CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on April 29, 2026, 11:31:35 AM
-
I've seen a few articles, you probably have too.
The big question that I have is will the worst teams play in these added play-in games or will it be the worst at-large teams or some combination of the two?
As it is presently set up (not that anyone doesn't know but just to set the existing baseline):
- 31 auto-bids
- 37 at-large bids
- 68 total slots
- the four weakest at-large play each other in Dayton for the last two at-large spots
- the four weakest auto-bids play each other in Dayton for the last two auto-bid spots
The eight additional teams will all be at-large unless a new conference forms. The increase will require 12 rather than just 4 play-in games. I don't *THINK* they can cram 12 games into Dayton but they also probably don't want the 12 play-in games at first/second round sites so I would assume that they'll have three play-in sites each hosting four play-in games as follows:
Tuesday:
- 2 games at each play-in site
- 6 games total to get down to 70 from 76 teams.
Wednesday:
- 2 games at each play-in site
- 6 games total to get down to 64 from 70 teams.
My guess is that they'll keep the Dayton site, add a site somewhere in the Southeast, and add another site somewhere out west.
This just leaves the above-referenced question of whether the additional play-in games will be between the worst teams or the worst at-large teams or some combination. Has anyone seen anything indicating what the plan is?
If I had to guess, I'd guess that they'll continue the established pattern of splitting it in half so the last 12 auto-bids will play each other for the last two #15 seeds and all four #16 seeds while meanwhile the last 12 at-large teams will play each other for what would probably end up being roughly the last two #11 seeds and all four #12 seeds.
It doesn't seem like this will make much money since nearly nobody watches the mid-week play-in games anyway so it seems the primary benefactors will be the coaches of power-conference bubble teams because now eight more of them will get in.
-
It's just never enough......
Dumb.
-
Per CBS (https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-tournament-expands-76-teams-bracket-march-madness-big-dance/):
The eight teams that would have been added in 2026 (the first four are known since the committee lists the first four out, the other four are speculative but probably correct):
- Oklahoma 19-15/7-11 SEC
- Auburn 17-16/7-11 SEC
- SDSU 22-11/14-6 MWC
- Indiana 18-14/9-11 B1G
- New Mexico 23-10/13-7 MWC
- Seton Hall 21-12/10-10 BigE
- VaTech 19-13/9-10 ACC
- Stanford 20-12/9-9 ACC
The primary benefit, as I see it, is that this would improve the quality of the #11-#15 seeds because those four extra #15/16 seeds means that everybody from the last three #11 seeds down all slides down a line. The data provides a strong case for this because after peaking in 2021-2024 the performance of the #13-16 seeds has utterly collapsed to the point that it has now been two years since ANY #13+ won a game. There was only one #12 seed winner in 2026 but *maybe* High Point would have been good enough to take out a #4 as well? In this new format they'd have been relegated to a #13 seed.
-
96 would work, and probably will some fine day
-
It’s a shame because the conference realignment had really shifted to make the set of “snubbed” teams just poor enough there was basically no need to expand.
Oh well.
-
What would really improve the quality of competition in the 64 team "real" tournament would be to have the 12 play-in games involve the 24 worst teams in the tournament instead of the 12 worst and then 12 other teams. In that case the #11-#15 seeds would be notably better teams.
-
When something isn't broken it's very important to try and fix it
-
When something isn't broken it's very important to try and fix it
Top-secret, double-classified, ultra-top priority.
-
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It usually is but in this case I'm not sure that even explains it:
It doesn't seem like this will make much money since nearly nobody watches the mid-week play-in games anyway so it seems the primary benefactors will be the coaches of power-conference bubble teams because now eight more of them will get in.
I got that from NBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/ncaa/ncaa-76-team-march-madness-bracket-rcna342669), their article on the expansion stated:
"The expansion isn't expected to generate a lot more income because it will only add games early in the first week. The current TV deal runs through 2032 and could be tweaked slightly."
I don't see how eight extra mid-week play-in games will generate an appreciable amount of cash.
-
It usually is but in this case I'm not sure that even explains it:I got that from NBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/ncaa/ncaa-76-team-march-madness-bracket-rcna342669), their article on the expansion stated:
"The expansion isn't expected to generate a lot more income because it will only add games early in the first week. The current TV deal runs through 2032 and could be tweaked slightly."
