an atlarge it has to do with validating the ability to invite UCONN, Arizona, USC or Illinois. Just a huge BCS ploy.
 
Frankly, I'm not sure how a selection committee would handle 96 teams, and I'd hesitate to say that the power conference teams will benefit the most from it. We won't know until we actually see a field.
 
TAS - Since you are the resident bracketologist, if this year's field had been expanded to 96, who would you have added, assuming the selection criteria for the next 31 at large teams is the same as it was for the first 34?
 
TheAsianSensation said:
Frankly, I'm not sure how a selection committee would handle 96 teams, and I'd hesitate to say that the power conference teams will benefit the most from it. We won't know until we actually see a field.
Click to expand...

Thats BS...


They will now try to justify inviting 10-12 Big East teams and 10 ACC teams and blah blah blah...


Everything is about the money and making the BCS happy...


Frankly its just garbage because I could care less about watching the 9th Big East team face the 7th ACC team in the first round...
 
RedSoxDSM said:
TAS - Since you are the resident bracketologist, if this year's field had been expanded to 96, who would you have added, assuming the selection criteria for the next 31 at large teams is the same as it was for the first 34?
Click to expand...

I did this Selection Sunday, using my own projections:

1) Kansas (32-2), Kentucky (32-2), Syracuse (28-4), Duke (29-5)
2) West Virginia (27-6), Kansas St (25-7), Ohio St (27-7), Villanova (24-7)
3) New Mexico (29-4), Pittsburgh (24-8 ), Purdue (27-5), Temple (29-5)
4) Georgetown (23-10), Baylor (24-7), Tennessee (25-8 ), Wisconsin (23-8 )
5) Michigan St (24-8 ), Maryland (22-8 ), Vanderbilt (23-8 ), Texas A&M (22-9)
6) Butler (28-4), BYU (28-5), Richmond (26-8 ), Northern Iowa (28-4)
7) Xavier (24-8 ), Gonzaga (25-6), Texas (24-9), Marquette (22-11)
8 )San Diego St (23-8 ), Missouri (22-10), Clemson (21-10), Louisville (20-12)
9) Florida St (22-9), Oklahoma St (22-10), Old Dominion (26-8 ), Notre Dame (23-11)
10) St Mary's (25-5), Georgia Tech (21-12), Cornell (25-4), UNLV (24-8 )
11) Wake Forest (19-10), Washington (23-9), UTEP (26-6), California (23-10)
12) Siena (27-6), Utah St (26-7), Minnesota (21-13), Illinois (19-14)
13) Virginia Tech (23-8 ), Mississippi St (23-10), Florida (21-12), Seton Hall (19-12)
14) Arizona St (22-10), Mississippi (21-10), Wichita St (24-9), Rhode Island (23-9)
15) Memphis (23-9), New Mexico St (21-11), Kent St (22-9), UAB (23-8 )
16) Connecticut (17-15), Dayton (20-12), Murray St (28-4), William & Mary (21-10)
17) Cincinnati (18-15), Oakland (24-8 ), Wofford (25-8 ), St Louis (19-11)
18 )Northeastern (20-10), South Florida (20-12), Charlotte (19-12), Arizona (16-15)
19) Sam Houston St (21-7), Marshall (20-9), Houston (18-15), Illinois St (22-10)
20) Fairfield (22-10), Wright St (20-12), VCU (22-9), Northwestern (20-13)
21) Tulsa (22-11), Nevada (19-12), North Carolina (16-16), Creighton (16-15)
22) Portland (19-10), UC-Santa Barbara (19-9), Montana (20-9), Morgan St (27-9)
23) Ohio (20-14), North Texas (22-8 ), Vermont (25-9), Robert Morris (23-11)
24) East Tennessee St (19-14), Lehigh (22-10), Winthrop (17-13), Arkansas-Pine Bluff (17-15)


Last 4 in
Nevada
North Carolina
Creighton
Portland (team #85 on S-Curve)

Last 4 out
St John's
Akron
Green Bay
Louisiana Tech


Break it down!

Big East 12
ACC 8
Big 12 7
Big 10 7
A-10 7
CUSA 6
SEC 6
MWC 4
MVC 4
CAA 4
Pac 10 4
WCC 3
WAC 3
Horizon 2
MAAC 2
MAC 2

By percentage:
Big East 75% of league gets in
ACC 67% of league gets in
Big 10 63% of league gets in
Big 12 58% of league gets in
SEC 50% of league gets in
A-10 50% of league gets in
CUSA 50% of league gets in
MWC 44% of league gets in
Pac 10 40% of league gets in
MVC 40% of league gets in
WCC 38% of league gets in
WAC 33% of league gets in

Notice 2 things:

1) There's a spike at the top with the Big East, but the top ranked conference should expect to get 75%. It sounds worse saying "12 of 16" than "9 of 12", but those are EQUIVALENT. Remember that about the Big East specifically.
2) The best non-power conferences make big, big headway. 40% of the Valley. Half of the A-10 and CUSA. Look at those percentages.


Personally, I'm ok with those distributions. 1 top conference getting 75%. Two other top conferences getting over 60%. That's not as terrible as it sounds, actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top