PDA

View Full Version : Love the Dance; But is Marred by Teams w/ 10+ losses, Smeared those w/ losing seasons



TravelinZag
02-08-2015, 01:16 PM
Three hundred fifty-one D-1 basketball teams, half of which are not competitive. The tournament format gives 68 (a smidgen under 20%) a chance at the national championship. Okay for fun, but way more than have demonstrated throughout the season that they deserve to be considered national champs. Still, 68 gives many mid-majors entrance, and in a time of ever-larger conferences, allows multiple teams from good basketball major conferences (i.e., not the SEC) to participate. No problem. What grates on me is that the season is dismissed as mere seeding for conference tournaments, the winners of which receive an automatic bid. This is the major factor in NCAA Tournament fields which pass on teams with say, 23-7 records while teams with 17-12, 15-14 or 14-17 records take their slots.

Bravo to those gritty underwhelming teams who through stubborn will, luck and a bounce here or there finish in the lower half of their conference, but win the tournament. That, and an invite to the NIT, should be their reward.

However, let the tournament committee choose between the conference tournament and regular season winners, with some minimum standards. For example, to receive an automatic bid via winning the conference tournament, a team must also possess a winning record in conference play (perhaps including tournament games), and either a winning record overall and/or a RPI or BPI above the mean/average (thus including, and excluding 175-180 teams). Also, some conferences simply do not deserve an automatic bid. Think the WCC gets criticized as weak? Peruse the standings. You'll find several where the majority of teams have losing records overall and in league play and RPIs well lower than 200. The 19-year-old young men competing are well beyond the "every child deserves a ribbon" mentality. Fine for elementary school, but insulting for adults.

Sure this will be controversial, and eager to read your reactions. Certain that some of you have a better idea. Not that anyone is asking us.

For perspective, this would be a small tweak on the tournament, which is so much better than the shambles of college football. They have endless minor bowls featuring match-ups of teams with records like 6-6, 7-5 and occasionally 6-7 playing in games with names like the "American Standard Toilet Bowl." What a sad joke. One such game this past season attracted fewer than 1,000 paying spectators.

mgadfly
02-08-2015, 01:30 PM
I don't care for conference tournaments (except for the one I go to every year) but understand they aren't going anywhere anytime soon (because they do draw a lot of attention). To make it so the committee could disregard the results of the conference's determination on how to crown its champion would be a step back in my opinion. And it isn't like a team without an "at-large" type resume that blows its conference tournament will be missed all that much.

I love the David v Goliath feel of opening weekend. Part of it is created by conferences choosing to crown their champions in such a bizarre way.

seacatfan
02-08-2015, 01:37 PM
The Tourney maybe isn't perfect as is, but I don't want to see it tinkered with. With the autonomy gained by the Power 5 conferences recently, if you took away auto bids from several of the smaller conferences, I think you'd see a slippery slope that would just lead to more very mediocre BCS teams getting in the Dance. That won't improve anything. Yeah I don't like seeing teams with losing records getting in, but if they won 3 or 4 straight games in their conference tourneys I guess they "earned it." Not like any of those teams are going anywhere in the Dance, and not likely any team they "stole" a bid from would've gone anywhere either.

There are a LOT more Divison 1 teams than there were 10 years ago or so. Only 4 more slots have been added to the Tourney. If it's watered down, it has been ever since it was expanded to 64 teams. IMHO it is by far and away the greatest sporting event on the calendar each year. I say leave it as it is, even if it's not perfect. Tinkering would very likely make it worse, not better.

23dpg
02-08-2015, 01:39 PM
The conferences decide that the winner of their respective tournaments go to the big dance. The only conference that doesn't use a post season tourney is the Ivy League. (I think)

The reason the conferences do this is money. It gives the big 6 a chance to sneak an extra unworthy team in. The mid also like it. It gives conferences like the WCC a chance to have a team like San Diego get in like they did a few years ago. Only the small conferences don't bebefit from it. If their 26-5 conference champ loses, it's off to the NIT for them. But ESPN does show the conference tourney final game on tv, so there's the money thing again.

The only time that it ever hurt a big conference was a few years ago when the Pac12 season winner won the regular season title, but their resume was unworthy of a spot and they were rightly passed over. The school is located in Seattle as I remember.