I don't see how eight extra mid-week play-in games will generate an appreciable amount of cash.
Seems like a negligible cash thing.
One reporter had a source say it’s mostly about getting more power conference bids, which seems a sort of silly goal, but suppose it’s their thing to run.
-
eight extra mid-week play-in games will generate more cash than you think.
$10 million per game??? I don't know but it's gotta be worth more than $1 million per game
and if the venue sells beer & hotdogs - $$$
-
What would really improve the quality of competition in the 64 team "real" tournament would be to have the 12 play-in games involve the 24 worst teams in the tournament instead of the 12 worst and then 12 other teams. In that case the #11-#15 seeds would be notably better teams.
That's probably the best thing for all involved. While it pushes the low majors to the fringes, it also gives them a chance to "win an NCAA tournament game."
-
eight extra mid-week play-in games will generate more cash than you think.
$10 million per game??? I don't know but it's gotta be worth more than $1 million per game
and if the venue sells beer & hotdogs - $$$
I agree with NBC and @bayareabadger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1571) :
Seems like a negligible cash thing.
I don't know but I can't imagine that they are getting even $1M per game for mid-week games between contenders for middling and bottom seeds. Outside of the individual fanbases nobody cares.
As far as the venue making money on beer and hotdogs, here is the reported attendance for the first four this year:
- 11,756 for Texas/NCST and UMBC/Howard on Tuesday
- 12,558 for MiamiOH/SMU and Prairie View/Lehigh on Wednesday.
The bump for the Wednesday games was undoubtedly because it was a virtual home game for MiamiOH (it is roughly a 1 hour drive from Miami's campus to UD Arena).
They can't possibly be selling enough beer and hotdogs to ~12k people for this to make an appreciable amount of money. Also remember that whatever the take is has to be offset by the cost of actually holding the game. Miami's trip was short but Texas, NCST, UMBC, Howard, SMU, Prairie View, and Lehigh all had flights to pay for plus the costs of operating the arena, paying the officials, etc. I'm not saying it is a money loser but my guess is that it is only going to make enough to pay for itself and a little extra. This does not seem to be a big moneymaker at all.
There is also another offset that could be even worse. The NCAA owns the NIT and this will absolutely gut the NIT. The NIT already doesn't get a ton of viewers but it seems to me that this will take out the best eight teams in the NIT and leave that as an even weaker draw than it already was.
-
That's probably the best thing for all involved. While it pushes the low majors to the fringes, it also gives them a chance to "win an NCAA tournament game."
Exactly. For the bottom-feeder conferences the improvement of the top seeds due to the portal and NIL has made the chances of any team from their league EVER winning an actual R64 game ridiculously slim so we might as well at least put them in a position where they'll have a 50/50 shot against a fellow bottom-feeder before they get obliterated by one of the best teams in the Country.
We get higher quality teams in the 'real' tournament (my definition is R64 and beyond) and the crap teams at the bottom get to pretend that they won an NCAAT game.
-
This seems like a choice without much of a constituency.
Feels like you’ll get a half and half in the pre-Thursday games? Half low seeds, half at larges?
-
This seems like a choice without much of a constituency.
Feels like you’ll get a half and half in the pre-Thursday games? Half low seeds, half at larges?
The CBS article (linked above) projected that six of the play-in games would be between the last 12 at-large teams and the other six would be between the worst 12 teams to get auto-bids so yes exactly half and half but not against each other:
- 6 games between 12 tallest midgets
- 6 games between 12 middling power conference teams.
-
The CBS article (linked above) projected that six of the play-in games would be between the last 12 at-large teams and the other six would be between the worst 12 teams to get auto-bids so yes exactly half and half but not against each other:
- 6 games between 12 tallest midgets
- 6 games between 12 middling power conference teams.
That essentially means the seeds will change somewhat
I just realized they may not want to do the #16 v #16 thing anymore because you want the #15 seed playing a worst team than the #16 seeds are playing. This may mean they may have to create #17 and #18 seeds and 19 seeds.
