Jay Bilas' plan for "fixing" NCAA tournament

[UKUGA]

Announce 1-68 on Sunday before "Selection Sunday" (i.e. March 8th).

Rank teams 1-68.


Then, any team that wins conference tourney that isn't on the list, replaces teams on the list, starting at the bottom.

Example given in article


61. Illinois
62. TCU
63. Colorado State (replaced by Manhattan)
64. Louisiana Tech (replaced by Northeastern)
65. Tulsa (replaced by Wofford)
66. Illinois State (replaced by North Florida)
67. South Carolina (replaced by Coastal Carolina)
68. George Washington (replaced by Belmont)



Link

 

[TankedCat]

I've always said that at the start of the season every team has a rank of 0 and based on some formula which is applied uniformly across the board, you get points for your game in and game out performances.

Take all the subjectivity out of it - at the end of the season you take the top 64 teams in number of points and have a play in game in case of any ties between 64 & 65.

That way teams know at any point if they are the last 4 in or out, what they have to do to get in , etc without a bunch of biased homers sitting around a room trying to plan made for TV matchups on selection Sunday.

 

[yabbadabbadoo_rivals213851]

Wouldn't want to do anything that made sense would we??? NO

He's usually spot on with about everything he says. I love how he gets irritated at the referees for delaying the game all the time, but he's right again.

 

[jarms24]

I agree with him, but to me, those are small potatoes. The biggest gripe I have is the competitive disparity between the regions. No way Kentucky at 31-0 deserves to play a team that should be on the 1 seed line, while the other 1 seeds get cupcakes. IOW, geography is the problem, not who's in and who's out.

 

[UKWildcatT]

Definitely interesting.

I know many would disagree, but I think you should cap the number of teams per conference at 6. This would make every conference game meaningful as you only have X number of slots

I also wish if you fail to finish 500 in a conference, you can't receive a bid (unless you win the conference tournament)

 

[akaukswoosh]

The one thing that all teams have in common is the chance for the automatic bid, and to do so against their peers. Let's let Championship Week be about the automatic bid, not about big shots adding quality wins to a résumé when the "little guy" has no chance to do the same. It would bring more relevance to the regular season, some balance and fairness to the process, and it would add some drama and fun. We would have two Selection Sundays, one that announces the at-large field, and one that announces the final field and the bracket.

Not a bad idea but probably almost too 'radical' for the stuffy NCAA.

 

[yabbadabbadoo_rivals213851]

Originally posted by jarms24:
I agree with him, but to me, those are small potatoes. The biggest gripe I have is the competitive disparity between the regions. No way Kentucky at 31-0 deserves to play a team that should be on the 1 seed line, while the other 1 seeds get cupcakes. IOW, geography is the problem, not who's in and who's out.

I think what Bilas is getting at is the tournament would be seeded accordingly to the 1-68 list.

 

[akaukswoosh]

I also wish if you fail to finish 500 in a conference, you can't receive a bid (unless you win the conference tournament)

I could go for that

 

[yabbadabbadoo_rivals213851]

Yeah Travis.

 

[wildcat1515]

Originally posted by jarms24:
I agree with him, but to me, those are small potatoes. The biggest gripe I have is the competitive disparity between the regions. No way Kentucky at 31-0 deserves to play a team that should be on the 1 seed line, while the other 1 seeds get cupcakes. IOW, geography is the problem, not who's in and who's out.

The bad thing its all about the money. They will make more money if teams are closer for fans to travel. But its also a good thing for people to travel to see their team play in the tourney.

 

[Goingfor13]

One fix I'd like to see is to make all the play-in games for at-large teams. I don't like seeing the small schools win their way in only to get cheated out of the real tournament experience. Dayton isn't the real tournament, no matter what the NCAA wants to call it. I think it would also make for more interesting play-in games.

 

[UKWildcatT]

Originally posted by jarms24:
I agree with him, but to me, those are small potatoes. The biggest gripe I have is the competitive disparity between the regions. No way Kentucky at 31-0 deserves to play a team that should be on the 1 seed line, while the other 1 seeds get cupcakes. IOW, geography is the problem, not who's in and who's out.

To be honest...it's more unfair to Wisconsin than it is to us.

 

[Waterview Catfan]

All sounds better than what we have except this, who or what formula is doing the ranking? There could be enormous controversy still the way I see it, maybe I missed something.

 

[deplion_rivals116063]

On the surface of it, I like it.

Would love to have someone like Bilas in charge of NCAA basketball instead of Emmert and his team of incompetent bureaucrats.

 

[jes95407]

I'll take it over the current system....the midwest will be absolutely stacked again, bank on it. Pretty good read below.


http://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/story/kentucky-wildcats-ncaa-tournament-march-madness-bracket-geography-031115?adbsc=social_20150311_41889706&adbid=10153696908279552&adbpl=fb&adbpr=112638779551

This post was edited on 3/11 2:10 PM by js40484

 

[Seth C]

The pods are great and it helps keep those early games close to home for a lot of small schools. That's awesome, but when it comes to REGIONS the goal should be competitive balance, not geography. If regions get screwed because you want School A to travel 400 miles instead of 500 miles, well, now I know the tournament is run by morons. Congrats.

 

[jarms24]

Originally posted by UKWildcatT:

Originally posted by jarms24:
I agree with him, but to me, those are small potatoes. The biggest gripe I have is the competitive disparity between the regions. No way Kentucky at 31-0 deserves to play a team that should be on the 1 seed line, while the other 1 seeds get cupcakes. IOW, geography is the problem, not who's in and who's out.

To be honest...it's more unfair to Wisconsin than it is to us.

I completely agree!