Also, if you deny some of the smaller conferences of the auto bid, well Gonzaga as you know it would have never become the team it is today. Twenty years ago, the WCC was closer to the Big Sky than the MWC.

seacatfan
02-08-2015, 01:39 PM
The Ivy League doesn't have a conference tourney, regular season winner gets auto bid. If there is a tie, they have a one game play-in. How excited does anyone get over the conference race in the Ivy League? Conference tourney are full of drama, they are the perfect pre-amble to the Big Dance. I love 'em, who cares if some weak teams win them sometimes.

willandi
02-08-2015, 01:44 PM
I agree! Only teams with 2 losses or less should be allowed in! Still play the full slate of 34 games...GU/UK becomes a best of 30 series! Maybe it becomes a 3 team round robin!















Can you feel the sarcasm?

seacatfan
02-08-2015, 01:50 PM
I'm pretty sure there was ONE year during the Zags run they absolutely would not have been an at-large entry to the Big Dance, only got in by winning the WCC tourney that year. Didn't lose 13 or 14 games, maybe more like 9 or 10? If only really WORTHY teams were allowed in, the Zags 16 year Tourney streak would've been broken somewhere in the middle. So there's that to think about.

Zags11
02-08-2015, 01:56 PM
I love the tournament. It is xmas in march and love upsets unless zags involved in bad way.

gonzagafan62
02-08-2015, 01:56 PM
I'm pretty sure there was ONE year during the Zags run they absolutely would not have been an at-large entry to the Big Dance, only got in by winning the WCC tourney that year. Didn't lose 13 or 14 games, maybe more like 9 or 10? If only really WORTHY teams were allowed in, the Zags 16 year Tourney streak would've been broken somewhere in the middle. So there's that to think about.

99,00,07, 11 all come to mind

gonzagafan62
02-08-2015, 01:57 PM
The Tourney maybe isn't perfect as is, but I don't want to see it tinkered with. With the autonomy gained by the Power 5 conferences recently, if you took away auto bids from several of the smaller conferences, I think you'd see a slippery slope that would just lead to more very mediocre BCS teams getting in the Dance. That won't improve anything. Yeah I don't like seeing teams with losing records getting in, but if they won 3 or 4 straight games in their conference tourneys I guess they "earned it." Not like any of those teams are going anywhere in the Dance, and not likely any team they "stole" a bid from would've gone anywhere either.

There are a LOT more Divison 1 teams than there were 10 years ago or so. Only 4 more slots have been added to the Tourney. If it's watered down, it has been ever since it was expanded to 64 teams. IMHO it is by far and away the greatest sporting event on the calendar each year. I say leave it as it is, even if it's not perfect. Tinkering would very likely make it worse, not better.

+1

seacatfan
02-08-2015, 02:02 PM
99,00,07, 11 all come to mind

You're right, that's more seasons they could've been left out if they didn't get the auto bid than I was thinking of. The one in particular was the infamous season of Mushroomgate, kind of a ragtag group after Heytvelt got suspended. They rallied and gave it everything they had, but that was a mediocre team.

AK457
02-08-2015, 02:12 PM
Don't forget that without the tournament, teams at the bottom of their leagues would have nothing to play for towards the end of the season, which would affect not only them, but their opponents.

23dpg
02-08-2015, 02:14 PM
After the early years 07 and 11 were I doubt. In 07 they received a ten seed so it's conceivable they still could have gotten in. In 2011, they received an 11 seed. It is almost a certainty that they wouldn't have made it.

Good topic of discussion. Again TZ, this is a conference issue, not an NCAA issue.

kitzbuel
02-08-2015, 02:28 PM
The conferences decide that the winner of their respective tournaments go to the big dance. The only conference that doesn't use a post season tourney is the Ivy League. (I think)

The reason the conferences do this is money. It gives the big 6 a chance to sneak an extra unworthy team in. The mid also like it. It gives conferences like the WCC a chance to have a team like San Diego get in like they did a few years ago. Only the small conferences don't bebefit from it. If their 26-5 conference champ loses, it's off to the NIT for them. But ESPN does show the conference tourney final game on tv, so there's the money thing again.

The only time that it ever hurt a big conference was a few years ago when the Pac12 season winner won the regular season title, but their resume was unworthy of a spot and they were rightly passed over. The school is located in Seattle as I remember.

Also, if you deny some of the smaller conferences of the auto bid, well Gonzaga as you know it would have never become the team it is today. Twenty years ago, the WCC was closer to the Big Sky than the MWC.

