Jay Bilas' Plan to Reward Regular Season, Not Conf. Playoffs

[DRuff34]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/news/espn-analyst-has-a-brilliant-idea-for-how-to-fix-ncaa-tournament/ar-BBqsIQI?li=BBnba9I&ocid=iehp

I absolutely can't stand the basic ignorance of rewarding teams that play well for a weekend during a conference tournament vs. teams that have success throughout the entire regular season. Jay Bilas' comments are interesting in that teams are "selected" prior to conference tournaments and teams that weren't "selected" that win the conference tournaments bump the lowest rated "selected" teams. What say you guys?

[ShockdaWorld]

I like it. Anything to add a little bit of clarity, transparency, and accountability to the committee is a step in the right direction. These hacks don't deserve another chance to be on the committee.

[Kel Varnsen]

As long as they can find a way to do away with the RPI and get this proposed system or something similar, I'm good.

[ShockdaWorld]

I just realized Syracuse was given a bigger break for missing their coach, who was suspended for cheating than we were for missing our AA point guard to injury. That can't happen.

[jdmee]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/news...ba9I&ocid=iehp

I absolutely can't stand the basic ignorance of rewarding teams that play well for a weekend during a conference tournament vs. teams that have success throughout the entire regular season. Jay Bilas' comments are interesting in that teams are "selected" prior to conference tournaments and teams that weren't "selected" that win the conference tournaments bump the lowest rated "selected" teams. What say you guys?

The only problem with this is that you are hurting the higher rated seeds. You could have a case where a top 100 team would be rated lower than a play-in team. You wouldn't want a case where a top 100 UNI for example was a 16 seed playing a 1 seed while the true 16 seed who won the conference and the tournament should be.

[WillieJeffJeffries]

I had an idea to free up 11 at-large bids....... Take the bottom 12 conferences in the RPI and have their regular season champs play in a 12 team tourney during championship week. Seed them 1 to 12 and the top 4 get a first round bye. The winner gets an auto bid the other 11 are eligible to be chosen as an at-large or they go home. That frees up 11 bids for more deserving teams and makes for a better NCAA tourney...

[Cdizzle]

I had an idea to free up 11 at-large bids....... Take the bottom 12 conferences in the RPI and have their regular season champs play in a 12 team tourney during championship week. Seed them 1 to 12 and the top 4 get a first round bye. The winner gets an auto bid the other 11 are eligible to be chosen as an at-large or they go home. That frees up 11 bids for more deserving teams and makes for a better NCAA tourney...

There are no teams more deserving than the teams that did what was required of them to make the tournament. Each conference is given a bid. Every single one of those bids should make the tourney. I cannot believe that some WSU fans feel this way. This wouldn't help WSU. Well, maybe for 2-3 years. And then some smart guy in the ACC would say "Hey, look how awesome this is, imagine how much more awesomer it would be if we made the bottom 24 conferences in the RPI play a pre-NCAA tournament and only let one of them into our, errrr, I mean the NCAA tournament.

[WuShock16]

There are no teams more deserving than the teams that did what was required of them to make the tournament. Each conference is given a bid. Every single one of those bids should make the tourney. I cannot believe that some WSU fans feel this way. This wouldn't help WSU. Well, maybe for 2-3 years. And then some smart guy in the ACC would say "Hey, look how awesome this is, imagine how much more awesomer it would be if we made the bottom 24 conferences in the RPI play a pre-NCAA tournament and only let one of them into our, errrr, I mean the NCAA tournament.

This. You are right in that this creates a slippery slope that eventually swallows the Valley into this pre-NCAA Tournament tournament.

Plus, that's basically taking conference tournament revenue away from 12 bottom conferences.

Something else though that would fix this would either be to cut about 100 teams from Division I (if you have to sell yourself out and play ten non-conference road games to make ends meet, you shouldn't play in the big leagues) or to have some sort of a relegation system like Euro soccer.

[shockmonster]

The only problem with this is that you are hurting the higher rated seeds. You could have a case where a top 100 team would be rated lower than a play-in team. You wouldn't want a case where a top 100 UNI for example was a 16 seed playing a 1 seed while the true 16 seed who won the conference and the tournament should be.

I think that you misinterpreted what he was saying. I heard Bilas talking about this the other day, and he was saying that you could already choose the AT LARGE teams before League Tournament time. He was not talking about seeding teams early.

[im4wsu]

Bilas' plan does not allow a team to improve its stock unless it wins the conference tournament, but that also means a team cannot hurt itself by being blown-out in the first round of the tournament.

Also, was he professing that after the conference tournaments, the teams would be reseeded or would the original order of teams stand?

[ShockerFever]

I had an idea to free up 11 at-large bids....... Take the bottom 12 conferences in the RPI and have their regular season champs play in a 12 team tourney during championship week. Seed them 1 to 12 and the top 4 get a first round bye. The winner gets an auto bid the other 11 are eligible to be chosen as an at-large or they go home. That frees up 11 bids for more deserving teams and makes for a better NCAA tourney...

Dumbest idea yet.

[IndyTreeFan]

Not a bad plan by Mr. I'm-A-Complete-Arsehole. I have no doubt, however, that the NCAA would simply morph this into a quicker way to fill the field with P5 teams. Would WSU have been in Mr. Bilas' top 68 at-large teams this year? With the invisible, moving target that is the committee's criteria for inclusion into the field, it's hard to say for sure.

I would like this proposal more if it included the actual criteria for inclusion so everyone would know in advance how they can best qualify for the 68 at large teams.

[DwShock]

Bilas is always complaining about something. Last year it was freedom of movement and the shot lock. He is also so pro-power5 i just any understand why he is choosing this topic to complain about.

[Stickboy46]

Not a bad plan by Mr. I'm-A-Complete-Arsehole. I have no doubt, however, that the NCAA would simply morph this into a quicker way to fill the field with P5 teams. Would WSU have been in Mr. Bilas' top 68 at-large teams this year? With the invisible, moving target that is the committee's criteria for inclusion into the field, it's hard to say for sure.

I would like this proposal more if it included the actual criteria for inclusion so everyone would know in advance how they can best qualify for the 68 at large teams.

To Bilas's credit, he did a Top 68 throughout the year, and WSU was consistently in his Top 40, sometimes way higher (17th on Feb 10th). I think Evansville even made it in there during the beginning of the year.

EDIT: On December 3rd, immediately after WSU's bad week in Orlando, he had UNI at 35, WSU at 47 and Evansville at 55

[Stickboy46]

Bilas' plan does not allow a team to improve its stock unless it wins the conference tournament, but that also means a team cannot hurt itself by being blown-out in the first round of the tournament.

Also, was he professing that after the conference tournaments, the teams would be reseeded or would the original order of teams stand?

The order wouldn't change, but any team that wins that wasn't in the original 68 would bump the bottom seed out. I'd assume they'd have to do a ranking of the bottom teams that only won their tourneys, but the rest should stay the same. I like it.