Re: Is it time to go to 96??
I'd have a totally transparent voting system. No hidden agendas. Data-driven, preferably.
Regular season champs have an autobid. So does the tourney winner. If they are the same team, the highest remaining teams ranked in KenPom will fill out the 96.
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
All that it would do is guarantee a bid to ALL P5 schools and this would finally destroy the NIT.
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Dawg
I'd have a totally transparent voting system. No hidden agendas. Data-driven, preferably.
Regular season champs have an autobid. So does the tourney winner. If they are the same team, the highest remaining teams ranked in KenPom will fill out the 96.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Meh... I think that would be too much. I would love more basketball, though.
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DJDAWG
All that it would do is guarantee a bid to ALL P5 schools and this would finally destroy the NIT.
Even though I voted yes, I don't really believe that 96 is the answer, for largely this reason.
Though the NIT going away wouldn't bother me too much. I don't have anything against it, just don't see how it's necessarily worth keeping either. Change my mind?
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
No. Leave well enough alone
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Go to 300+
Yes, EVERY Division I team makes the Dance. Shorten the regular season back to 26 games, which it was decades, and each conference can determine its champion however it chooses. There would still have to be a system for seeding. I say NO conference games can be used. Only non-conference results for seeding. A computerized system, updated during the course of the season, would spit out the seeding 1 thru 300+. Keep it regional too. Southern teams play at sites in the South in the opening rounds, west coast teams play out there, etc... then when the number of remaining teams is down to 32, have four 8-team regionals, again, geographically placed. The winner of each regional advances to the Final Four which can be set like it is now, pre-determined sites, rotated across the country year to year.
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dawg80
Go to 300+
Yes, EVERY Division I team makes the Dance. Shorten the regular season back to 26 games, which it was decades, and each conference can determine its champion however it chooses. There would still have to be a system for seeding. I say NO conference games can be used. Only non-conference results for seeding. A computerized system, updated during the course of the season, would spit out the seeding 1 thru 300+. Keep it regional too. Southern teams play at sites in the South in the opening rounds, west coast teams play out there, etc... then when the number of remaining teams is down to 32, have four 8-team regionals, again, geographically placed. The winner of each regional advances to the Final Four which can be set like it is now, pre-determined sites, rotated across the country year to year.
Now this is an idea.
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dawg80
Go to 300+
Yes, EVERY Division I team makes the Dance. Shorten the regular season back to 26 games, which it was decades, and each conference can determine its champion however it chooses. There would still have to be a system for seeding. I say NO conference games can be used. Only non-conference results for seeding. A computerized system, updated during the course of the season, would spit out the seeding 1 thru 300+. Keep it regional too. Southern teams play at sites in the South in the opening rounds, west coast teams play out there, etc... then when the number of remaining teams is down to 32, have four 8-team regionals, again, geographically placed. The winner of each regional advances to the Final Four which can be set like it is now, pre-determined sites, rotated across the country year to year.
I kinda like it. Because we cant come up with a fair way to select the teams...make all teams eligible. Regional tourney 1st then national. All teams start at 0 at beginning of season. No preseason bumps for "power" conferences. What are some of the negatives to this system?
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dawg-n-Pony
I kinda like it. Because we cant come up with a fair way to select the teams...make all teams eligible. Regional tourney 1st then national. All teams start at 0 at beginning of season. No preseason bumps for "power" conferences. What are some of the negatives to this system?
If the two true best teams in the nation are in the same region
If by allowing all teams in it, we end up with a few crazy fluke upsets that knock out a team that could win out
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dawg80
Go to 300+
Yes, EVERY Division I team makes the Dance. Shorten the regular season back to 26 games, which it was decades, and each conference can determine its champion however it chooses. There would still have to be a system for seeding. I say NO conference games can be used. Only non-conference results for seeding. A computerized system, updated during the course of the season, would spit out the seeding 1 thru 300+. Keep it regional too. Southern teams play at sites in the South in the opening rounds, west coast teams play out there, etc... then when the number of remaining teams is down to 32, have four 8-team regionals, again, geographically placed. The winner of each regional advances to the Final Four which can be set like it is now, pre-determined sites, rotated across the country year to year.
This is what I've been thinking about -
For those worrying about the NIT, it is owned by the NCAA so it's a non-issue
Make it a TRUE national championship
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dawg-n-Pony
I kinda like it. Because we cant come up with a fair way to select the teams...make all teams eligible. Regional tourney 1st then national. All teams start at 0 at beginning of season. No preseason bumps for "power" conferences. What are some of the negatives to this system?
Not many other than hurting the control of the Power 5 schools - to me the BIG positive is the use of PROBATION as a punishment tool by the NCAA - if you are ineligible for post-season then it would really HURT
Also make 1st and 2nd round money an even split between the conference and the individual school - school keeps HALF of the revenue unit, conference gets the other half for opening round and second round games
No need for conference tourneys at ANY level - start tourney 1st weekend in March and you are still playing basically the same time span
I have to think that the TV partners would go BONKERS over the first two rounds - maybe have 4-16 national seeds that get first round byes to balance out the brackets - no more advancing to D-1 your are froze at your level - DII, DIII or NAIA
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dwayne From Minden
Not many other than hurting the control of the Power 5 schools - to me the BIG positive is the use of PROBATION as a punishment tool by the NCAA - if you are ineligible for post-season then it would really HURT
Also make 1st and 2nd round money an even split between the conference and the individual school - school keeps HALF of the revenue unit, conference gets the other half for opening round and second round games
No need for conference tourneys at ANY level - start tourney 1st weekend in March and you are still playing basically the same time span
I have to think that the TV partners would go BONKERS over the first two rounds - maybe have 4-16 national seeds that get first round byes to balance out the brackets - no more advancing to D-1 your are froze at your level - DII, DIII or NAIA
I like it even more now. The pros seem to far outweigh the cons. Which unfortunately means we will NEVER see this solution.
Re: Is it time to go to 96??
Con - it would take forever to fill out a bracket.