The small conferences aren't hurt by it, at least. They are most likely only going to get one team in any way. However they decide how to pick that one team is up to them.

gonzagafan62
02-08-2015, 02:33 PM
You're right, that's more seasons they could've been left out if they didn't get the auto bid than I was thinking of. The one in particular was the infamous season of Mushroomgate, kind of a ragtag group after Heytvelt got suspended. They rallied and gave it everything they had, but that was a mediocre team.

Also 98 we had a legit gripe to get an at large and they left us out. 99 we had to win the tournament on Santa Clara's home court. Those were some pretty weird years too.

DixieZag
02-08-2015, 02:35 PM
I favor a bright line rule that a team that is not over .500 in conference cannot make it unless they win their conference tournament. It would only impact 4 or 5 teams at most in any one year. But, it would make the regular season games more exciting, and perhaps open the door to a few more non-BCS schools.

23dpg
02-08-2015, 02:38 PM
The small conferences aren't hurt by it, at least. They are most likely only going to get one team in any way. However they decide how to pick that one team is up to them.

They are only hurt by it due to not putting their best team in. There have been a few cases of a very good low major team not winning their conf tourney. Their resume isn't good enough so they don't get in. If they did, they'd have a much better shot to win their 13/4 game vs the team that does get in and faces a 1 vs the 16 seed.

seacatfan
02-08-2015, 02:40 PM
I favor a bright line rule that a team that is not over .500 in conference cannot make it unless they win their conference tournament. It would only impact 4 or 5 teams at most in any one year. But, it would make the regular season games more exciting, and perhaps open the door to a few more non-BCS schools.

Oh I think it would affect a lot more than 4 or 5 teams. To clarify, would the line be AT .500 in conference, or you'd have to be over .500? Quite a few BCS teams at .500 or lower have made the Dance over the years. In fact, in 2010 a 9-9 in the Big East team WON the NCAA Tournament. I know it's just an opinion you're putting out there, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of having the Power 5 conferences go along with it.

23dpg
02-08-2015, 02:49 PM
Oh I think it would affect a lot more than 4 or 5 teams. To clarify, would the line be AT .500 in conference, or you'd have to be over .500? Quite a few BCS teams at .500 or lower have made the Dance over the years. In fact, in 2010 a 9-9 in the Big East team WON the NCAA Tournament. I know it's just an opinion you're putting out there, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of having the Power 5 conferences go along with it.

UConn did win the Big East tourney that year didn't they? I remember that they weren't even probable to make the dance then rattled off 10 straight wins. Big east- NCAA.

seacatfan
02-08-2015, 02:55 PM
UConn did win the Big East tourney that year didn't they? I remember that they weren't even probable to make the dance then rattled off 10 straight wins. Big east- NCAA.

You're right, so they would've been in no matter what. I had the wrong year anyway, it was 2011. Just using that as an example of a middle of the pack team from a power conference actually being good enough to win the whole enchilada. I think they still would've been an at-large team. They won the Maui and had a few other good OOC wins, and the Big East was totally stacked back then, so I'm sure they had a handful of wins against top 50 and top 25 RPI type of teams in conference. Yeah they won the Maui, won their conference tourney and then won the NCAA Tourney. That team thrived in tournament situations apparently.

gonzagafan62
02-08-2015, 04:28 PM
You're right, so they would've been in no matter what. I had the wrong year anyway, it was 2011. Just using that as an example of a middle of the pack team from a power conference actually being good enough to win the whole enchilada. I think they still would've been an at-large team. They won the Maui and had a few other good OOC wins, and the Big East was totally stacked back then, so I'm sure they had a handful of wins against top 50 and top 25 RPI type of teams in conference. Yeah they won the Maui, won their conference tourney and then won the NCAA Tourney. That team thrived in tournament situations apparently.
I believe that uconn team was 9th in the big east that year. Should not have been a three seed but they did have some really quality wins. I remember the studio after seeing uconn a 3 and everyone was shocked and said that they based it off the big east tourney (their seeding that is.) but yeah back in that year the big east had 11 tournament teams (most ever for a conference) and it may have been deserving of a 3. They won the title so who's to argue now?

CDC84
02-08-2015, 11:28 PM
The one change that was made recently that I 100% agree with is that if you win your regular season league title, you are at least guaranteed a slot in the NIT. That didn't used to be the case. SWAC schools who start off their season with 13 straight road games were being left out of the postseason entirely, even if they won the league by 4 games. I realize that the NIT is not the NCAA tournament, but you will never see schools at this level gripe about being invited to some kind of postseason tournament. In fact, some of these schools have actually been able to get NIT home games. Robert Morris comes to mind.

