Tournament expansion

[Fk_Pitt]

Was there a tourney expansion thread somewhere? If so I send apologies…but here is my SMF style idea for expansion (because it’s inevitably coming).

I hate the idea of expansion because it devalues the season when the 10th place Big 12 school gets in, or a 6-14 tOSU gets in, or a UNC with 1 quad 1 win gets in.

The reason why the selection process and NET suck is because the NCAA wants to place more value in the OOC schedules so mid and low majors don’t get punished. Nov/Dec is their only chance to build a resume. That’s what the Jerry Palms of the world tell us. So if there are 26 or so one bid leagues, give those leagues a 2nd auto bid (regular season champ or tourney runner-up). That gives the smaller schools an additional chance of reaching the tourney, and there can be less emphasis placed on November performance for the P6 teams. A 2nd auto bid per league also places more value in the P6 conference seasons as well (regular season champ can get auto bid). Additionally, this reduces the likelihood of bid stealers, so good teams like Pitt will be in less danger of getting knocked out by a tourney winner from the A10 as an example.

Eliminating the first 4 and adding those 4 teams to the 26 or so newly created auto bids, and adding 2 more at large bids expands the tourney to 96 teams, and an additional round of 16 games that can be slotted in 4 games per region.

Done. More money for the NCAA and an extra round of viewership for the fans.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Was there a tourney expansion thread somewhere? If so I send apologies…but here is my SMF style idea for expansion (because it’s inevitably coming).

I hate the idea of expansion because it devalues the season when the 10th place Big 12 school gets in, or a 6-14 tOSU gets in, or a UNC with 1 quad 1 win gets in.

The reason why the selection process and NET suck is because the NCAA wants to place more value in the OOC schedules so mid and low majors don’t get punished. Nov/Dec is their only chance to build a resume. That’s what the Jerry Palms of the world tell us. So if there are 26 or so one bid leagues, give those leagues a 2nd auto bid (regular season champ or tourney runner-up). That gives the smaller schools an additional chance of reaching the tourney, and there can be less emphasis placed on November performance for the P6 teams. A 2nd auto bid per league also places more value in the P6 conference seasons as well (regular season champ can get auto bid). Additionally, this reduces the likelihood of bid stealers, so good teams like Pitt will be in less danger of getting knocked out by a tourney winner from the A10 as an example.

Eliminating the first 4 and adding those 4 teams to the 26 or so newly created auto bids, and adding 2 more at large bids expands the tourney to 96 teams, and an additional round of 16 games that can be slotted in 4 games per region.

Done. More money for the NCAA and an extra round of viewership for the fans.

No. I dont want Stonehill or Lindenwood in the NCAAT as the runner-up in their conference.

The best idea is to leave things as is. If they truly need to expand, just add 8 more teams. That's 76 teams. 4 16-seed play-in games and 4 12/13 seed play-in games.

Using this year, Miss St, Pitt, ASU, Nevada would have had byes. Miss St and Pitt as 11s. ASU/Nevada as 12s. OK St vs North Texas for a 12. Rutgers vs New Mexico for a 12. UNC vs Oregon for a 13. Clemson vs Vandy for a 13.

Other 13 seeds
Charleston
ORU

13 seeds
Drake
VCU
Kent St
iona

14 seeds
Furman
Louisiana
Kennesaw
UCSB

15
GCU
Montana St
Vermont
Colgate

16
Princeton vs Texas Southern
UNCA vs FDU
Northern Kentucky vs SE Missouri St
Howard vs Texas A&M-Corpus Christi

 

[JohnnyGossamer]

I'm more in favor or 72 or 76 than 90+. It's really not that hard to get in as is if you have a good P6 team. Meanwhile, there are a TON of non P5 in the SS... 8 from the P5, 8 not. Even if you include the BEast, it's still a ton of non P6. Not sure why every P6 league needs what if it goes to 90+? 8 or 9 bids per league? That's horrible. Most of the time these leagues deserve 6 max... Usually less.

 

[Upg bobcat]

Was there a tourney expansion thread somewhere? If so I send apologies…but here is my SMF style idea for expansion (because it’s inevitably coming).

I hate the idea of expansion because it devalues the season when the 10th place Big 12 school gets in, or a 6-14 tOSU gets in, or a UNC with 1 quad 1 win gets in.