Either that or create sub- categories. For example
15 seeds - 2 teams that dont play in play in games
15-a seeds - 2 higher seeded 15 seeds that play in play-in games
15-b seeds - 2 lower seeded teams that play the 15-a teams in the play in games (equivalent of a 19 seed)
-
The CBS article (linked above) projected that six of the play-in games would be between the last 12 at-large teams and the other six would be between the worst 12 teams to get auto-bids so yes exactly half and half but not against each other:
- 6 games between 12 tallest midgets
- 6 games between 12 middling power conference teams.
Hmmm. Looking at a projection of what that would look like this year.
The gain is somewhat poor from an interesting game front (for the majority of fans). What you gain in stronger mid-major lower seeds, you probably lose in better higher seeds.
Like, it’s not really better unless you’ve got a very particular taste. Bleh.
-
Hmmm. Looking at a projection of what that would look like this year.
The gain is somewhat poor from an interesting game front (for the majority of fans). What you gain in stronger mid-major lower seeds, you probably lose in better higher seeds.
Like, it’s not really better unless you’ve got a very particular taste. Bleh.
I prefer stronger competition so I'd prefer if they just sent the worst 24 teams to play-in games to determine the 14-16 seeds. That would much more substantially improve the quality of the 12-16 seeds.
As it is the continuation of the compromise of having 1/2 last at-large and 1/2 last teams minimizes the impact.
-
I prefer stronger competition so I'd prefer if they just sent the worst 24 teams to play-in games to determine the 14-16 seeds. That would much more substantially improve the quality of the 12-16 seeds.
As it is the continuation of the compromise of having 1/2 last at-large and 1/2 last teams minimizes the impact.
We’re all very well aware. What you seem to want is a smaller tournament. Possibly unseeded.
Which is a fine thing to want. But it feels like we’re constantly trying to half measure around saying that.
-
Well hell, let's just make it 256, a straight up ranking, #1 plays #256, and add a whole 'nother weekend.
-
Analyzing using CBS' projections (https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-tournament-expands-76-teams-bracket-march-madness-big-dance/) for 2026 based on the new format:
The eight additional teams (first four out and next four out) become 12-seed play-ins.
Thus the four #12 seeds from the 2026 NCAAT would become #13 seeds. Similarly the four #13 seeds would become #14 seeds.
The top two #14 seeds from the 2026 NCAAT would become #15 seeds. The other two #14 seeds would have to play-in to get a #15 seed.
The top two #15 seeds from the 2026 NCAAT would have to play-in to get a #15 seed. The other two #15 seeds would have to play in to get a #16 seed.
The two #16 seeds from the 2026 NCAAT that did NOT have to play in Dayton would become #16 play-ins.
All-in-all there is a minor incremental increase in the quality of the #12-#16 seeds that should theoretically result in slightly better games at the 5/12, 4/13, 3/14, 2/15 and 1/16 levels.
-
We’re all very well aware. What you seem to want is a smaller tournament. Possibly unseeded.
Which is a fine thing to want. But it feels like we’re constantly trying to half measure around saying that.
What I want is more competitive games. We could get there by leaning more toward the best teams rather than the 'deserving' tallest midgets.
At least since the 1985 expansion the NCAAT has been a compromise between those two. 31 auto-bids for 'deserving' league champions and 37 at-large slots for the 'best' teams. Obviously a big group of the auto-bids go to teams that actually are some of the best anyway so in those cases the auto-bids are irrelevant.
-
I guess I can start adding the NCAAT to the list of things to ignore...
-
at least until the 2nd round
-
What I want is more competitive games. We could get there by leaning more toward the best teams rather than the 'deserving' tallest midgets.
At least since the 1985 expansion the NCAAT has been a compromise between those two. 31 auto-bids for 'deserving' league champions and 37 at-large slots for the 'best' teams. Obviously a big group of the auto-bids go to teams that actually are some of the best anyway so in those cases the auto-bids are irrelevant.
Man, the pre-‘85 tournament would’ve set your teeth on edge.
Beyond relegating or dropping smaller conference teams, any other ideas for making a more competitive tournament?
-
I guess I can start adding the NCAAT to the list of things to ignore...
I don't see it that way, I see it this way:
at least until the 2nd round
Just ignore the play-in games which most everyone whose team isn't actually in them does anyway and the 'real' 64-team tournament will be marginally better because the 12-16 seeds will be incrementally better than before.