TravelinZag
02-09-2015, 03:28 AM
Interesting responses. Most people don't like change. (I myself opposed the expansion to 68 with "play-in" games, but recognized it was a move to head off a disastrous expansion to 96.) And I should expected to some on this board would view any change ONLY through a Zags prism, although I don't think it would have changed much.

Dixie endorsed a "bright line of above .500 in conference" to be greeted by nit-picks. 50/50 is the chance of heads or tails, not a measure of excellence, but okay. Would everyone settle for "above .500 in games agains conference teams", i.e., combine regular season and league tourney records?

CDC84 supports the guarantee of the NIT slot. Concur, but since I believe that 14-18 games over a season have more gravitas than 3 or 4 in less than a week, what I propose is quite similar. "If you win your regular season title or conference tournament , you are at least guaranteed a slot in the NIT." Wasn't aware that the conferences choose their representative and dictate that choice to the NCAA tournament committee. Thought the committee had made that decision and applied it across the board if a league tourney was held.

23 dpg noted that both major conferences and mids favored a "chance to sneak in another team" and that it was about money and adding excitement to the tourneys. Money? Certainly. Although if your scan down the conferences to a few terrible ones well outside the PNW, an interesting test of excitement. If offered an air/hotel/premium game ticket strip package to some of those conferences' tourneys, non-transferable, non-salable and cost must be returned if you do not attend all games, I'm guessing there would be few takers.

Look at the WCC, where many "fans" can't be bothered to attend home games (other than against GU). You think the excitement of their team getting hot, winning and getting a ticket to the NCAAs is what brings them to the WCC tournament? Excitement?

'course, I have heard about people saying, "Let's go, we might get lucky." Just didn't think they were referring to basketball!

Robzagnut
02-09-2015, 04:11 AM
Don't change a thing.

I'm a college bball junkie. I love watching the WCC, Big East, Pac 12, Big 10 and ACC tournies. They give a team that wasn't healthy in the regular season a chance to play their way in. Remember Derek Wittenburg of NC State missing much of the season and then returning for the ACC tournament?

kitzbuel
02-09-2015, 05:12 AM
They are only hurt by it due to not putting their best team in. There have been a few cases of a very good low major team not winning their conf tourney. Their resume isn't good enough so they don't get in. If they did, they'd have a much better shot to win their 13/4 game vs the team that does get in and faces a 1 vs the 16 seed.

But again, they are the ones that have decided to give their bid to the conference tournament champion rather than the regular season champ.

MickMick
02-09-2015, 05:43 AM
Regardless of format, there will be an element of subjective analysis. There will also be opportunities for bias. There will always be heavy emphasis on profitability. Considering how the human element can pollute any institution, regardless of how brilliantly conceived, I don't know if we can get a much better format than we have now. We accept the worts because human nature inherently has worts.

avid-zag-fan
02-09-2015, 06:14 AM
So here's what I'd really like to see and there's no subjective analysis:

Any team that wishes to play for the championship, signs up before the season. Those participating are divided into regions so that one plays every team in your region home and away. There is no conference schedule. Then the best records move to the March madness (maybe 8 teams?) in a double elimination tourney to determine the national champion. The first year or two too many teams would likely sign up, but a team like U of W would most likely go 0-24 and not be throwing their hat in the ring again without a real team.

Zags11
02-09-2015, 07:03 AM
No. I, ew, i whaaaat?

I liked 64, and was ok with 68, but dont touch the dial. It is for the cindarellas to dance til 12, and for "the slipper stillllllllllll fits!!!!!!". If you went to double elimination, itd be the dukes, the kentuckys, the kansas teams over and over again.

DixieZag
02-09-2015, 07:38 AM
But again, they are the ones that have decided to give their bid to the conference tournament champion rather than the regular season champ.

True.

Let me ask this, do we think that if a low D-1, like the Patriot league or something, decided to award the bid to the regular season champion, but had a tournament anyway, to celebrate their league (nothing wrong with that) and get it on TV, do we think that ESPN wouldn't show that game, or shell out far less money?