The reason why the selection process and NET suck is because the NCAA wants to place more value in the OOC schedules so mid and low majors don’t get punished. Nov/Dec is their only chance to build a resume. That’s what the Jerry Palms of the world tell us. So if there are 26 or so one bid leagues, give those leagues a 2nd auto bid (regular season champ or tourney runner-up). That gives the smaller schools an additional chance of reaching the tourney, and there can be less emphasis placed on November performance for the P6 teams. A 2nd auto bid per league also places more value in the P6 conference seasons as well (regular season champ can get auto bid). Additionally, this reduces the likelihood of bid stealers, so good teams like Pitt will be in less danger of getting knocked out by a tourney winner from the A10 as an example.

Eliminating the first 4 and adding those 4 teams to the 26 or so newly created auto bids, and adding 2 more at large bids expands the tourney to 96 teams, and an additional round of 16 games that can be slotted in 4 games per region.

Done. More money for the NCAA and an extra round of viewership for the fans.

Completely I agree. Glad someone else thinks like me -- I remember on that earlier thread being ridiculed for suggesting that the small leagues get a second auto bid. One down side is that it could ruin the conference tourneys for those smaller conferences.

Sure there is more money in expanding the tourney so that a completely unworthy UNC team gets in, or OSU gets in, because UNC basketball is a blue blood with a major following, OSU is a giant school with lots of alums and fans, etc. But mediocre teams do not need rewarded with the NCAA tourney. The NIT exists for them, and if they don't want to participate in the NIT like UNC, that's their decision.

 

[pittbb80]

What I find hilarious is the NCAA playoffs is perhaps the most compelling sporting event all year because it is a true playoff and allows for lesser teams to pull the occasional upset. There are already 64 teams and people are looking for ways to include more

And yet in football there’s has been tremendous resistance to moving to a true (like lower level divisions have done for years )playoff and moving to 16 teams.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

There was another thread? Here I thought I was being provocative. Lol. I don’t spend much time on this board so I missed the other thread.

As far as the conference tourneys, I’m not sure who would resist if every conference was guaranteed 2 bids instead of one.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

It should be much simpler and (IMHO) fairer:

(1) Get a computer ranking consensus of all Div 1 teams--Some combo/average of Massey, Ken-Pom, Sagarin, etc. But; get rid of the awful NET system--don't use it. The top 64 teams are in the tourney (at least in the play-in round) except for any top 64 team with below 0.500 overall W-L record.

(2) Put all auto-bid league champs that didn't already make the top 64 into a play-in round. Seed them against the lowest ranked of the top 64 with the lowest ranked team outside the top 64 having its play-in game vs the 4th 16 seed and the highest ranked team of the these auto-bid winners outside the top 64 playing the strongest seeded top 64 team that is needed to create the full play play in round.

That way, no P5/P6 team in the top 64 wth an over 0.500 record can whine that
they were left out in favor of weak Auto-Bid league winner and all auto-bid league winners no matter how bad still get their shot. Theoretical worst case in any year could be having perhaps 24 play in games which would mean every 11 and higher seeds are forced into the play-in round. Usually there would be fewer play-in round games than that.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

What I find hilarious is the NCAA playoffs is perhaps the most compelling sporting event all year because it is a true playoff and allows for lesser teams to pull the occasional upset. There are already 64 teams and people are looking for ways to include more

And yet in football there’s has been tremendous resistance to moving to a true (like lower level divisions have done for years )playoff and moving to 16 teams.

I have not heard anyone who wants expansion. But we know the ncaa does because they want more revenue.

But the more I looked at it, I actually like my idea for the reasons stated in the OP. My problem with expanding is the presumed expansion of at large teams. I just don’t think we need that, although I’m sure coaches would love that. Could we do a couple more at large bids? I could live with that. But nothing more than that.

 

[Ski11585]

I hate the idea of expansion. I want fewer bad teams involved, not more.

 

[Pitt79]

And yet in football there’s has been tremendous resistance to moving to a true (like lower level divisions have done for years )playoff and moving to 16 teams.

That is funny, the complaint is that there would be too many blowouts and teams with no chance, yet basketball allows 16-seed games every year where the 16-seed usually gets blown out and is 2-150 W/L record

 

[Pitt79]

It should be much simpler and (IMHO) fairer:

(1) Get a computer ranking consensus of all Div 1 teams--Some combo/average of Massey, Ken-Pom, Sagarin, etc. But; get rid of the awful NET system--don't use it. The top 64 teams are in the tourney (at least in the play-in round) except for any top 64 team with below 0.500 overall W-L record.