Now what would really improve the 'real' 64-team tournament would be if they seeded it as a 19-seed tournament and made the worst 24 teams play each other in the first round of:
Then when the 'real' 64-team tournament started your 12-16 seeds would all be substantially better than they were before the change:
- The four play-in #11 seeds would become the last two #11 seeds and the first two #12 seeds.
- The "first four out" would become the last two #12 seeds and the first two #13 seeds.
- The "next four out" would become the last two #13 seeds and the first two #14 seeds who would then play the last two #19 seeds who used to be #16 seeds.
- The four #12 seeds would become the last two #14 seeds (playing #19) and the first two #15 seeds (playing #18).
- The four #13 seeds would become the last two #15 seeds (playing #18) and the first two #16 seeds (playing #17).
- The four #14 seeds would become the last two #16 seeds (playing #17) and the first two #17 seeds (playing #16).
- The four #15 seeds would become the last two #17 seeds (playing #16) and the first two #18 seeds (playing #15).
- The six #16 seeds would become the last two #18 seeds (playing #15) and all four #19 seeds (playing #14).
The above isn't exactly accurate because some of the existing #12 seeds would probably fit ahead of some of the next four out and thus replace them at #13. Either way the teams at the 12-16 lines would be 2-3 lines better than as-is.
-
Man, the pre-‘85 tournament would’ve set your teeth on edge.
Beyond relegating or dropping smaller conference teams, any other ideas for making a more competitive tournament?
Yes, what I just typed. Have the worst teams play for their spot in the 'real' 64-team tournament. This would absolutely make the 64-team tournament more competitive by eliminating some of the worst teams.
As discussed earlier, #13 seeds and below haven't won a game in two years. They are undeniably slipping at least relative to the top-4 seeds which is making the tournament less competitive. If we are expanding to 76 anyway then I'd prefer we do it by having the worst 24 teams play each other in what I would still view as a "play-in round" to get to the 'real' 64-team tournament. Once you did that, the 'real' 64-team tournament would absolutely be more competitive.
-
I am anti "more competitive" games. The NCAA tourney is single elimination. The top seeds earned an easier game. If their games are getting easier, then all the more reason to earn a top seed.
-
Yes, what I just typed. Have the worst teams play for their spot in the 'real' 64-team tournament. This would absolutely make the 64-team tournament more competitive by eliminating some of the worst teams.
As discussed earlier, #13 seeds and below haven't won a game in two years. They are undeniably slipping at least relative to the top-4 seeds which is making the tournament less competitive. If we are expanding to 76 anyway then I'd prefer we do it by having the worst 24 teams play each other in what I would still view as a "play-in round" to get to the 'real' 64-team tournament. Once you did that, the 'real' 64-team tournament would absolutely be more competitive.
That’s just relegating them.
So I’m seeing that answer being no?
-
That’s just relegating them.
So I’m seeing that answer being no?
I mean, if you are calling that relegation and I guess it is then fine, no.
For me though it goes back to something that @Brutus Buckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=31) pointed out on page #1, it gives them a bona fide chance to win an NCAAT game. Granted, it is a play-in game that nobody actually cares about but a lot of MiamiOh fans were happy with their win and if they hadn't been relegated to a play-in they'd never have had that opportunity.
-
I like how they plan to get under Medinabuckeye's skin by playing half these intro games in either Pacific,, Mountain or Central time zones.
Dayton apparently is the mecca of these type games and will remain a hosr for some of them.
-
I like how they plan to get under Medinabuckeye's skin by playing half these intro games in either Pacific,, Mountain or Central time zones.
Dayton apparently is the mecca of these type games and will remain a hosr for some of them.
Where did you find info on host sites?
I hadn't seen anything but since it is 12 games total I assumed they would want three sites (2 games per site per night, 2 nights = 12 games).
-
a passing blip in the cbssports.com story in reference to the non-Dayton site of these additional games. I immediately thought of an 11 v 11 seed game between tOSU vs Auburn being played in Salt Lake City on Tuesday.
One source told CBS Sports that it will for sure be in either the Central, Mountain or Pacific time zones and that a decision won't happen until either this summer or in the early fall.
-
More More More (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73RYirgeLV4)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/MGgS4xA.jpeg)
-
I’m realizing the Medina-friendly tournament won’t have traditional seeds. They’re the great barrier to competitive games. The very best play the very worst when we have the most games. There’s a lower chance like teams play one another. As the theoretically most even teams are literally divided.