I think that is their dilemma along with the question of who gets in. The tournament week tv is something to celebrate for these conferences as the only time they get any national exposure. It wasn't long ago the WCC fit this definition. Regardless, if they did award the big to the regular season champion, I wonder if their tournament games would even get covered, or if they'd be paid a lot less.

I do like that they get the exposure, hell, I've enjoyed some of the games over the years, from teams I've never heard of and in tiny gyms, playing out of their shoes to get into the tourney.

Birddog
02-09-2015, 08:15 AM
If the Big Conferences had their way they would turn the dance into a sockhop. I guess some of you may not know what that is/was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_hop

gonzagafan62
02-09-2015, 08:15 AM
True.

Let me ask this, do we think that if a low D-1, like the Patriot league or something, decided to award the bid to the regular season champion, but had a tournament anyway, to celebrate their league (nothing wrong with that) and get it on TV, do we think that ESPN wouldn't show that game, or shell out far less money?

I think that is their dilemma along with the question of who gets in. The tournament week tv is something to celebrate for these conferences as the only time they get any national exposure. It wasn't long ago the WCC fit this definition. Regardless, if they did award the big to the regular season champion, I wonder if their tournament games would even get covered, or if they'd be paid a lot less.

I do like that they get the exposure, hell, I've enjoyed some of the games over the years, from teams I've never heard of and in tiny gyms, playing out of their shoes to get into the tourney.

Very fair question. I don't think that ESPN would be covering it as much, nor do I think it would be televised. I think for the little guys it really helps their league financially

TheGonzagaFactor
02-09-2015, 09:02 AM
True.

Let me ask this, do we think that if a low D-1, like the Patriot league or something, decided to award the bid to the regular season champion, but had a tournament anyway, to celebrate their league (nothing wrong with that) and get it on TV, do we think that ESPN wouldn't show that game, or shell out far less money?

I think that is their dilemma along with the question of who gets in. The tournament week tv is something to celebrate for these conferences as the only time they get any national exposure. It wasn't long ago the WCC fit this definition. Regardless, if they did award the big to the regular season champion, I wonder if their tournament games would even get covered, or if they'd be paid a lot less.

I do like that they get the exposure, hell, I've enjoyed some of the games over the years, from teams I've never heard of and in tiny gyms, playing out of their shoes to get into the tourney.


There is no way any network would touch that with a 50 foot pole. Think about it... a game to celebrate the Patriot League, with nothing on the line. The conference would have no reason to do it either. All games at one location, any game not involving the host (league winner) would have NO ONE in the seats. As far as the championship, no way anyone tunes in to that..., even if nothing else is on. The only way I would watch it would be to get a quick look at their tourney team so I could assess their chances once the full bracket comes out. I still can't imagine tuning in, and I am a huge college basketball junkie.

I do like those low major conference finals a lot for the reason you mentioned (tiny packed gym, etc...), but I wouldn't if nothing was on the line.

kitzbuel
02-09-2015, 09:10 AM
True.

Let me ask this, do we think that if a low D-1, like the Patriot league or something, decided to award the bid to the regular season champion, but had a tournament anyway, to celebrate their league (nothing wrong with that) and get it on TV, do we think that ESPN wouldn't show that game, or shell out far less money?

I think that is their dilemma along with the question of who gets in. The tournament week tv is something to celebrate for these conferences as the only time they get any national exposure. It wasn't long ago the WCC fit this definition. Regardless, if they did award the big to the regular season champion, I wonder if their tournament games would even get covered, or if they'd be paid a lot less.

I do like that they get the exposure, hell, I've enjoyed some of the games over the years, from teams I've never heard of and in tiny gyms, playing out of their shoes to get into the tourney.

I agree with all the others. These conferences are bound by the tyranny of the $ to hold a televised conference tournament with their bids on the line.

TheGonzagaFactor
02-09-2015, 09:22 AM
Personally, I love the tournament as is. If I could possibly make any changes, I'd go with:

1) Do not could the play in games (First Round) as NCAA tournament games. You shouldn't get a NCAA win for beating another bubble team that is the same low seed as you. The biggest comeback in NCAA tournament history was BYU, a 13 seed, against Iona, ANOTHER 13 SEED! So basically BYU gets recognition for coming back from down 25 to a 13 seed, which no good team should ever have to do. Have the play in games, just don't count them as actual NCAA tourney games. Do this retroactively--take a tourney win away from BYU and one from SMC, and one from every other play in winner.