(2) Put all auto-bid league champs that didn't already make the top 64 into a play-in round. Seed them against the lowest ranked of the top 64 with the lowest ranked team outside the top 64 having its play-in game vs the 4th 16 seed and the highest ranked team of the these auto-bid winners outside the top 64 playing the strongest seeded top 64 team that is needed to create the full play play in round.

That way, no P5/P6 team in the top 64 wth an over 0.500 record can whine that
they were left out in favor of weak Auto-Bid league winner and all auto-bid league winners no matter how bad still get their shot. Theoretical worst case in any year could be having perhaps 24 play in games which would mean every 11 and higher seeds are forced into the play-in round. Usually there would be fewer play-in round games than that.

No! You can't take away the weak auto-bids teams spot away from them! As it is the championship games for those leagues are intense and they act like it's the world championship, can't take that away. That's great viewing.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

I hate the idea of expansion. I want fewer bad teams involved, not more.

I think we all hate the idea. But since it’s inevitable, the day is coming whether we like it or not, do it in a way that fixes some of the inherent problems we currently have, like:

1. Nov/Dec results are overvalued in order to protect the mid majors, and
2. Conference performance doesn’t matter and is irrelevant to the committee because only the 1 auto bid matters to them.

16 First round games on Tuesday/Wed instead of 4 first four games is more interesting.

 

[wbrpanther]

Was there a tourney expansion thread somewhere? If so I send apologies…but here is my SMF style idea for expansion (because it’s inevitably coming).

I hate the idea of expansion because it devalues the season when the 10th place Big 12 school gets in, or a 6-14 tOSU gets in, or a UNC with 1 quad 1 win gets in.

The reason why the selection process and NET suck is because the NCAA wants to place more value in the OOC schedules so mid and low majors don’t get punished. Nov/Dec is their only chance to build a resume. That’s what the Jerry Palms of the world tell us. So if there are 26 or so one bid leagues, give those leagues a 2nd auto bid (regular season champ or tourney runner-up). That gives the smaller schools an additional chance of reaching the tourney, and there can be less emphasis placed on November performance for the P6 teams. A 2nd auto bid per league also places more value in the P6 conference seasons as well (regular season champ can get auto bid). Additionally, this reduces the likelihood of bid stealers, so good teams like Pitt will be in less danger of getting knocked out by a tourney winner from the A10 as an example.

Eliminating the first 4 and adding those 4 teams to the 26 or so newly created auto bids, and adding 2 more at large bids expands the tourney to 96 teams, and an additional round of 16 games that can be slotted in 4 games per region.

Done. More money for the NCAA and an extra round of viewership for the fans.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I agree. But you know the ncaa disagrees right?

 

[wbrpanther]

I agree. But you know the ncaa disagrees right?

Of course. $$$$$$$$$

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I think we all hate the idea. But since it’s inevitable, the day is coming whether we like it or not, do it in a way that fixes some of the inherent problems we currently have, like:

1. Nov/Dec results are overvalued in order to protect the mid majors, and
2. Conference performance doesn’t matter and is irrelevant to the committee because only the 1 auto bid matters to them.

16 First round games on Tuesday/Wed instead of 4 first four games is more interesting.

I'd maybe like to see a system where each league gets a set amount of bids so that conference play matters. And then you can award like the last 10 at-large spots for anyone. If you finish in the Top 4/5 in P6 leagues, it should guarantee a bid.

 

[cruzer]

Was there a tourney expansion thread somewhere? If so I send apologies…but here is my SMF style idea for expansion (because it’s inevitably coming).

I hate the idea of expansion because it devalues the season when the 10th place Big 12 school gets in, or a 6-14 tOSU gets in, or a UNC with 1 quad 1 win gets in.

The reason why the selection process and NET suck is because the NCAA wants to place more value in the OOC schedules so mid and low majors don’t get punished. Nov/Dec is their only chance to build a resume. That’s what the Jerry Palms of the world tell us. So if there are 26 or so one bid leagues, give those leagues a 2nd auto bid (regular season champ or tourney runner-up). That gives the smaller schools an additional chance of reaching the tourney, and there can be less emphasis placed on November performance for the P6 teams. A 2nd auto bid per league also places more value in the P6 conference seasons as well (regular season champ can get auto bid). Additionally, this reduces the likelihood of bid stealers, so good teams like Pitt will be in less danger of getting knocked out by a tourney winner from the A10 as an example.

