Suggestion for Improving Invitations to March Madness

[kochHead]

I don't mind the auto-bid so much. It sucks if you are a bubble team, but if you take that away you will not be doing "non-BCS" teams any favors. As it is now, every team from every conference has an opportunity to get to the big dance. With the auto-bid it makes it a 350 team nation wide tournament.

Also, think about getting a 1 seed and being rewarded with a first round game against Teams like Belmont or NC State. Those would then be the kind of teams you would have to play round one.

[kochHead]

Setting a number that needs filled is a terrible idea. Putting heavier restrictions on entrance criteria, such as .500+ conference record, 4+ road wins, etc., would give more of the teams you want a chance, without punishing another deserving team just because a cap was reached.

I like that. In addition, make it so that in order to get an at-large you must play at least 4 OOC games on the road.

[Shockeriffic]

I would make it that you have to have a BETTER than .500 record in your conference to advance. Yes, I understand the argument that you want the best teams, and I won't argue that sometimes the best 34 might be left out, BUT it might be the other way as well, and I would argue that given 2 fairly close entities, I'll take the one that didn't have the chance vs the one that had multiple opportunities and failed as often as they succeeded. Since the scheduling is tipped HEAVILY in favor of these larger conferences, I have no problem LIGHTLY putting my finger on the other end of the scales.

Under these rules 2011 would have had a different national champion. UConn only went 9-9 thanks to an unbalanced Big East schedule.

Edit: Just remembered UConn won the conference tournament that year anyway.

[Steeleshocker]

I like that. In addition, make it so that in order to get an at-large you must play at least 4 OOC games on the road.

Probably would work better if it was a minimum number of road wins. Then the teams unsure of their ability to win on the road in their conference would schedule more road games. But even as I type that I fear there may be some unintended consequences with that requirement.

[kochHead]

Probably would work better if it was a minimum number of road wins. Then the teams unsure of their ability to win on the road in their conference would schedule more road games. But even as I type that I fear there may be some unintended consequences with that requirement.

Winning games on the road is difficult, that's why I would say you should play at least 4. The results are what they are.

[Shocker85]

Every team should be considered equally for inclusion in the NCAA tournament without regard to conference membership. Since there cannot be an equitable way to compare teams, things like SoS and RPI are contrived to assign a rank to all teams. If you play a tough schedule, you can earn a better power rating toward gaining an invitation to the tournament. Those are two simple factors that are considered.

You state "...as too many invitations are extended to teams from the BCS Conferences and the "recognized" basketball conferences who have little chance of winning the Big Dance..." I certainly don't think Stephen F. Austin, Southern Mississippi or New Mexico State have a chance of winning the Big Dance and I don't really want to watch them lose in the first round either.

I happen to agree with your intent, but inviting lesser teams just doesn't solve a perceived problem. Requirements for more equitible scheduling and/or minimum in-conference record work for me. It might create a difference for only a couple spots, but that's OK.

A final point is the committee's consideration of the difference between the so-called "body of work" of the entire season vs. a team's recent performance. WSU of 2013 was a clear example of this. Getting Hall and Baker back at the end of the season really put the team over the top and we were much better than the season record might indicate. Being a #9 seed we weren't all that far fom the bubble. There are a lot of variables the committee must consider.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I think it would interesting to play all your conference games the first part of the season. Then the non-con games. Then play the conference tourney.

I would be definetely more interested to see it more of play throughtout the year type thing. Kind of like the pros. Our first game of the year might be against SIU and we could possibly play team X on senior night.

[CBB_Fan]

1: 64 at-large bids: Hurts low-majors, helps mid-majors, help mediocre power conference teams
2: Minimum conference winning percentage: Helps low majors, helps mid-majors, hurts mediocre power conference teams
1 + 2 = A better tournament.

Going by RPI only (obviously we would be higher in the actual tournament), this would be your S-curve:

1 Arizona, Kansas, Florida, Syracuse
2 Wisconsin, Wichita State, Duke, Villanova
3 Creighton, SLU, ISU, Kentucky
4 tOSU, Virginia, Michigan, UCLA
5 Cincinnati, MSU, SDSU, Iowa
6 Louisville, VCU, Gonzaga, UMass
7 New Mexico, UConn, Texas, Arizona State
8 George Washington, Colorado, Oklahoma, UNC
9 Memphis, Pittsburgh, Toledo, BYU
10 SMU, Missouri, Stanford, Kansas State
11 California, Xavier, North Dakota State, Saint Joseph's
12 Indiana State, Saint Mary's, Harvard, Tennessee
13 Dayton, Richmond, St. John's, Boise State
14 Belmont, Ohio, Georgetown, Green Bay
15 Mercer, Providence, Delaware, Louisiana Tech
16 Marquette, LSU, Nebraska, Eastern Michigan

To me that is much more competitive tournament 1-16, and is more fair to competent mid-major teams. Of course, some would complain that this change would make conference tournaments irrelevant and low majors obsolete. I'd suggest that the second is correct and good, and the latter untrue. From a perspective of a low-major conference, this would still reward teams like Belmont that put together a year of quality work, and it would give conferences a lot better shot of sending a team that could win a game in the tournament. Each year we have teams like Liberty (15-20, RPI 290) represent their conference, and teams like Indiana State (17-15, RPI 72) get left out. Who do you think had a better chance of winning a tournament game?

