NCAA Tournament Expansion and 2 new metrics added

[Sean Miller Fan]

Sources: NCAA presents new basketball tournament models that would expand field by 4 or 8 teams

The potential models shown to conference commissioners Wednesday would add additional at-large selections and at least one more First Four site.

sports.yahoo.com

Looks like its going to 72 or 76, which I think is a good thing. I'd prefer 72. Have the bottom 8 teams play for 16 seeds and the bottom 8 at-large teams play for those 11/12 type seeds.

If this happens, I would hope they move the tournament start back to Wednesday night and count these games in the tournament challenge to help ratings and interest. Maybe add a 2nd venue. My vote would be Omaha. Best sports fans in the country. They are talking about a West Coast venue and the only logical place is Las Vegas due to its accessibility resulting in decent attendance. Anywhere else in the west, and I think they draw 500 people for Seton Hall vs Richmond.

Wednesday in Dayton
2:30, 5, 7:30, 10

Thursday in Omaha
Same

Friday & Saturday - 1st Round
Sunday & Monday - 2nd Round

Friday & Saturday - Sweet 16
Sunday & Monday - Elite 8

Also, this is old news but Torvik was added to the metrics and also something called "wins above bubble." I wonder if Pitt would have made it last year if these 2 were in it.

NCAA Tournament to include two new metrics beginning in 2025; committee delays decision on expansion

Additionally: In 2026, Indianapolis will become the first city to host the D-I, D-II, D-III and men's NIT tournaments in the same year

www.cbssports.com

 

[cruzer]

Heck, let's just invite everyone. Open tournament. Draw straws for seeding. Everyone gets a participation trophy.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Also, this is old news but Torvik was added to the metrics and also something called "wins above bubble." I wonder if Pitt would have made it last year if these 2 were in it.

We were 48th in wins above the bubble last year, so that really wouldn't have helped.

To compare, we were at +0.6. The teams that played in the first four were Virginia at +1.6, Colorado State at +1.1, Colorado at +1.7, and Boise State at +0.7.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

We were 48th in wins above the bubble last year, so that really wouldn't have helped.

To compare, we were at +0.6. The teams that played in the first four were Virginia at +1.6, Colorado State at +1.1, Colorado at +1.7, and Boise State at +0.7.

Get rid of it then because those teams sucked

 

[MorningCoffee13]

Heck, let's just invite everyone. Open tournament. Draw straws for seeding. Everyone gets a participation trophy.

Why not? Conferences tournaments invite the whole conference and there are some compelling stories that come out of them. Have the first few games be played at home school.

The champion is going to earn the title regardless. Teams will still have to work hard to get in the best position for themselves so it’s not like they will tank.

Can’t see a negative to it other than just cranks complaining.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Looks like it may be heading towards where I have always hoped it would head if there actually is expansion done.

My preference--computer consensus top 64 teams all get in.

Winners of auto-bid leagues not ranked within the top 64 get placed in play-in games vs the lowest ranked of the top 64. There are 28 auto bid leagues but probably no more than between 15-20 would have their winners actually outside the top 64. So, you would have about that number (15-20) play-in round games to create each year. Highest rated team of the group (15-20) plays computer #64 in game #1 and lowest rated team of the group plays computer ranked highest of #64 minus the number of play-in teams. For example, if there were 15 play-in teams, lowest computer ranked of the 15 would play computer ranked #49 and highest computer ranked of the 15 would play computer ranked #64. Then fill in the in between games accordingly.

So, every consensus top 64 team gets in and all outside the top 64 auto-bid teams still get in as they traditionally have.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Heck, let's just invite everyone. Open tournament. Draw straws for seeding. Everyone gets a participation trophy.

If we include the new Pac 12 when its rebuilt, there are 88 high major schools in the Top 6 conferences. Also, if you want to count schools like Memphis, VCU, Dayton, SMC, the new Mountain West with New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV, etc, that number gets closer to 100 because those are at-large competitors. Even if its expanded to 72, you'd get less than half of these teams in the field. This is the same as the NBA, NHL, and MLB.