Eliminating the first 4 and adding those 4 teams to the 26 or so newly created auto bids, and adding 2 more at large bids expands the tourney to 96 teams, and an additional round of 16 games that can be slotted in 4 games per region.

Done. More money for the NCAA and an extra round of viewership for the fans.

Let's just invite ALL teams. Everyone gets a participation trophy.

 

[BTisinDC]

I think we all hate the idea. But since it’s inevitable, the day is coming whether we like it or not, do it in a way that fixes some of the inherent problems we currently have, like:

1. Nov/Dec results are overvalued in order to protect the mid majors, and
2. Conference performance doesn’t matter and is irrelevant to the committee because only the 1 auto bid matters to them.

16 First round games on Tuesday/Wed instead of 4 first four games is more interesting.

I read a prediction that the field would expand to 78 teams, with the play-in round being teams 51 thru 78. The 14 play-in games resets the field to 64, with the NCAA being able to experiment with pricing for the play-ins - 2 triple headers, 2 double header sessions. Don't recall the particulars of how they select the additional teams, but it was all just a pit stop on the way to a field of over a hundred.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Let's just invite ALL teams. Everyone gets a participation trophy.

I actually like the idea of an "FA Cup" style in-season tournament. Get rid of all those early season tournaments played in bingo halls and have a 363 team single elimination tournament. 26 game schedule and up to 8 of these tournament games. I dont know, something needs to be done to juice up the regular season.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

I'd maybe like to see a system where each league gets a set amount of bids so that conference play matters. And then you can award like the last 10 at-large spots for anyone. If you finish in the Top 4/5 in P6 leagues, it should guarantee a bid.

I can get behind something like that.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I can get behind something like that.

Sort of how they award Champions League bids. The ACC has been a great conference. If you go 14-6 and finished tied for 3rd, you are in because lets say they get 5 slots automatically.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

I read a prediction that the field would expand to 78 teams, with the play-in round being teams 51 thru 78. The 14 play-in games resets the field to 64, with the NCAA being able to experiment with pricing for the play-ins - 2 triple headers, 2 double header sessions. Don't recall the particulars of how they select the additional teams, but it was all just a pit stop on the way to a field of over a hundred.

If that means 10 more at large teams, I’m not for it.

 

[BTisinDC]

If that means 10 more at large teams, I’m not for it.

Personally, I'd like to eliminate all of the play in games and have a field of 64. But I think expansion is inevitable. The only way I could see it not going big is if conference expansion results in a separate league for say the BIG and SEC where the leftovers tell them to take their basketball with their football.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Sort of how they award Champions League bids. The ACC has been a great conference. If you go 14-6 and finished tied for 3rd, you are in because lets say they get 5 slots automatically.

Yeah I just don’t know. In the champions league, the world knows why the English Premier League, Spanish La LIGA, German Bundesliga and Italian Serie A all get 4 teams, while French Ligue 1 and Portuguese LIGA gets only 2 and all the other countries domestic leagues get 1 bid.

Imagine the outrage when the B1G gets 8 auto bids and the ACC gets 5 and no one knows the algorithm for why that is.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

I actually like the idea of an "FA Cup" style in-season tournament. Get rid of all those early season tournaments played in bingo halls and have a 363 team single elimination tournament. 26 game schedule and up to 8 of these tournament games. I dont know, something needs to be done to juice up the regular season.

See you’re proposing drastic changes. The NCAA is the greatest sporting event in our country for a reason. So no major overhaul is needed. They are going to add teams, we know the days is coming…so just add a couple at larges, plenty of mid majors, add a round that is grander than the First Four, tweak the algorithm in the shadows to reward conference performances and be done with it.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

See you’re proposing drastic changes. The NCAA is the greatest sporting event in our country for a reason. So no major overhaul is needed. They are going to add teams, we know the days is coming…so just add a couple at larges, plenty of mid majors, add a round that is grander than the First Four, tweak the algorithm in the shadows to reward conference performances and be done with it

No. My FA Cup takes the place of regular season games. There is still the NCAAT at the end. Maybe we can win the treble? ACC, FA Cup, and NCAAT

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

I read a prediction that the field would expand to 78 teams, with the play-in round being teams 51 thru 78. The 14 play-in games resets the field to 64, with the NCAA being able to experiment with pricing for the play-ins - 2 triple headers, 2 double header sessions. Don't recall the particulars of how they select the additional teams, but it was all just a pit stop on the way to a field of over a hundred.

imagine the fun we'd have on here fighting about whether the play in games are actually part of the tournament or not..