If you could avoid gamesmanship, I’m thinking this Medina-run event spend the first weekend matching up like seeds. So the 1s play a four team tournament, as do the 2s, 3s etc. We think throwing VT and Stanford into a play-in is good for competitiveness, this supercharges it! In the second weekend, we can pair 1-2, 3-4, 5-6. It would make for a weird final weekend, but we’re here to maximize competitive games, damn if we haven’t done it.
The downside would be, you end up with some gamesmanship, manipulating seeds, so, an alternative would be completely random seeding. Maybe The top two seeds, meat and round one, but if more competitiveness is the Medina dream, well, that would work toward it.
-
Where did you find info on host sites?
I hadn't seen anything but since it is 12 games total I assumed they would want three sites (2 games per site per night, 2 nights = 12 games).
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/48621117/sources-ncaa-basketball-tournaments-set-move-76-teams
"The mechanics of the expansion in the men's tournament would include eight additional at-large bids. What's known now as the First Four -- eight teams playing four games in Dayton, Ohio -- would expand to 12 games played by 24 teams at two sites, one of which was expected to remain in Dayton.
The location of the new site has yet to be determined, but it was expected to be west of the Eastern time zone to help with logistics.
The expansion would lead to an additional eight men's games, meaning the Tuesday and Wednesday of the NCAA tournament would feature 24 of the 76 men's teams."
I take this to mean there will be 3 games in Dayton on Tues and 3 games in Dayton on Wed. And the same for one other site that is not in the Eastern time zone.
-
Of course you know the committee will be biased and give IU preference for the Dayton site.
-
at least until the 2nd round
I already ignore the CFBP's until the second round.
-
much easier for me to ignore basketball
-
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/48621117/sources-ncaa-basketball-tournaments-set-move-76-teams
"The mechanics of the expansion in the men's tournament would include eight additional at-large bids. What's known now as the First Four -- eight teams playing four games in Dayton, Ohio -- would expand to 12 games played by 24 teams at two sites, one of which was expected to remain in Dayton.
The location of the new site has yet to be determined, but it was expected to be west of the Eastern time zone to help with logistics.
The expansion would lead to an additional eight men's games, meaning the Tuesday and Wednesday of the NCAA tournament would feature 24 of the 76 men's teams."
I take this to mean there will be 3 games in Dayton on Tues and 3 games in Dayton on Wed. And the same for one other site that is not in the Eastern time zone.
It makes no sense to me to play three games per site per day at two sites. Why not two games per site per day at three sites? Advantages as I see it:
- With three rather than two sites you will inherently have teams overall playing closer to their campuses.
- The tickets are always sold as two-game sessions so two games per site per day is just one session per site per day, what is the plan for three?
-
I’m realizing the Medina-friendly tournament won’t have traditional seeds. They’re the great barrier to competitive games. The very best play the very worst when we have the most games. There’s a lower chance like teams play one another. As the theoretically most even teams are literally divided.
If you could avoid gamesmanship, I’m thinking this Medina-run event spend the first weekend matching up like seeds. So the 1s play a four team tournament, as do the 2s, 3s etc. We think throwing VT and Stanford into a play-in is good for competitiveness, this supercharges it! In the second weekend, we can pair 1-2, 3-4, 5-6. It would make for a weird final weekend, but we’re here to maximize competitive games, damn if we haven’t done it.
The downside would be, you end up with some gamesmanship, manipulating seeds, so, an alternative would be completely random seeding. Maybe The top two seeds, meat and round one, but if more competitiveness is the Medina dream, well, that would work toward it.
You are making some major leaps here from what I've said to what you've typed.
I want competitive games, yes.
The Portal and NIL have already degraded the competitiveness of the bottom four seeds. I provided the data above but in short, after an all-time great run from 2021-2023 the 13-16 seeds have completely collapsed and only won two games over the past three tournaments. That ties the fewest ever in three consecutive tournaments and it is getting worse as both wins were back in 2024.
I honestly do appreciate @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2269) 's contention that the top seeds have earned and should get easier games but to me there is a limit. Once you get to the point where the top seeds are effectively getting a bye, IMHO you have gone too far. We have reached that point as evidenced by the 0-32 record of the #13-16 seeds in the last two tournaments.
