NCAA Changes (My Two Cents)
Today I sit at home watching the ACC tournament as we start to close the books on the college basketball season and get ready for March Madness. Today is Selection Sunday!
Over the last few weeks there has been some discussion about changing the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, expanding from the current 65 team to 96 teams (coaches,for, against). I think this is a TERRIBLE idea! From what I understand the idea is this would allow for more Mid-Major Conference teams, from smaller conferences, to get the opportunity to play in the "Big Dance".
That’s all well and good, but you know as well as I that what will end up happening is more "major" programs getting in on name alone. 12-14 Big East teams, 8-10 ACCteams, 9-10 Big 10 team, 2 Pac 10 teams (seriously…the Pac 10 is terrible at basketball right now).
So because the internet gives everyone an opportunity to weigh in, here’s my opinion:
Regular Season Championships Should Mean Something
Currently there are 30 automatic bids to the NCAA tournament. These automatic bids are determined by the winners of the end of the year conference championships tournaments, expect for the Ivy League which doesn’t have a conference tournament therefore the regular season champ gets the automatic bid (nerds!).
I think for the most part this automatic bid process is pretty good, however there are times when a undeserving team during the year gets hot at tournament time and gets the "opportunity" to go to the "Big Dance" instead of a more deserving regular season champ who has played well all year. See the Mid-America Conference circa 2010, Ohio University (21-14, 7-9) the #9 seed wins the conference tournament (gets the automatic bid) while the #1 seed Kent State (23-9, 13-3)(goes home…now in this case Ohio beat Kent State in the tournament but my idea still holds).
I think both the regular season champ AND the conference tournament champ should get automatic bids. Now, I realize that often the regular season champ is the conference tournament champ. In that case and in the case of the Ivy League, that open bid would become an "at-large" bid.
30 Regular Season Champions bids
29 Conference Tournament Champions bids
6 At-Large bids (this number could be as high as 35 if ALL regular season champs win their conference tournaments…which has the same probability of winning thePowerball)
I know this is crazy
This would certainly put Joe Lunardi out of a job or at least reduce it to part-time at best. It would reward hard work throughout the season for those teams that have no other chance to get to the tournament than to win their conference tournament, but would also reward those teams who get hot at the end of the season. It would also allow for Mid-Major conferences to get at least 2 teams in every NCAA tournament.
It’s not perfect
I realize that there are probably 8 Big East teams, 6 Big 10 teams, 6 Big 12 teams, 7 ACC teams that are deserving of bids to this year’s NCAAs, but this formula would make conference regular season play more important, while not taking away the importance of the conference tournaments. It would also get fans watching more games, pulling for the favorite in the smaller conferences so their "power"conference team could have a shot at an at-large bid.
Getty Photos
I also realize this would make it much more difficult on the committee because they wouldn’t know how many spots they needed to fill until Selection Sunday, but it would also build the tension of that magical Sunday in mid-March. Who gets in? How many spots are left? These questions would drive more fans to more searching, more watching, and ultimately, for college basketball more money (which we all know is the bottom line.)
So those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Blessings,
Buttface
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
a re-butt-al
Although I agree that expanding upon the current 64 (+1) is idiotic, I don’t like the loss of so many at large. Teams will be discouraged from tough schedules then, since the likelyhood of an at-large bid has been so reduced.
I agree with Andy Katz about the smaller or less talented conferences: unless they’re making real money for their conference tournament, they should drop it, since they’re only a one-bid conference anyway, and this way their most deserving team gets in and has a fighting chance of winning a game (and likely getting a better seed than the lesser team pulling the upset).
Why do we want to mess with perfection?
Ok, well it is not perfect but it is pretty darn good. The current format should not be changed for the sake of change. As Jay Bilas just said, “This is the national championship we are talking about.” These bubble teams don’t have a shot at playing for the national title. Why expand other than to save coaches jobs and make more money?
The idea is decent and could end up producing the same scenario as this year but you also could have instances where small conferences “tank” games just to get more money for the conference by having multiple teams in the tournament.
Leave no doubt tonight! Leave no doubt tonight! No doubt! They shouldn't of played the Old Gold'n Blue.
by 5th Year Senior on Mar 14, 2010 7:56 PM EDT reply actions
True
I figured my idea was better than the “everybody gets in” crap they are talking about and I was trying not to be too cynical about mid-majors tanking games.
I think doing away with conference tournaments if probably be the “most fair” change, if we need one, but I love the conference tournaments!
by Oregon Mountaineer on Mar 14, 2010 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
6 at large bids? 6!?
what would be the motivation to not pack it in if you win the regular season championship when your already dancing? The only regular season solution would be to do as football where the conference is split in half and the winner of each section of the conference plays a single championship game, said change would have to be a movement from within the conference’s, which would be stupid and lose the conference’s tons of TV dollars… so why even mess with it AT ALL?
by 22cutchhappens on Mar 14, 2010 11:26 PM EDT reply actions
Need to clarify
Since we as a society can’t leave well enough alone I figured this was a better option than the 96 teams plus I think with a variable number of at large bids it would entice those teams that actually care and not filled with kids playing their one year to jump to the NBA to continue to work hard throughout the season for the chance they could get in.
Maybe I’m too hopeful that people would actually put in the effort for a chance at the dance.
Plus I don’t believe that teams would pack it in during the conference tournament. I hate losing rec league basketball games and know 5YS throws shoes at Intramural games.
If you believe that these teams don’t care about the conference tournaments you don’t understand highly competitive athletics. (Plus we’re not talking about the NFL here…see Indianapolis)
by Oregon Mountaineer on Mar 15, 2010 12:12 PM EDT reply actions
okay
this is 22cutchhappens new screenname. To clarify. Take the NFL playoffs for instance, im sure those guys don’t want to lose, but it’s not up to them whether they play or not. Take SU, one team see’s SU’s center go down in the confernce tournament, and think that would suck. Again i refrence the NFL, when your in your in. NO matter how much the players hate it, it comes from the coaches. It’s the most exciting 3 weeks of sports period. leave it be.
I have to agree with Bilas on this whole matter
People are arguing about who gets included and who gets left out at the bottom. The BOTTOM. Teams with hardly a snowballs chance in Hades to make it past the first weekend of the current setup, much less farther. This is the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP Tournament, not the lets include everybody so they feel better about themselves or save a coaches job tournament.
In that case...
Only conference regular season champs…they are the best of the best right?
Also, Jay Bilas is a dick!
by Oregon Mountaineer on Mar 15, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
no, in that case
leave it the hell alone is what he’s said and what I’m saying…no offense meant to you

by 