 

[Pitt79]

I hate the idea of expansion. I want fewer bad teams involved, not more.

Like UMBC and FDU? it would have been great to eliminate them and destroy some of the most memorable games in history.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

Like UMBC and FDU? it would have been great to eliminate them and destroy some of the most memorable games in history.

fdu was the most memorable game in ncaa history lol? it's an upset man, we've seen it before.

 

[Pitt79]

No. My FA Cup takes the place of regular season games. There is still the NCAAT at the end. Maybe we can win the treble? ACC, FA Cup, and NCAAT

But would this eliminate teams' regular season and conference games? And conference tournaments? I think those are very important and entertaining too. I live near UMBC and always watch them play in their conference tournament if they reach the final.

 

[Gep Dawg]

Sort of how they award Champions League bids. The ACC has been a great conference. If you go 14-6 and finished tied for 3rd, you are in because lets say they get 5 slots automatically.

I just said this last week and got ran off the board for it haha!

 

[Pitt79]

fdu was the most memorable game in ncaa history lol? it's an upset man, we've seen it before.

It's an upset that they'll talk about every year, over and over and over and over and over, like they do the UMBC/Virginia game, yeah, these upsets are among the most memorable games because they're so rare, a 9-seed beating a 1-seed will be forgotten, but these games like a 1 over a 16 or a 2 over a 15 are talked about decades later.

 

[pittbb80]

I have not heard anyone who wants expansion. But we know the ncaa does because they want more revenue.

But the more I looked at it, I actually like my idea for the reasons stated in the OP. My problem with expanding is the presumed expansion of at large teams. I just don’t think we need that, although I’m sure coaches would love that. Could we do a couple more at large bids? I could live with that. But nothing more than that.

yeah I wasnt saying anybody in particular but the same organization that appears to want expansion in hoops is resistant to a similar format in football that has been successful at the lower levels. You just cant make this shit up

 

[Duneaux Harm]

Was there a tourney expansion thread somewhere? If so I send apologies…but here is my SMF style idea for expansion (because it’s inevitably coming).

I hate the idea of expansion because it devalues the season when the 10th place Big 12 school gets in, or a 6-14 tOSU gets in, or a UNC with 1 quad 1 win gets in.

The reason why the selection process and NET suck is because the NCAA wants to place more value in the OOC schedules so mid and low majors don’t get punished. Nov/Dec is their only chance to build a resume. That’s what the Jerry Palms of the world tell us. So if there are 26 or so one bid leagues, give those leagues a 2nd auto bid (regular season champ or tourney runner-up). That gives the smaller schools an additional chance of reaching the tourney, and there can be less emphasis placed on November performance for the P6 teams. A 2nd auto bid per league also places more value in the P6 conference seasons as well (regular season champ can get auto bid). Additionally, this reduces the likelihood of bid stealers, so good teams like Pitt will be in less danger of getting knocked out by a tourney winner from the A10 as an example.

Eliminating the first 4 and adding those 4 teams to the 26 or so newly created auto bids, and adding 2 more at large bids expands the tourney to 96 teams, and an additional round of 16 games that can be slotted in 4 games per region.

Done. More money for the NCAA and an extra round of viewership for the fans.

You don’t want to devalue the season by adding the 10th B12 team, but you are willing to devalue the tournament by giving a one bid league a second auto bid? That just makes no sense.

I don’t think adding Power teams devalues. They all still want to win and go far in the tourney. So the season is still the proving ground for how they will play. Pitt clearly needed the regular season this year to prove how good they were for this last run.

I love the thought of expanding but add more power schools and who honestly will care if a small league steals a bid from a team that went less than 500 in the A&PCC Conference in a few years?