-Maybe add a wrinkle to the play in games. Have the winners go to the tourney and the losers go to the NIT in predetermined bracket locations (11-13 seed play in losers become NIT 1 seeds, 16 seed play in losers become NIT 4 seeds) or something along those lines.

2) Low major conferences scrap full tournaments and just have the top 2 in their standings play a winner-take-all championship for their bid. This way they still televise the championship (which is the only game televised in many of these smaller conference tournaments anyway) and the conference gets it's TV money. Regular season champ hosts.

3) Move the Final Four from Saturday-Monday to Thursday-Saturday. It drives me nuts how the NCAA football and basketball championships are on Mondays. I guess you don't want a team winning an Elite 8 game on Sunday to have to play the semifinal on Thursday, but I don't think it'd be that big of a problem. I understand the NCAA would rather have 2 games on Saturday in prime time than one, but still. You could own both days in terms of ratings.

4) Do not ever expand again. I know they want to go to 96, but I think this would diminish interest in the tournament. If they expended that far, I'd watch GU and probably no one else because it'd be so watered down with .500 or lower at-large teams.

mgadfly
02-09-2015, 11:32 AM
Interesting responses. Most people don't like change. (I myself opposed the expansion to 68 with "play-in" games, but recognized it was a move to head off a disastrous expansion to 96.) And I should expected to some on this board would view any change ONLY through a Zags prism, although I don't think it would have changed much.

Dixie endorsed a "bright line of above .500 in conference" to be greeted by nit-picks. 50/50 is the chance of heads or tails, not a measure of excellence, but okay. Would everyone settle for "above .500 in games agains conference teams", i.e., combine regular season and league tourney records?

CDC84 supports the guarantee of the NIT slot. Concur, but since I believe that 14-18 games over a season have more gravitas than 3 or 4 in less than a week, what I propose is quite similar. "If you win your regular season title or conference tournament , you are at least guaranteed a slot in the NIT." Wasn't aware that the conferences choose their representative and dictate that choice to the NCAA tournament committee. Thought the committee had made that decision and applied it across the board if a league tourney was held.

23 dpg noted that both major conferences and mids favored a "chance to sneak in another team" and that it was about money and adding excitement to the tourneys. Money? Certainly. Although if your scan down the conferences to a few terrible ones well outside the PNW, an interesting test of excitement. If offered an air/hotel/premium game ticket strip package to some of those conferences' tourneys, non-transferable, non-salable and cost must be returned if you do not attend all games, I'm guessing there would be few takers.

Look at the WCC, where many "fans" can't be bothered to attend home games (other than against GU). You think the excitement of their team getting hot, winning and getting a ticket to the NCAAs is what brings them to the WCC tournament? Excitement?

'course, I have heard about people saying, "Let's go, we might get lucky." Just didn't think they were referring to basketball!

I don't know if they would go on the off chance they might get hot, but they'd tune-in, which is much more important $-wise.

A team that wins their conference tournament currently does have a guarantee of going to the NCAA. I'm not sure why they'd need a guarantee to go to the NIT unless you are pairing it with the conference gets to choose between the tourney winner and the regular season winner to send to the NCAA.

I'd change the start of the season.

The prior season's round of 32 teams play a season tip-off tournament - single elimination - over two weekends to start the year.
Maybe the next 32 teams play (the teams eliminated in the round of 64 the prior season) a similar tournament.

I'd be incredibly excited for the season tip off if that is the way it began every year. I'd need to get more vacation time so I could watch all the games in November and still be able to see all the games in March. (We'd also have to be okay with same conference teams meeting in the preseason tournament but I could live with that).

23dpg
02-09-2015, 11:53 AM
Personally, I love the tournament as is. If I could possibly make any changes, I'd go with:

1) Do not could the play in games (First Round) as NCAA tournament games. You shouldn't get a NCAA win for beating another bubble team that is the same low seed as you. The biggest comeback in NCAA tournament history was BYU, a 13 seed, against Iona, ANOTHER 13 SEED! So basically BYU gets recognition for coming back from down 25 to a 13 seed, which no good team should ever have to do. Have the play in games, just don't count them as actual NCAA tourney games. Do this retroactively--take a tourney win away from BYU and one from SMC, and one from every other play in winner.

-Maybe add a wrinkle to the play in games. Have the winners go to the tourney and the losers go to the NIT in predetermined bracket locations (11-13 seed play in losers become NIT 1 seeds, 16 seed play in losers become NIT 4 seeds) or something along those lines.