The situation has changed over the past couple of years. There were 38 tournaments from expansion in 1985 through 2023 and in those 38 tournaments the #13-16 seeds managed to pull off a first round upset 67 times. That works out to an average of just under twice per tournament. That is enough upsets to provide at least some level of excitement. From 1985-2023 there were 608 games between top-4 and #13-16 seeds and the underdogs won 67 which is approximately once in nine tries.
The new reality is that the #13-16 seeds simply cannot compete. Let's not ignore that reality. Let's also not pretend that nothing has changed because it has, this is a new situation. Prior to the Portal and NIL the #13-16 seeds were obviously not as good as the #1-4 seeds but they did win sometimes. Now they don't.
I'd like these games to be at least marginally competitive. If we are expanding to 76 teams anyway we could easily improve the competitiveness of the bottom teams in the 'real' 64-team tournament by relegating the worst 24 teams in the NCAAT to a play-in round where half of them get eliminated. That provides more plausibly competitive games in the R64 while still giving the top seeds a major advantage in that they will still be playing low seeds.
-
You are making some major leaps here from what I've said to what you've typed.
I want competitive games, yes.
The Portal and NIL have already degraded the competitiveness of the bottom four seeds. I provided the data above but in short, after an all-time great run from 2021-2023 the 13-16 seeds have completely collapsed and only won two games over the past three tournaments. That ties the fewest ever in three consecutive tournaments and it is getting worse as both wins were back in 2024.
I honestly do appreciate @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2269) 's contention that the top seeds have earned and should get easier games but to me there is a limit. Once you get to the point where the top seeds are effectively getting a bye, IMHO you have gone too far. We have reached that point as evidenced by the 0-32 record of the #13-16 seeds in the last two tournaments.
The situation has changed over the past couple of years. There were 38 tournaments from expansion in 1985 through 2023 and in those 38 tournaments the #13-16 seeds managed to pull off a first round upset 67 times. That works out to an average of just under twice per tournament. That is enough upsets to provide at least some level of excitement. From 1985-2023 there were 608 games between top-4 and #13-16 seeds and the underdogs won 67 which is approximately once in nine tries.
The new reality is that the #13-16 seeds simply cannot compete. Let's not ignore that reality. Let's also not pretend that nothing has changed because it has, this is a new situation. Prior to the Portal and NIL the #13-16 seeds were obviously not as good as the #1-4 seeds but they did win sometimes. Now they don't.
I'd like these games to be at least marginally competitive. If we are expanding to 76 teams anyway we could easily improve the competitiveness of the bottom teams in the 'real' 64-team tournament by relegating the worst 24 teams in the NCAAT to a play-in round where half of them get eliminated. That provides more plausibly competitive games in the R64 while still giving the top seeds a major advantage in that they will still be playing low seeds.
I’m struck by the idea we might not really be talking about that much more competitiveness.
Seems like we’re mostly just talking about minimizing a set of teams you feel are distasteful, and “competitiveness” is a bit of a cover.
Which is fine. But it seems weird to dance around. I don’t think you’re actually hankering for Vandy-Va Tech. You just don’t seem to want Vandy-McNeese.
-
I’m struck by the idea we might not really be talking about that much more competitiveness.
It isn't THAT much but it is an incremental improvement. Here is a chart of performance by each seed in the first two rounds from 1985-2026 (41 tournaments):
(https://i.imgur.com/MgFnh5p.png)
Note the massive drop from the #12's to the #13's and it's mirror which is the massive drop from #4 to #5. The rest of the seeds are each just slightly, incrementally less successful than the seed ahead of them but the drop from #12 to #13 is humongous. #12 seeds are 58-106 (.354) in the first round while #13 seeds are 33-131 (.201).
The #13-16 seeds have always been substantially worse than the teams ahead of them and now with the Portal and NIL is is worse. They are no longer just bad, they aren't competitive. The 1/16 through 4/13 games have effectively become byes for the top seeds. They were always easy games but not THIS easy.
Relegating the bottom seeds to a play-in reduces that. I'm suggesting a 19-seed tournament with a play-in round of:
- 14 vs 19, winner plays #3
- 15 vs 18, winner plays #2
- 16 vs 17, winner plays #1
What that would effectively do is make the 16's better because they would be what used to be #14's and make the 15's better because they would be what used to be 13's, etc.