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

It's an upset that they'll talk about every year, over and over and over and over and over, like they do the UMBC/Virginia game, yeah, these upsets are among the most memorable games because they're so rare, a 9-seed beating a 1-seed will be forgotten, but these games like a 1 over a 16 or a 2 over a 15 are talked about decades later.

no one is talking about farleigh dickinson except for the tweet that they have a grade school gym that went viral yesterday.

once the sweet 16 and elite 8 games start happening, these annual cinderella feel-good stories go away and good basketball take over..

i do find it funny that the second one of these cinderella teams wins a game, the HC immediately uses this one win to take a higher level job. FDU's coach will be gone before the weekend, guaranteed.

 

[Ray-Ray]

It should be much simpler and (IMHO) fairer:

(1) Get a computer ranking consensus of all Div 1 teams--Some combo/average of Massey, Ken-Pom, Sagarin, etc. But; get rid of the awful NET system--don't use it. The top 64 teams are in the tourney (at least in the play-in round) except for any top 64 team with below 0.500 overall W-L record.

(2) Put all auto-bid league champs that didn't already make the top 64 into a play-in round. Seed them against the lowest ranked of the top 64 with the lowest ranked team outside the top 64 having its play-in game vs the 4th 16 seed and the highest ranked team of the these auto-bid winners outside the top 64 playing the strongest seeded top 64 team that is needed to create the full play play in round.

That way, no P5/P6 team in the top 64 wth an over 0.500 record can whine that
they were left out in favor of weak Auto-Bid league winner and all auto-bid league winners no matter how bad still get their shot. Theoretical worst case in any year could be having perhaps 24 play in games which would mean every 11 and higher seeds are forced into the play-in round. Usually there would be fewer play-in round games than that.

Yes, we all want to use the computer rankings that had UNC as #36(Sagarin), 41st (Massey) and 46th (KenPom and Net). Also, every one of those ratings had Ohio State rated higher than Pitt. There has to be better computer programmers out there.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

You don’t want to devalue the season by adding the 10th B12 team, but you are willing to devalue the tournament by giving a one bid league a second auto bid? That just makes no sense.

I don’t think adding Power teams devalues. They all still want to win and go far in the tourney. So the season is still the proving ground for how they will play. Pitt clearly needed the regular season this year to prove how good they were for this last run.

I love the thought of expanding but add more power schools and who honestly will care if a small league steals a bid from a team that went less than 500 in the A&PCC Conference in a few years?

Fair point on the mid major thing, although I don’t see it that way. I see it as a way of rewarding teams who performed in their leagues. And all those teams would be playing on Tues/wed. Your way rewards teams who failed in their leagues. I will never be convinced that teams like tOSU, Wisconsin, etc should be rewarded with a tourney bid. They failed miserably in their leagues. And a failed conference season should not be rewarded with an NCAA bid. And my way eliminates bid stealers from taking a bid away from a worthy team, like Pitt this year.

 

[Duneaux Harm]

Fair point on the mid major thing, although I don’t see it that way. I see it as a way of rewarding teams who performed in their leagues. And all those teams would be playing on Tues/wed. Your way rewards teams who failed in their leagues. I will never be convinced that teams like tOSU, Wisconsin, etc should be rewarded with a tourney bid. They failed miserably in their leagues. And a failed conference season should not be rewarded with an NCAA bid. And my way eliminates bid stealers from taking a bid away from a worthy team, like Pitt this year.

I don’t know. To me it sounds like you are rewarding in house soccer teams who won their league and who finished second and punishing a squad who has entered elite leagues and doesn’t win their league And finishes below 500 but actually improved as a soccer team.

The biggest problem is rating the value of a conference fairly.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

I don’t know. To me it sounds like you are rewarding in house soccer teams who won their league and who finished second and punishing a squad who has entered elite leagues and doesn’t win their league And finishes below 500 but actually improved as a soccer team.

The biggest problem is rating the value of a conference fairly.

I get it. And I’m glad my post generated dialogue. I think most people don’t want to see expansion but do want to see conference performance get rewarded. How to arrive at that I don’t know. I just think adding additional at large teams, which inevitably will happen, makes the conference season even more irrelevant than it already is. So I dunno.

 

[Ski11585]

Like UMBC and FDU? it would have been great to eliminate them and destroy some of the most memorable games in history.

Those aren’t even in the top 100 most memorable college games. They’re a sideshow for four days and then everyone forgets about them and wants to watch good basketball.