Proposal for 96 teams in NCAA Tourney

[NT80]

HOUSTON -- An NCAA committee could soon announce a recommendation on potential expansion of the NCAA tournament field, but UConn men's basketball coach Dan Hurley says he believes the tournament is fine with 68 teams.

"I do think, though, that there are probably mid-major programs, a lot of times, that are more deserving than like a 10th-place team in a power conference that has figured out how to just game the numbers, so I'll say that. I see that on Selection Sunday sometimes. And I cringe at that."

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/36045542/dan-hurley-expanding-tourney-devalue-regular-season

 

[Tom McKrackin]

I don’t know that I like this!

[p_phelps]

I feel like this would make it less special 

[GMG_Dallas]

1 hour ago, p_phelps said:

I feel like this would make it less special 

I agree. The solution isn't to add more teams, it's to make the selection process better. Adding 24 teams just means they'll add 22 more power conference schools and 2 more mid-majors. Just more mediocre teams getting in who don't deserve it.

Edit my math is wrong, my point remains.

Edited April 3, 2023 by GMG_Dallas

[untcampbell]

Will require a three-week hiatus after the last conference tournaments to fill out the brackets.

 

GMG

[Matt from A700]

I don't even like when it went from 64 to 68 teams. I never learned why there are two 11 or 12 seeds playing each other in the "First Four" instead of all 16 vs. 16 match-ups. I also believe a conference tournament winner/auto-bid shouldn't be in one of the First Four games.

Like already mentioned, just fix the existing process.

Meanwhile, the mid-major schools like us need to continue working on marketing themselves and engaging their students/alumni so the ratings argument can be thrown out.

The Vegas 16 (only eight teams) lasted a year and the CollegeInsider.com/Basketball Classic folded. Honestly wouldn't mind if the CBI went away too to make the NIT more prestiguous.

[GMG_Dallas]

36 minutes ago, Matt from A700 said:

The Vegas 16 (only eight teams) lasted a year and the CollegeInsider.com/Basketball Classic folded. Honestly wouldn't mind if the CBI went away too to make the NIT more prestiguous.

Didn't even think of the other tournaments, including the NIT we just won. 96 instead of 68 means you'd be taking most of the teams who would be playing a competitive NIT tournament watering it down even more.

I'd actually be down for a more strict major tournament, taking away 4 at large bids for a total back to 64 with a revamped selection process that doesn't reward mediocre high-majors. You'd be adding 4 bubble teams to the NIT to strengthen a historic tournament that deserves a bit more respect.

None of the numbers matter if the selection process remains flawed. Fix that first.

Edited April 3, 2023 by GMG_Dallas

[CMJ]

43 minutes ago, Matt from A700 said:

I don't even like when it went from 64 to 68 teams. I never learned why there are two 11 or 12 seeds playing each other in the "First Four" instead of all 16 vs. 16 match-ups. I also believe a conference tournament winner/auto-bid shouldn't be in one of the First Four games.

 

Your two points contradict each other.  The 16 seeds are always tournament winner/auto bids.

 

When the discussion began as far as increasing the field a dozen or so years ago some argued all of the First Four should be the last at-larges in as not to penalize conference champs and some thought it should just be the all the 16s playing each other.  The NCAA did some of both.

[Andrew]

3 hours ago, NT80 said:

HOUSTON -- An NCAA committee could soon announce a recommendation on potential expansion of the NCAA tournament field, but UConn men's basketball coach Dan Hurley says he believes the tournament is fine with 68 teams.

"I do think, though, that there are probably mid-major programs, a lot of times, that are more deserving than like a 10th-place team in a power conference that has figured out how to just game the numbers, so I'll say that. I see that on Selection Sunday sometimes. And I cringe at that."

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/36045542/dan-hurley-expanding-tourney-devalue-regular-season

 

Absolutely not! It shouldn’t even be 68. Leave well enough alone. 

[NT80]

45 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

None of the numbers matter if the selection process remains flawed. Fix that first.

Yes.  The Big10 didn't deserve 8 teams in the Tourney.  That was totally about name recognition and viewership $.

[Matt from A700]

44 minutes ago, CMJ said:

Your two points contradict each other.  The 16 seeds are always tournament winner/auto bids.

 

When the discussion began as far as increasing the field a dozen or so years ago some argued all of the First Four should be the last at-larges in as not to penalize conference champs and some thought it should just be the all the 16s playing each other.  The NCAA did some of both.

I stand by what I said, and agree with what the first "some" said. The first four should be all bubble teams, a lot of the 10-12 loss major conference teams that sneak in. Conference champions shouldn't be a 16 seed. If that means a few more bigger names don't survive past Dayton, so be it. It was a shame FAU and Memphis were paired against each other in the first round.

[CMJ]

48 minutes ago, Matt from A700 said:

I stand by what I said, and agree with what the first "some" said. The first four should be all bubble teams, a lot of the 10-12 loss major conference teams that sneak in. Conference champions shouldn't be a 16 seed. If that means a few more bigger names don't survive past Dayton, so be it. It was a shame FAU and Memphis were paired against each other in the first round.

Would you not have made Texas Southern a 16 seed with their losing record?  They were a conference champion.

 

Making the last at-larges 16 seeds doesn't make sense either.  Their resumes are way better than the bottom conferences.  Let's say we had been lucky enough to get an at-large this season, with our 38 NET, etc..  

 

Meanwhile the at-larges that got in a bit more comfortably (not the last 4 in, but the previous four), with resumes that are incrementally better than ours get a 10 seed.