They aren't going to win anywhere close to half of their games against the #1-4's but at least they'd have a chance. I think it *MIGHT* get us back to where we were before the Portal and NIL made it completely impossible for the bottom seeds.
Seems like we’re mostly just talking about minimizing a set of teams you feel are distasteful, and “competitiveness” is a bit of a cover.
Why do you insist on questioning my motives instead of looking at the impact of the Portal and NIL on competitiveness and acknowledging that the competitiveness of the 1/16 through 4-13 games has been seriously degraded. I see that as a problem that can be solved.
Which is fine. But it seems weird to dance around. I don’t think you’re actually hankering for Vandy-Va Tech. You just don’t seem to want Vandy-McNeese.
Vandy/McNeese was a 5/12 game and I haven't really looked at the impact of the Portal and NIL on them. There was only one 5/12 upset this year and that is less than the average of about 1.3 per year but that isn't a statistically significant difference and the last two years there were two each year so the three-year average is slightly above the long-term average but again, the difference isn't statistically significant.
What I don't want is the 13-16 seeds becoming completely irrelevant which they now are. 0-32 over the last two years is the worst two-year run since expansion for the 13-16 seeds. In fact, prior to the last two years the worst ever two-year run for the 13-16 seeds was 1-31 and that only happened once (2003/4). Prior to the last two years the two-year average was for about 3.5 of the 13-16 seeds to make it out of the first round.
I don't really care about Vandy/McNeese because we are still (at least for now) seeing some 5/12 upsets but we are NOT seeing 13+ upsets anymore and that is an issue to at least contemplate.
-
It makes no sense to me to play three games per site per day at two sites. Why not two games per site per day at three sites? Advantages as I see it:
- With three rather than two sites you will inherently have teams overall playing closer to their campuses.
- The tickets are always sold as two-game sessions so two games per site per day is just one session per site per day, what is the plan for three?
I had a couple of thoughts after thinking about this. Maybe they could start on Monday night and have 2 games at each site for 3 straight days. But of course that's a really, really quick turn around. Essentially 24 hours after the selection show. Maybe there would be a way to notify the 4 teams involved 48 hours in advance, which probably wouldn't work because those normally would be the last team picked.
Or maybe they could move the traditional first and 2nd rounds from Thur-Sun to Fri-Mon. Then you could have 3 straight days at Dayton from Tues to Thur. 2 games each day. This idea makes a little more sense to me.
-
I had a couple of thoughts after thinking about this. Maybe they could start on Monday night and have 2 games at each site for 3 straight days. But of course that's a really, really quick turn around. Essentially 24 hours after the selection show. Maybe there would be a way to notify the 4 teams involved 48 hours in advance, which probably wouldn't work because those normally would be the last team picked.
I think there are two problems with a Monday turnaround:
First is simply the logistics of the travel. The selection show is Sunday AFTER the B1GCG so it is Sunday evening then the teams playing on Monday would have to get on a plane and fly out THAT night for Dayton or wherever they were headed. It is possible but, as I see it, the problem is that it wouldn't just be the four teams that actually DID play on Monday. Every team in line to potentially play on Monday would have to have a plane chartered and sitting on the runway just in case.
Second is the fatigue factor. Suppose that Washington or Northwestern had lost the B1GCG:
- On Tuesday Northwestern beat Penn State.
- On Wednesday Northwestern beat Indiana and Washington beat USC.
- On Thursday Northwestern lost to Purdue and Washington lost to Wisconsin but consider if they had won.
- On Friday Northwestern would have played Nebraska and Washington would have played Illinois.
- On Saturday Northwestern would have played UCLA and Washington would have played Michigan.
- Sunday is the B1GCG.
Then if one of them got a play-in spot and had to play a game on Monday that would be either their sixth game in six days (Washington) or their seventh game in seven days (Northwestern).
Or maybe they could move the traditional first and 2nd rounds from Thur-Sun to Fri-Mon. Then you could have 3 straight days at Dayton from Tues to Thur. 2 games each day. This idea makes a little more sense to me.
I think this is a great idea. I've long been a proponent of moving the traditional first and second rounds from Thur-Sun to Sat-Tue to put the two busiest days on the weekend when more of us could actually watch.
