Expanded Tourney Field? I Say 'Yes!'

By Coug Fan on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:41:36 PM EST

A similar diary was posted by irishtrojan in early April, but I think a new ESPN.com story on the subject garners a re-hashing in the diaries.

Diaries ::

Suggestions reported in the ESPN story range from expansion to 68 all the way up to 128 teams making the post-season NCAA field.  A larger field has the benefit of being more inclusive (letting in more potential George Masons), with the drawback that regular-season powerhouses have a longer road to the Final Four with more opportunity for fluky losses.

My expansion proposal is a compromise.  80 teams are in, with the 13- through 20-seeds in each of the four regions battling in Round 1.  The winners face the ninth through twelfth seeds in Round 2.  We meet the fives through the eights in Round 3, and in Round 4, the top four seeds in each region join the party.  Seeds are determined the old-fashioned way, via the Selection Committee.

Tournament format diagram

My model is inspired by the UEFA  Champions League tournament format, in which top finishers from major European soccer leagues (analogous to the ACC or Big East, say) get a free pass into later tournament rounds, and the champions of relatively minor professional leagues, such as the Cypiot or Icelandic leagues (our Big Sky or MAAC conferences), have much deeper tournament runs to face but get exciting, winnable games early on against eachother.  Plus I only create one extra weekend of tournament play (among schools unlikely to advance much further), so the kids don't miss too much class.

My hope with this diary is to inspire discussion within the Yocohoops think tank that creates a consensus model for tournament expansion.  Please comment with your ideas.


Display:
Expanded Tourney Field? I Say 'Yes!' | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)

Big conferences (none / 0)

From the outside the expansion of the tourney looks great, more games, more excitement and more chances of an upset. But lets not fool ourselves, the reason for the tourney expansion talk is not to have more "George Masons" its to have more Florida States, Cincinnati's, and Marylands..teams on the cusp of the tourney from Major Conferences..For anyone that believes that Jim Boeheim wants more mid-major teams in the tourney because "look at what George Mason did" is being naive..The Big East wants 12 teams in the tourney, The ACC wants 8, the SEC wants 10, The Pac 10 wants 7. The most a mid-major would get is 4 ,or rare exception like this year 5 or 6, lets be serious. If someone took this year's tourney and expanded it to 80, how many power conferences would fill those extra 15 spots? Off the top of my head I would say 10. I dont like expanding the field at all. Its very very rare that a team like George Mason will make the final four, so lets not go crazy with messing with something that is already great..

by RS on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 01:58:40 PM EST

Major vs. Mid-Major taking the last 15 spots (none / 0)

There would be a significant number of additional mid-major schools represented with tournament expansion.  Not that it's the bible of ranking teams, but according to the pre-tournament RPI rankings, the best 25 teams left out of the NCAAs are:

Major conference schools:
Cincinnati, Michigan, Maryland, Colorado, South Carolina, Florida State, Louisville, Vanderbilt, Rutgers, Clemson, Miami (FL), Virginia

Mid-major conference schools:
Missouri State, Hofstra, Creighton, St. Joseph's, Houston, Western Kentucky, BYU, Louisiana Tech, Old Dominion, Akron, Temple, UTEP, Virginia Commonwealth

The "edge" is 13-12, mid-majors.  The selection bias would likely remain in favor of major conferences, but each of the 25 schools listed would get consideration, and the fifteen extra invitees would be a decent cross-section of college basketball.


Who Wants To Watch The World Series?
by Coug Fan on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 01:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

UEFA Cup, natch (none / 0)

I'm as game for this conversation as anybody. While I like the idea of expansion generally -- especially normallizing the play-in game across all regions -- RS is really spot-on in his critique. A bigger tournament is going to explicitly mean more BCS schools make it in. The chasm between BCS and non-BCS would only get wider.

So here's a thought, expanding on your Champion's League idea. The Champion's League introductory rounds (teams from weaker pro leagues) have a few rounds of playoff matches to see who might possibly make it to the CL proper. Those who win move on, those who get far enough but eventually lose move on to the lesser UEFA Cup tournament. Do you smell what I smell?