 

[cruzer]

If we include the new Pac 12 when its rebuilt, there are 88 high major schools in the Top 6 conferences. Also, if you want to count schools like Memphis, VCU, Dayton, SMC, the new Mountain West with New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV, etc, that number gets closer to 100 because those are at-large competitors. Even if its expanded to 72, you'd get less than half of these teams in the field. This is the same as the NBA, NHL, and MLB.

I understand the rationale. I just don't like it. NBA, NHL, and MLB have too many teams in the playoffs IMO. Of course it all boils down to money. More teams, more rounds, more games, more $$$.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I understand the rationale. I just don't like it. NBA, NHL, and MLB have too many teams in the playoffs IMO. Of course it all boils down to money. More teams, more rounds, more games, more $$$.

For college basketball, its more about the opportunity. They are saying they dont know if these extra games will generate more revenue. Well, yea, they wont unless you move them back a day and make people pick the games in their bracket. That would increase viewership exponentially.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

I hate this. Just like football, we're making "big games" in the regular season less meaningful and less frequent.

 

[MorningCoffee13]

I hate this. Just like football, we're making "big games" in the regular season less meaningful and less frequent.

I actually disagree. Now top ten team X can schedule top ten team z and know that it will only affect positioning in tourney and so why not play more marquee games?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I actually disagree. Now top ten team X can schedule top ten team z and know that it will only affect positioning in tourney and so why not play more marquee games?

Yea. And there's legit good teams that dont make it. Look at Pitt or Wake last year. Or Indiana State. America wanted to see Cream Abdul-Jabbar. If they hyped these games up and made them part of the brackets everyone had to pick, they would be watched at high levels.

 

[MorningCoffee13]

Yea. And there's legit good teams that dont make it. Look at Pitt or Wake last year. Or Indiana State. America wanted to see Cream Abdul-Jabbar. If they hyped these games up and made them part of the brackets everyone had to pick, they would be watched at high levels.

I agree with you.

 

[Pitt666]

If you want to increase ratings, make the first 16 all non tourney winner play ins. No one wants to see a conference winner with a losing record against another. They would watch Wake Indiana State, etc. With NIL, it is a legit handicap for the auto bids. They should get a crack at a 1 or 2 seed rather than have to play a play in game after winning their conference tourney. It would likely reduce top seed upsets as a number 1/2 will easily stomp a conference winner with a losing record, but it sets up better third and subsequent round matchups for ratings. People will watch 1 seed Kansas against any 16th seed…

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

If you want to increase ratings, make the first 16 all non tourney winner play ins. No one wants to see a conference winner with a losing record against another. They would watch Wake Indiana State, etc. With NIL, it is a legit handicap for the auto bids. They should get a crack at a 1 or 2 seed rather than have to play a play in game after winning their conference tourney. It would likely reduce top seed upsets as a number 1/2 will easily stomp a conference winner with a losing record, but it sets up better third and subsequent round matchups for ratings. People will watch 1 seed Kansas against any 16th seed…

So, college basketball TV ratings pretty much suck. A very big reason why the NCAAT gets good ratings is because of betting (ie bracket challenges). If you pushed the start date back 1 day and made these games part of your bracket then people would watch Texas Southern vs LIU.

And I disagree with the worst teams getting byes. 15-18 Texas Southern or 17-16 Stetson shouldn't get a bye. Have the worst 8 teams play for 16 seeds.

 

[Las Panteras]

I actually disagree. Now top ten team X can schedule top ten team z and know that it will only affect positioning in tourney and so why not play more marquee games?

Agree

The regular season for these types of teams is nothing more than a fund raiser. Play great matchups and rake in even more.

 

[VincePITT]

364 D1 teams 20% of that would be 72.8 (72 or 76 expanded) teams, sounds reasonable to me. Compared to the 41 total bowl games (82 teams) in the 2024-25 season and that's out of 128 FBS teams! And not counting the Playoff teams either!

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

364 D1 teams 20% of that would be 72.8 (72 or 76 expanded) teams, sounds reasonable to me. Compared to the 41 total bowl games (82 teams) in the 2024-25 season and that's out of 128 FBS teams! And not counting the Playoff teams either!

The bowls are really:

CFP = NCAAT

Citrus, Gator, Alamo, bowls like this = NIT

Detroit, Birmingham, Fenway, Myrtle Beach, etc = CBI

So you have to add in those events