-
Basketball Doc Tourney Reality (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFOvldn_IRw)
-
I think there are two problems with a Monday turnaround:
First is simply the logistics of the travel. The selection show is Sunday AFTER the B1GCG so it is Sunday evening then the teams playing on Monday would have to get on a plane and fly out THAT night for Dayton or wherever they were headed. It is possible but, as I see it, the problem is that it wouldn't just be the four teams that actually DID play on Monday. Every team in line to potentially play on Monday would have to have a plane chartered and sitting on the runway just in case.
Second is the fatigue factor. Suppose that Washington or Northwestern had lost the B1GCG:
- On Tuesday Northwestern beat Penn State.
- On Wednesday Northwestern beat Indiana and Washington beat USC.
- On Thursday Northwestern lost to Purdue and Washington lost to Wisconsin but consider if they had won.
- On Friday Northwestern would have played Nebraska and Washington would have played Illinois.
- On Saturday Northwestern would have played UCLA and Washington would have played Michigan.
- Sunday is the B1GCG.
Then if one of them got a play-in spot and had to play a game on Monday that would be either their sixth game in six days (Washington) or their seventh game in seven days (Northwestern). I think this is a great idea. I've long been a proponent of moving the traditional first and second rounds from Thur-Sun to Sat-Tue to put the two busiest days on the weekend when more of us could actually watch.
Yup, I think this is the future.
Play-in games will be played on Thur & Fri.
Round of 64 games on Sat & Sun
Round of 32 games on Mon & Tues
Sweet 16 games on Sat and Sun
Elite 8 games on Mon & Tues
Final 4 games on Sun
NCG on Tues
-
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/48621117/sources-ncaa-basketball-tournaments-set-move-76-teams
"The mechanics of the expansion in the men's tournament would include eight additional at-large bids. What's known now as the First Four -- eight teams playing four games in Dayton, Ohio -- would expand to 12 games played by 24 teams at two sites, one of which was expected to remain in Dayton.
Looking forward to where Site B might be. Hearing it's supposed to be a western location to balance the geography. Albuquerque? Tucson? Las Vegas? Oklahoma City?
-
Looking forward to where Site B might be. Hearing it's supposed to be a western location to balance the geography. Albuquerque? Tucson? Las Vegas? Oklahoma City?
I heard one fan suggest Omaha, which is not the craziest idea. No pro teams to compete with for attention, but a history of college ball support.
Although Ok Ciry or ABQ might better geographically
-
Yup, I think this is the future.
Play-in games will be played on Thur & Fri.
Round of 64 games on Sat & Sun
Round of 32 games on Mon & Tues
Sweet 16 games on Sat and Sun
Elite 8 games on Mon & Tues
Final 4 games on Sun
NCG on Tues
How fun.
-
Yup, I think this is the future.
Play-in games will be played on Thur & Fri.
Round of 64 games on Sat & Sun
Round of 32 games on Mon & Tues
Sweet 16 games on Sat and Sun
Elite 8 games on Mon & Tues
Final 4 games on Sun
NCG on Tues
Hmmmm. Mildly don’t like that.
I think the timing of the first weekend’s games can be poor. But moving off the first two days of first round would be quite the vibe shift.
-
Looking forward to where Site B might be. Hearing it's supposed to be a western location to balance the geography. Albuquerque? Tucson? Las Vegas? Oklahoma City?
Why? Screw geography. The West is already way over-represented in the tournament. Dayton is also not great, because who wants to go to Dayton in March?
...
Put it somewhere people want to go - a reward so to speak.
Nashville would be ideal.
Easy access to international travel, plenty of hotels, great transportation. Oh, and a little entertainment.
-
Why? Screw geography. The West is already way over-represented in the tournament. Dayton is also not great, because who wants to go to Dayton in March?
...
Put it somewhere people want to go - a reward so to speak.
Nashville would be ideal.
Easy access to international travel, plenty of hotels, great transportation. Oh, and a little entertainment.
Does Dayton have another arena?
-
Does Dayton have anything?
I drove through it. Was not remotely compelled to stop.
-
Does Dayton have anything?
I drove through it. Was not remotely compelled to stop.
No.
-
Just add more teams in so the loser of the first play-in game is 86ed out of the tournament....