2) Low major conferences scrap full tournaments and just have the top 2 in their standings play a winner-take-all championship for their bid. This way they still televise the championship (which is the only game televised in many of these smaller conference tournaments anyway) and the conference gets it's TV money. Regular season champ hosts.

3) Move the Final Four from Saturday-Monday to Thursday-Saturday. It drives me nuts how the NCAA football and basketball championships are on Mondays. I guess you don't want a team winning an Elite 8 game on Sunday to have to play the semifinal on Thursday, but I don't think it'd be that big of a problem. I understand the NCAA would rather have 2 games on Saturday in prime time than one, but still. You could own both days in terms of ratings.

4) Do not ever expand again. I know they want to go to 96, but I think this would diminish interest in the tournament. If they expended that far, I'd watch GU and probably no one else because it'd be so watered down with .500 or lower at-large teams.

Good comments but I especially like #2. Yes! The tourneys don't make money except the TV game plus it strengthens the low conferences representative team on the big dance.

Fun thread.

rennis
02-09-2015, 12:06 PM
So here's what I'd really like to see and there's no subjective analysis:

Any team that wishes to play for the championship, signs up before the season. Those participating are divided into regions so that one plays every team in your region home and away. There is no conference schedule. Then the best records move to the March madness (maybe 8 teams?) in a double elimination tourney to determine the national champion. The first year or two too many teams would likely sign up, but a team like U of W would most likely go 0-24 and not be throwing their hat in the ring again without a real team.

15 posts since 2007, and you toss this idea out!? What planet do you live on!!??

just kidding. It's certainly an intriguing idea, but misses the point of conference championships (which still mean a lot to a lot of people) and long-standing rivalries, does it not? By my estimation, nearly every team would "throw their hat" in the ring every year, and the home/away format is mathematically impossible, not to mention logistically impossible.

Zagceo
02-09-2015, 12:15 PM
Does anybody find it hypocritical that WCC PAC12 MWC tournaments all take place in Vegas but NCAA won't consider Vegas as a NCAA tourney site?

seacatfan
02-09-2015, 01:57 PM
Does anybody find it hypocritical that WCC PAC12 MWC tournaments all take place in Vegas but NCAA won't consider Vegas as a NCAA tourney site?

I find it a little odd that only the MWC has teams that reside in the state of Nevada. Las Vegas is completely not in the "footprint" of the Pac 12 or WCC. Plus it's the tackiest place on earth. I thought it was lame that the Pac 12 Tourney was held exclusively in LA at Staples Center for about a decade, but moving it to Vegas is no better. Should be moved around, there are no shortage of NBA arenas within the Pac 12's footprint that could host on a revolving basis. Not sure about the WCC.

TheGonzagaFactor
02-09-2015, 02:11 PM
Meant to be reply to above post^^^

A couple years ago I was at a party at GU with some friends... a bunch of people there were saying that the tourney was moving to Sacramento the following year (2013 I believe). I confidently said "no, it's not, I'm pretty sure it's in Vegas again."

Everyone acted like I was an idiot and wasn't "in the know" because I wasn't attending classes at GU. It just made no sense, and I knew I would've heard about it as I visit this site and other Zags/NCAAB sites daily. Why the hell would they move the tourney from Vegas, where it has been successful, to Sacramento, where your only choices are an ancient NBA arena and a Big Sky gym?!?... Whatever, I was obviously right that time.

23dpg
02-09-2015, 02:13 PM
Does anybody find it hypocritical that WCC PAC12 MWC tournaments all take place in Vegas but NCAA won't consider Vegas as a NCAA tourney site?

I think it's the difference between the NCAA and the individual conferences. Different people,different rules.

I understand why they pick a neutral site like Vegas. It's relatively easy to get to. The schools on the left coast are so far apart that driving is near impossible.
In the WCC rotating it to every school doesn't work due to the small venues. Giving it to the winner would not allow enough time for many to get the travel plans worked out.

The Pac12 could rotate to the different sites but it Vegas is still a central site. Having it in LA every year was downright embarrassing. No one showed up.

Ultimately I think LV works but I agree with SeaCat, tacky is the word.

Side note. My biggest peeve is the long format. Is it Thursday through Tueaday? With no games on Sunday. ( I understand the BYU situation). That is very undoable for most of us.