There's also the 1 seeds to consider.  They get punished in this scenario too.  They get to draw a UNT in the round of 64 instead of a Texas A&M Corpus.  Meanwhile the 2 seed gets a significantly easier game than the 1 seed does.

 

[greenminer]

Hell no. Haven’t read the article. Who is proposing this?

[CMJ]

1 hour ago, NT80 said:

Yes.  The Big10 didn't deserve 8 teams in the Tourney.  That was totally about name recognition and viewership $.

I don't think they deserved that many in, but they didn't get that many in because of name recognition.  They have a huge conference which helps because the sheer amount of teams.  When the Big East had 16 members there was one year they got at least nine in.  The Big 10 was also the #3 league according to most of the metrics.  So a high ranked league, with a bunch of teams...is gonna get a lot of bids.

 

If they were going purely on name recognition and money, UNC would have gotten in.

[GrayEagle]

We have the other 32 teams already.  It's called the NIT.  Leave it alone.

[NT80]

10 hours ago, CMJ said:

I don't think they deserved that many in, but they didn't get that many in because of name recognition.  They have a huge conference which helps because the sheer amount of teams.  When the Big East had 16 members there was one year they got at least nine in.  The Big 10 was also the #3 league according to most of the metrics.  So a high ranked league, with a bunch of teams...is gonna get a lot of bids.

 

If they were going purely on name recognition and money, UNC would have gotten in.

Obviously the metrics were off when only Michigan St made it to the Sweet 16.   CUSA and other conferences got shafted because of human-biased decisions.

[CMJ]

7 minutes ago, NT80 said:

Obviously the metrics were off when only Michigan St made it to the Sweet 16.   CUSA and other conferences got shafted because of human-biased decisions.

Well, metrics like the RPI are completely out of human hands (yes I know the RPI isn't used any more, but the Big 10 was also the #3 ranked conference according to their standard as well).  The RPI is your win percentage, your opponents win percentage and your opponents opponents win percentage.  Everyone knows how that one works (unlike new ones like the NET which we still are figuring out).  It's worked that way for over a generation.  The Big 10 still was in the top 3.

 

Sometimes the tournament just has years when everything falls apart.  That's what makes it great.

[VideoEagle]

I could be wrong, but I thought the reason for the NET ratings was to fix the problems with the old RPI ratings. 

[CMJ]

1 hour ago, VideoEagle said:

I could be wrong, but I thought the reason for the NET ratings was to fix the problems with the old RPI ratings. 

A lot of the Power conference schools started complaining about the RPI once the Missouri Valley started doing so well in it about 15-20 years ago.  The MVC figured out how to schedule in a way to boost their RPIs, the way a lot of the "big" schools did...and so the Big 10 and Big East, etc. schools complained.  One year the MVC got four teams in.  I'd say the move toward using something other than the RPI started about that time.  Once systems like the one Ken Pomeroy started became so good at analyzing teams (the first year Butler made the final, KenPom had them rated top 8 in the country from what I remember...they were a 5 seed), many thought those should be the kind of metrics that more accurately judged teams.

 

Of course people still complain about those!  Some in this very thread.

Edited April 3, 2023 by CMJ

[GMG_Dallas]

2 hours ago, CMJ said:

A lot of the Power conference schools started complaining about the RPI once the Missouri Valley started doing so well in it about 15-20 years ago.  The MVC figured out how to schedule in a way to boost their RPIs, the way a lot of the "big" schools did...and so the Big 10 and Big East, etc. schools complained.  One year the MVC got four teams in.  I'd say the move toward using something other than the RPI started about that time.  Once systems like the one Ken Pomeroy started becoming so good at analyzing teams (the first year Butler made the final, KenPom had them rated top 8 in the country from what I remember...they were a 5 seed), many thought those should be the kind of metrics that more accurately judged teams.

 

Of course people still complain about those!  Some in this very thread.

And thus why a committee shouldn't analyze which wins/losses they view as being better/worst or others. Analytics are there. Use them and that's it. As selection sunday approaches, some of the individual bracketologists post average rankings of NET/RPI/KenPom (and maybe others) just for fun but it's eye-opening to see how poorly some of the power conference schools perform on a nightly basis.

Arizona State was a great example. They beat Arizona on a half-court buzzer beater but the committee just saw it as they beat Arizona. NET had them around 66 or 67. KenPom has them at 55 (I say "has" and not "had" because KenPom has continued to update in the postseason). Their one postseason win was to Nevada which KenPom has at 61. To avoid rambling even more, Arizona St got in solely off a lucky Arizona win. Otherwise I don't think they had the resume. The big dance shows anything can happen on any given day. It doesn't make you deserving of an at-large bid.

Edited April 3, 2023 by GMG_Dallas

[CMJ]

To be fair, Arizona State had more than a single quality win.  They defeated Creighton, which as the tournament showed, was also a very good victory.  That said, they did have a lack of eye popping wins.  

[GMG_Dallas]

Yes, they defeated Creighton by 2. Again, a very close win. I understand, a win is a win, however, if you're not going to go by straight win/loss record because of SOS, you've got to stick with the metrics. Can't just pick SOS when it suits you and strong wins when that suits you.

[El Paso Eagle]

7 hours ago, VideoEagle said:

I could be wrong, but I thought the reason for the NET ratings was to fix the problems with the old RPI ratings. 

That was when the power schools thought it would get more of their teams in. As soon as you had a method to show that some of the other conferences might be just as deserving, they started trying to put less emphasis on it.