NCAA Tournament thoughts

[Chairman Moe]

I'm just OK at math, so someone help me out here, please: how many more teams would the NCAAT have to add to maintain a symmetric grid/bracket? Would they just add more "play-in-games"? Would they consider having a single "bye" for certain seeds?

Maybe this ties-in, too, to an eventual riddance of the NIT. Take the 32 NIT teams selected and merge them into a 96 team NCAAT (I think the math works with that number for a single-elimination tournament), with perhaps a few teams/seeds getting a single round bye

And in agreement with Jay Bilas, I am going to discuss this only today, and then move on ...

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I'm just OK at math, so someone help me out here, please: how many more teams would the NCAAT have to add to maintain a symmetric grid/bracket? Would they just add more "play-in-games"? Would they consider having a single "bye" for certain seeds?

Maybe this ties-in, too, to an eventual riddance of the NIT. Take the 32 NIT teams selected and merge them into a 96 team NCAAT (I think the math works with that number for a single-elimination tournament), with perhaps a few teams/seeds getting a single round bye

And in agreement with Jay Bilas, I am going to discuss this only today, and then move on ...

I'm not in favor of anywhere close to 98 teams.

They would have to double it to 128 if they wanted a 7 round, even the 1 seeds play 7 games, tournament.

If they went to 96, 32 teams would get byes to the Round of 64.

I think adding 4 extra teams to get to 72 is fine. 8 teams playing for the 4 16 seeds. And last 8 teams in playing for 4 spots in the Round of 16. People would watch Pitt vs Oklahoma or Seton Hall vs Cream Abdul-Jabbar. They wont boycot

 

[SteelBowl70]

I'm just OK at math, so someone help me out here, please: how many more teams would the NCAAT have to add to maintain a symmetric grid/bracket? Would they just add more "play-in-games"? Would they consider having a single "bye" for certain seeds?

Maybe this ties-in, too, to an eventual riddance of the NIT. Take the 32 NIT teams selected and merge them into a 96 team NCAAT (I think the math works with that number for a single-elimination tournament), with perhaps a few teams/seeds getting a single round bye

And in agreement with Jay Bilas, I am going to discuss this only today, and then move on ...

assuming you still want to give X teams byes and then have Y teams play in so that X + Y/2 still equals 64. Right now X = 60 and Y = 8. But you can make X = 58 and Y = 12. Your example has X = 32 and Y = 64 for 96 teams.

Bilas likes X = 48 and Y = 32 (80).

You can basically make anything work by choosing how many teams you want to add beyond 64 which is Y/2.

 

[UPitt '89]

I'm just OK at math, so someone help me out here, please: how many more teams would the NCAAT have to add to maintain a symmetric grid/bracket? Would they just add more "play-in-games"? Would they consider having a single "bye" for certain seeds?

Maybe this ties-in, too, to an eventual riddance of the NIT. Take the 32 NIT teams selected and merge them into a 96 team NCAAT (I think the math works with that number for a single-elimination tournament), with perhaps a few teams/seeds getting a single round bye

And in agreement with Jay Bilas, I am going to discuss this only today, and then move on ...

72 total.

4 play-in games for the #16 seeds.
4 play-in games for the #11 seeds.

28 auto bids with byes
28 at-large with byes
8 auto-bids with play-ins (the 16 seeds)
8 at-large with play-ins (the 11 seeds)


half the play-in games in Dayton
half the play-in games in Omaha

That's all they need to do.

 

[SteelBowl70]

72 total.

4 play-in games for the #16 seeds.
4 play-in games for the #11 seeds.

28 auto bids with byes
28 at-large with byes
8 auto-bids with play-ins (the 16 seeds)
8 at-large with play-ins (the 11 seeds)


half the play-in games in Dayton
half the play-in games in Omaha

That's all they need to do.

Y = 16, X = 56

If Y is a power of 2 then you have more symmetry.

 

[Chairman Moe]

assuming you still want to give X teams byes and then have Y teams play in so that X + Y/2 still equals 64. Right now X = 60 and Y = 8. But you can make X = 58 and Y = 12. Your example has X = 32 and Y = 64 for 96 teams.

Bilas likes X = 48 and Y = 32 (80).

You can basically make anything work by choosing how many teams you want to add beyond 64 which is Y/2.

My 96 team example was simply based on the elimination of the NIT. There was a 100+ post thread last night discussing how little respected/regarded the NIT is

 

[VincePITT]

I think it's time to add more seeds! In 1980's there were 4 regions, 12 seeds equaling 48 teams. Now there's still 4 regions, 16 seeds, 64 teams and 4 play-ins. Why not just make it 18 seeds equaling 72! When you look at how many more D-1 teams (362) there are, they could go as high as 20 seeds, that is 80 team Tourney!

 

[Chairman Moe]

I think it's time to add more seeds! In 1980's there were 4 regions, 12 seeds equaling 48 teams. Now there's still 4 regions, 16 seeds, 64 teams and 4 play-ins. Why not just make it 18 seeds equaling 72! When you look at how many more D-1 teams (362) there are, they could go as high as 20 seeds, that is 80 team Tourney!

The 72 team format works, and if you didn't want to add more "play-in games", it would be:

1st round 2nd round 3rd round

13 vs 14 Winner vs 4
12 vs 15 Winner vs 5
winner vs winner
11 vs 16 Winner vs 6 Winner vs 3
10 vs 17 Winner vs 7 Winner vs 2
9 vs 18 Winner vs 8 Winner vs 1

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The 72 team format works, and if you didn't want to add more "play-in games", it would be:

1st round 2nd round 3rd round

13 vs 14 Winner vs 4
12 vs 15 Winner vs 5
winner vs winner
11 vs 16 Winner vs 6 Winner vs 3
10 vs 17 Winner vs 7 Winner vs 2
9 vs 18 Winner vs 8 Winner vs 1

64 teams make the Round of 64. If you didn't want these Dayton "play-in" games, you'd need 2 of these "Round of 72 games" in each region.

East
16 vs 17
15 vs 18

West, MW, South
Same as East

This would significantly strengthen the field as you eliminate the 8 worst teams before the Round of 64 and then a team like Pitt last year is a 12 or 13 seed and more dangerous than a mid-major.

I dont think you need to reinvent the wheel. Just add 4 more play-in games.

 

[Chairman Moe]

Both work