The NCAA just bought up the NIT and can do whatever they want to with it. Why not invert UEFA's scheme and create a playoff pool out of all the bubble teams, last-five-in's, last-five-out's, and regular season (but not at-large or conf. tourny) champions? Make a single-round qualifier round; winners get a 12 to 16 seed in the NCAA tournament, losers go to the NIT. It gives the mid-majors a chance to prove themselves against roughly equal competition from a power conference, and it gives the middling BCS teams one last chance to redeem themselves. Either way there are more games, more teams, a quality competetive atmosphere, and in the end everyone goes to a tournament. The "size" of the NCAA Tournament doesn't change, and the NIT becomes a consolation bracket instead of a tournament of shame.


by jay on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:14:52 PM EST

Er... (none / 0)

I guess I should also mention that the staggered bracket that was offered up seems to make upsets even less likely than they are now. A 13-seed has to play 3 games before they even make it to play a 4-seed. It's as if the only thing a top seed has to do to make the Sweet 16 is play a single game against a tired, worn-out team.

At least in the current format every team has the same obligations -- if you want to win a championship, you have to win 6 games in a row no matter who you are. The staggered bracket eliminates the (relatively) equal-opportunity format that exists today.


by jay on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Upset potential (none / 0)

The 13-seeds that make it that far have to earn it by beating a couple of comparably talented teams, though.  Every 13 that advances comes in with a couple of tourney wins under their belt and is presumably playing at the top of their game.  As George Mason showed, a confident, reasonably talented team that is playing well together can beat a lot of teams with greater overall talent.

Also, I have no problem rewarding the top teams with easier Final Four paths, beyond the current seeding system.


Who Wants To Watch The World Series?
by Coug Fan on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 01:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

UEFA comparison (none / 0)

I was going to let someone else make the Cup/NIT parallel.  I love the idea, and it was the first thing that I thought of when I read that the NCAA was going to run the NIT.

Who Wants To Watch The World Series?
by Coug Fan on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 01:04:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 18' dual rotor fabrication taki (none / 0)

Hotel Reservation
Hotel Berlin
Cheap flights to San Antonio
Airline Tickets to Puerto Vallarta
Cheap Flights From Toronto
Airfares
Tickets Tanzania
Tickets Arkansas

by wekspir5 on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:23:24 PM EST

Re: Our New Base (none / 0)

boston pharmacy
overnight viagra
university pharmacy
pharmacy franchise
tennessee board of pharmacy
viagra online
phentermines
phentermine on line
phentermine 37 5 mg tablet
amide phentermine

by hiha1 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:28:26 AM EST

Re: 10mm LED diffusing experiment (none / 0)

best airfare hawaii
cheap airfare singapore
airfare hawaii lowest
cheap business class airfare
cheap airfare new zealand
first class airfare cheap

by hiha1 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:30:11 PM EST
Expanded Tourney Field? I Say 'Yes!' | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
praise for this site
"I read your blog 2-3 times a day. Keep it coming!"
Gregg Doyel, Columnist
CBS SportsLine, (2004-2005)
praise for this site
"I really enjoy your site.
It's easy to see why people keep coming back. I know I will."
Jay Bilas, Analyst
ESPN, (2004-2005)
praise for this site
"I love the site."
Dan Wetzel, Columnist
Yahoo Sports, (2004-2005)
praise for this site
"I check your blog every day. Grant [Wahl] was right -- it's the best one out there. I rely on it to keep me informed."
Seth Davis, Reporter
Sports Illustrated, (2004-2005)
premium blogads
praise for this site
"The definitive blog for college hoops. A regular stop."
Mark Simon, Researcher
ESPN (College Hoops Extra), (2004-2005)
lead blogads
praise for this site
"If you aren't reading this blog, you aren't following college basketball."
Ed Cone, Columnist
Greensboro News & Record, (2004-2005)
blogads