Long-term, I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of constant 1 unit NCAA unit would limit the number of financially viable conferences. This would affect conferences like the MEAC, SWAC, and other conferences that never produce an at-large worthy team. While this is unfortunate, many of these teams are truly competitive at a DII level and simply do not have the financial capability to play D1 basketball at a high level. Right now, they are merely financially stable, and that only because they are guaranteed a small amount of money from the NCAA each year in the form of one guaranteed bid. Ideally the tournament wouldn't just use RPI like I did to make their selections, and teams like Stephen F. Austin from the Southland conference (24-2, RPI 79) would jump above teams like LSU. This would mean that even an awful conference (3rd worst of 32 total) could send a team to the dance if they truly deserved it.

While the change would lower the amount of viable low major conferences, I believe that it would improve D1 basketball overall, with teams like the aforementioned Ste. F. Austin joining stronger conferences as less capable members drifted back towards D2 ball. The process would take decades and wouldn't happen without problems or complaints, but in the end the product on the court during the regular season and NCAA tournament would be improved.

[Shocker1976]

1: 64 at-large bids: Hurts low-majors, helps mid-majors, help mediocre power conference teams
2: Minimum conference winning percentage: Helps low majors, helps mid-majors, hurts mediocre power conference teams
1 + 2 = A better tournament.

Going by RPI only (obviously we would be higher in the actual tournament), this would be your S-curve:

1 Arizona, Kansas, Florida, Syracuse
2 Wisconsin, Wichita State, Duke, Villanova
3 Creighton, SLU, ISU, Kentucky
4 tOSU, Virginia, Michigan, UCLA
5 Cincinnati, MSU, SDSU, Iowa
6 Louisville, VCU, Gonzaga, UMass
7 New Mexico, UConn, Texas, Arizona State
8 George Washington, Colorado, Oklahoma, UNC
9 Memphis, Pittsburgh, Toledo, BYU
10 SMU, Missouri, Stanford, Kansas State
11 California, Xavier, North Dakota State, Saint Joseph's
12 Indiana State, Saint Mary's, Harvard, Tennessee
13 Dayton, Richmond, St. John's, Boise State
14 Belmont, Ohio, Georgetown, Green Bay
15 Mercer, Providence, Delaware, Louisiana Tech
16 Marquette, LSU, Nebraska, Eastern Michigan

To me that is much more competitive tournament 1-16, and is more fair to competent mid-major teams. Of course, some would complain that this change would make conference tournaments irrelevant and low majors obsolete. I'd suggest that the second is correct and good, and the latter untrue. From a perspective of a low-major conference, this would still reward teams like Belmont that put together a year of quality work, and it would give conferences a lot better shot of sending a team that could win a game in the tournament. Each year we have teams like Liberty (15-20, RPI 290) represent their conference, and teams like Indiana State (17-15, RPI 72) get left out. Who do you think had a better chance of winning a tournament game?

Long-term, I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of constant 1 unit NCAA unit would limit the number of financially viable conferences. This would affect conferences like the MEAC, SWAC, and other conferences that never produce an at-large worthy team. While this is unfortunate, many of these teams are truly competitive at a DII level and simply do not have the financial capability to play D1 basketball at a high level. Right now, they are merely financially stable, and that only because they are guaranteed a small amount of money from the NCAA each year in the form of one guaranteed bid. Ideally the tournament wouldn't just use RPI like I did to make their selections, and teams like Stephen F. Austin from the Southland conference (24-2, RPI 79) would jump above teams like LSU. This would mean that even an awful conference (3rd worst of 32 total) could send a team to the dance if they truly deserved it.

While the change would lower the amount of viable low major conferences, I believe that it would improve D1 basketball overall, with teams like the aforementioned Ste. F. Austin joining stronger conferences as less capable members drifted back towards D2 ball. The process would take decades and wouldn't happen without problems or complaints, but in the end the product on the court during the regular season and NCAA tournament would be improved.

Your proposal makes sense to me but it does invite teams like Nebraska (14-10), Georgetown (15-10), Marquette (15-10) and LSU (15-9) while excluding teams (i.e. Indiana State to name a MVC school) who have in my opinion a more likely chance to win a game in the Big Dance.