Zagceo
02-09-2015, 02:26 PM
I find it a little odd that only the MWC has teams that reside in the state of Nevada. Las Vegas is completely not in the "footprint" of the Pac 12 or WCC. Plus it's the tackiest place on earth. I thought it was lame that the Pac 12 Tourney was held exclusively in LA at Staples Center for about a decade, but moving it to Vegas is no better. Should be moved around, there are no shortage of NBA arenas within the Pac 12's footprint that could host on a revolving basis. Not sure about the WCC.

IMO non of these tournaments could survive without the draw of Vegas.

seacatfan
02-09-2015, 02:36 PM
IMO non of these tournaments could survive without the draw of Vegas.

I might be in the minority. I know plenty of people who think "let's go to Vegas" is always a good idea. I have no desire to stay there, ever. I've passed thru. That was more than enough. If all 3 conference tourneys that are currently held there are considered successful, stands to reason they will continue to be there. If the conferences like it, the fans like it, then it works. I'm sure it's fairly convenient to fly there from just about anywhere out West, but I wouldn't call it a central location for either the Pac 12 or WCC, maybe for the MWC.

I do prefer neutral sites to on campus so one team doesn't have a home court advantage. Maybe for the WCC there is no good alternative. But for the Pac 12 I would much rather see it rotate between Seattle, Portland, Bay Area, LA, Phoenix, Denver, SLC...did I leave anybody out? Some of those would have a home town team, but put it in an NBA arena and it's not anybody's home court. Maybe that wouldn't work out as well financially as leaving it in Vegas, I have no idea.

maynard g krebs
02-09-2015, 03:19 PM
We accept the worts because human nature inherently has worts.

wort, noun:

The unfermented or fermenting infusion of malt that after fermentation becomes beer or mash.

Apologies for the spelling flame, but I somehow found it humorous.

avid-zag-fan
02-09-2015, 03:47 PM
rennis-I just read the forum and watch the games, not post. I'm aware my format would never happen, but I still think it's better and I don't really care who wins the Ivy League tourney or Horizon excepting only WCC and only then because it effects our seeding. It's great to watch us play Arizona and UCLA and I'd love to see more games like that than some of the mismatched WCC opponents. As far as the home and home goes in my hypothetical tourney, you just have 11 teams in a region. That's 20 games before the playoffs begin, mathematically possible, but if everyone actually participated then it would be some sort of district then regional. Any way you look at it, it favors the Zags long term. A fair break in seeding has been a problem for years (Wichita State really 33-36 best team? Davidson gets to play at home, etc.). If the BCS conferences keep expanding it won't bode well for Gonzaga down the road anyway.

maynard g krebs
02-09-2015, 03:56 PM
rennis-I just read the forum and watch the games, not post. I'm aware my format would never happen, but I still think it's better and I don't really care who wins the Ivy League tourney or Horizon excepting only WCC and only then because it effects our seeding. It's great to watch us play Arizona and UCLA and I'd love to see more games like that than some of the mismatched WCC opponents. As far as the home and home goes in my hypothetical tourney, you just have 11 teams in a region. That's 20 games before the playoffs begin, mathematically possible, but if everyone actually participated then it would be some sort of district then regional. Any way you look at it, it favors the Zags long term. A fair break in seeding has been a problem for years (Wichita State really 33-36 best team? Davidson gets to play at home, etc.). If the BCS conferences keep expanding it won't bode well for Gonzaga down the road anyway.

Problem is this: there are 351 D1 teams. Virtually all would sign up for the tourney, so you'd wind up with about 30 "regions", unless you exclude the mid/low majors from participation.

UberZagFan
02-09-2015, 08:16 PM
The reason the conferences do this is money.

Yes. As mentioned above, ESPN would not, in no way, show what basically would be a scrimmage game between two teams from the SWAC or Patriot league. Even putting a restriction of over .500 or whatever would not solve all the other issues. The televised final game could still have teams under .500 - how would ESPN know ahead of time? The conferences would be telling NCAA/ESPN that the tourney championship may make a difference....or it may not. But hey, we want you to still pay us for the right to televise.

And it is not just TV money, conferences (admittedly not all) are doing better at making money at conference tourneys. The attendance numbers in Vegas have been drastically better than when they tourney was held in SD - though it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges as the tourney format has changed and BYU/Pacific have come aboard. But it is more money whatever way you look at it.

There are other reasons you could list for why conference tourneys awarding the auto-bid is not going away, but you can really start with money and end with money.