Here is what would really bust the brackets

[shoxlax]

Criteria for the big dance:
-at least 20 wins against Division One competition;
-minimum .500 in conference record
-minimum one OOC road win against a D-1 opponent


Think that would shake some things up? Not that the BCS turds would ever go for it, but that would make for some interesting scheduling at the very least.

[WuDrWu]

It would also start the tournament with about a dozen holes since not enough teams would make the field.

[shoxlax]

It would also start the tournament with about a dozen holes since not enough teams would make the field.

Maybe this year, but in the future, pretty sure the BCS turds would adjust.

An initial hack, play with it Netters, and come up with a blueprint.

[Shocker85]

I honestly don't think it would change much. Do you still give every conference an automatic qualifier? I say "YES". If not, the Big 6 takes several of those slots anyway. Automatic berths are the only way to give the lesser conferences any chance at all - not that they have any success in the tournament anyway.

In the 2009 NCAA tournament:

Only 2 at-large teams had sub-20 wins (Wisconsin, Arizona - both had 19 wins and both were #12 seeds and beat #5 in round 1). Knock them out.

Do you really think any teams made it into the tournament with zero OOC road wins, particularly at-large teams? If so, who?

I agree the .500 in-conference record should be a standard - who gets knocked out of the '09 tournament via this criteria? This is probably the major killer to the BCS conferences.

The power conferences aren't going to agree to changing anything that keeps their middling teams out. They will be able to prove modest success in the tournament (better than lesser conference teams with a lot of wins) and keep it from happening.

--'85.

[Shocker85]

One more note on lower tier conference success in the NCAA tournament:

America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, CAA, Ivy, MAC, MEAC, MVC, NEC, Patriot, Southland, SoCon, SWAC, Summit, and WAC conferences all went 0–1 in the 2009 NCAA tournament.

C-USA, MAAC, Sun Belt, and WCC were all 1 bid leagues, none advanced beyond the Sweet 16.

Presumably, these conferences were represented by their league champion - either regular season or post-season tournament. How does it make a better tournament if more teams from these leagues participate?

The Mountain West and Ohio Valley conferences both had 2 teams and won zero games.

It is kind of a "Put up or shut up" situation, isn't it?

--'85.

[ISASO]

The BCS schools will exercise their veto power over anything that remotely smells like something that might cut into their slice of the $6 billion CBS pie.

Basically, getting that 5th, 6th, 9th team is as important as seeding to them.

In a market with defined boundaries, market share is King.

[Denny Crane]

Interesting thought on the above:

If you were a BCS school and had to schedule based on the above criteria, who and how many OOC games would you schedule on the road?

[Born2Shock]

One more note on lower tier conference success in the NCAA tournament:

America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, CAA, Ivy, MAC, MEAC, MVC, NEC, Patriot, Southland, SoCon, SWAC, Summit, and WAC conferences all went 0–1 in the 2009 NCAA tournament.

C-USA, MAAC, Sun Belt, and WCC were all 1 bid leagues, none advanced beyond the Sweet 16.

Presumably, these conferences were represented by their league champion - either regular season or post-season tournament. How does it make a better tournament if more teams from these leagues participate?

The Mountain West and Ohio Valley conferences both had 2 teams and won zero games.

It is kind of a "Put up or shut up" situation, isn't it?

--'85.

How many of the middling BCS teams actually made it to the Sweet16? I dont have the numbers, but I would guess percentage wise they dont do all that well. Maybe its Put up or Shut up for them too.

[Denny Crane]

You really need to do a study over the last five years to see what implications the above criteria would have and who it would exclude.

...maybe a job for one of our numbers geeks (I mean gurus) on the board.

[ISASO]

Well, what would happen if the middling BCS schools were seeded 15 or 16 instead of a conference champion? Is that really fair to punish a champion while rewarding a school who was sub-.500 in their conference?

[Born2Shock]

Well, what would happen if the middling BCS schools were seeded 15 or 16 instead of a conference champion? Is that really fair to punish a champion while rewarding a school who was sub-.500 in their conference?

Agreed. "last 4 in" should be play in teams, NOT conference champions.

[WSUShokker]

I know Im in the minority ...but I like the expansion to 96 teams....I guess my hope would be that with more teams getting in that the pressure would be off and that more WAC, MVC, CAA teams would get home and home with the BCS conference schools. Thats the only way I would want to expand. Only if they had to have games with us so that the seeding was fair... Not just relegate us to lower seeds. Probably unrealistic and hoping against hope that things will change....What we need is a title 9 for Mid Majors. Let us in or we burn our bras. I cant believe Im saying that but it kind of makes you feel like its the only way anything is going to change...

Im adding this though...I dont want the tournament watered down...I dont think the tournament should have a sense of entitlement for anyone it should be earned..Unfortunately its just not that way

[Kung Wu]

One more note on lower tier conference success in the NCAA tournament:

America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, CAA, Ivy, MAC, MEAC, MVC, NEC, Patriot, Southland, SoCon, SWAC, Summit, and WAC conferences all went 0–1 in the 2009 NCAA tournament.

C-USA, MAAC, Sun Belt, and WCC were all 1 bid leagues, none advanced beyond the Sweet 16.

Presumably, these conferences were represented by their league champion - either regular season or post-season tournament. How does it make a better tournament if more teams from these leagues participate?

If you look at it through the prism of a single year as the rules are now, you are correct they add little.

But its a self-serving cycle. To an extent, being in the tournament leads to better recruiting, which leads to better performance, which leads to getting in the tournament more often, which leads to better recruiting, and so on.

Winthrop is a good example. Marshall took them to the tournament year after year and because of that had the elite team in their conference partially due to getting the best recruits.

And the example is especially good, because even with those appearances he wasn't able to out-recruit the "middlings" from the major conferences, because the deck is stacked against the smaller conference in terms of chances of getting into the big dance.

Because of the current structure, a good recruit thinks a "middling" school is going to give them a better chance at getting into the tournament than being at the top of a lower league. And that's exactly what happens year after year, so they are correct. And therefore the best recruits continue to go to the "power conferences", and the elite schools at the "lesser" conferences get the next tier of recruits.

To stop that mentality there would have to be a fundamental shift in the selection criteria. That's not going to happen any time soon though so the argument is moot, but still fun to consider.

[Speed]

While I like the non-conference road win idea, it needs to be expanded further to requireteams to play a certain amount of road games, 33% for example.
Go through schedules of teams such as Duke, Syracuse or Kansas. Every year it is the same thing, but the lack of road games is shocking. Maybe teams such as KU or K State would even find the way to Wichita.

[ShockerGorilla]

Maybe teams such as KU or K State would even find the way to Wichita.