Move to 96 teams. Award all regular season conference champs with a bid. Offer a bye to 32 teams.
Yes, and award the regular season champs.
No. Just stop.
Blow it up and start over from scratch.
Move to 96 teams. Award all regular season conference champs with a bid. Offer a bye to 32 teams.
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.
All that it would do is guarantee a bid to ALL P5 schools and this would finally destroy the NIT.
Meh... I think that would be too much. I would love more basketball, though.
No. Leave well enough alone
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?
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
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
The biggest negative I see to D80's "300 system" is also it's biggest positive: It's geographical. That's great for drawing crowds and regional interest. But, if 3 teams in the south are capable of making the Final Four, only 1 can make it under this system. (I think that's the way I read D80's post.)
Correct! Some years it could work out that way. But, if, using the South as an example, UNC, Duke and Kentucky are all legit FF quality they might as well play and eliminate each other in the South Regional. Only ONE of them would win the NC anyway. The team that emerges should, in theory, win the Final Four, if indeed they are the best. Seeding would keep the higher seeds apart as long as possible. But, yeah, the "Final Four" of that South Regional might end up being the real Final Four.
But, the Big 10 and the Big East often have legit FF contenders, as does the Big 12, especially Kansas. So, the winners of the other regionals would also be very, very good and capable of winning it all.