 

[BlueCat43]

Originally posted by jarms24:
I agree with him, but to me, those are small potatoes. The biggest gripe I have is the competitive disparity between the regions. No way Kentucky at 31-0 deserves to play a team that should be on the 1 seed line, while the other 1 seeds get cupcakes. IOW, geography is the problem, not who's in and who's out.

I agree. Take Bilas' idea and then give 1 seeds preferred geography and have the rest seeded accordingly.

 

[point1zerorock]

When it's geography, it's really only about the $. What a shame.

When it's the "S-curve" it's actually about the game as it should be.

 

[preacherfan]

Originally posted by deplion:
On the surface of it, I like it.

Would love to have someone like Bilas in charge of NCAA basketball instead of Emmert and his team of incompetent bureaucrats.

Disagree. Bilas has enough public comments to make me think that we wouldn't be happy with him. Put me in charge instead. I guarantee you that I would make it the way it should be!

 

[deplion_rivals116063]

Originally posted by preacherfan:

Originally posted by deplion:
On the surface of it, I like it.

Would love to have someone like Bilas in charge of NCAA basketball instead of Emmert and his team of incompetent bureaucrats.

Disagree. Bilas has enough public comments to make me think that we wouldn't be happy with him. Put me in charge instead. I guarantee you that I would make it the way it should be!

If you are a candidate, I am definitely on board!!!

 

[CatFanInTheBathtub]

Bilas should post on this board. he'd fit right in because all he does is complain about what's wrong with college basketball.

there's nothing wrong with the tournament the way it is. and this proposal would do nothing to eliminate the controversy how about who gets in and who doesn't.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Lumpy 2]

I would like to see the teams be rewarded more for their performance during the season by allowing the teams to choose their opponent based on seeding. Allow the overall #1 seed to choose their opponents from the list of #2 seeds. For example, if UK is the #1 overall seed they would get to pick the 5,6,7 or 8 as the #2 seed in their region with the other #1 seeds picking in the order they were seeded. The #2 seeds would then pick the #3 seeds in reverse order and then the #3 seeds would pick the #4 seeds. This might sound confusing but it would theoretically have the overall #1 seed with the weakest #2, the strongest #3 and the weakest #4. The #4 overall seed would have the strongest #2, the weakest #3 and the strongest #4. To me, this would be better than placing teams according to geographical location and would reward teams for what they accomplished during the season.

 

[Cats192]

^^^^

I think people would appreciate more transparency

 

[Gary4UK]

What about 2012 when they stacked the deck against us? This article doesn't mention that.... We can go back time and time again, especially since Cal has been here and see where they stacked the deck against us.....

 

[Blueaz]

Originally posted by jarms24:
I agree with him, but to me, those are small potatoes. The biggest gripe I have is the competitive disparity between the regions. No way Kentucky at 31-0 deserves to play a team that should be on the 1 seed line, while the other 1 seeds get cupcakes. IOW, geography is the problem, not who's in and who's out.

THIS....but if it Duke; somehow geography doesn't mater....smh

 

[BoulderCat_rivals187983]

I said a little while back I'd like to see the committee start putting out tentative rankings so I like the idea. They do it for football. What's the big deal? It's not like they haven't already been thinking about it.

I'd quibble with him though on Colorado St. I think they're in if they win tomorrow night. If not, certainly the next.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

Originally posted by CatFanInTheBathtub:
Bilas should post on this board. he'd fit right in because all he does is complain about what's wrong with college basketball.

there's nothing wrong with the tournament the way it is. and this proposal would do nothing to eliminate the controversy how about who gets in and who doesn't.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Whether it would fix that problem or not, he is just giving his opinion, which he is paid to do. But if you think so little of the posting here, why do you keep coming back?

 

[FiveStarCat]

Good idea in theory but if you change the conference tournaments to be meaningless outside of the automatic bid for the winner, you run the risk of the teams already firmly in the tournament resting their players, giving those lesser teams an easier chance of winning the auto bid.

It would ruin the competitive balance of the conference tournament and there would be multiple auto bids per year from the multi-bid leagues that only got in because the "locks" rested their players and tanked on purpose.

This post was edited on 3/11 3:50 PM by FiveStarCat

 

[KingOfBBN]

Conference tournaments are one of the major problems. They make the regular season absolutely meaningless when teams like Furman who was 11-22 (?) almost won their conference title game and gets a bid. You should not be allowed to participate in the conference tournament with a record like that.

Do what the Ivy League does and give the regular season winner the auto-bid. Also, get rid of geography or at least allow the teams to pick the region they want by 1-4 ranking.

Also, the tournament doesn't need 68 teams. 64 is fine.

 

[bluemoonofky]

The midwest bracket totally screwed Wichita State last year!! According to the NCAA official 1-68 rankings you'll see how bad the bracket was stacked against them. Click the link to see the 2014 rankings.

2014 rankings 1-68

 

[UKUGA]

Originally posted by FiveStarCat:
Good idea in theory but if you change the conference tournaments to be meaningless outside of the automatic bid for the winner, you run the risk of the teams already firmly in the tournament resting their players, giving those lesser teams an easier chance of winning the auto bid.

It would ruin the competitive balance of the conference tournament and there would be multiple auto bids per year from the multi-bid leagues that only got in because the "locks" rested their players and tanked on purpose.


This post was edited on 3/11 3:50 PM by FiveStarCat

One of the concerns Bilas mentions in the article is teams padding their resume with 2-3 wins in conference tourneys over teams that may have questionable motives (i.e. resting players, not caring, etc.)

So, he feels like this plan helps alleviate your concern, as teams would no longer be rewarded for getting wins 21 & 22 against teams putting forth lackluster effort, and having those wins be the ones that earn their way into the tourney.

Plus, you don't automatically make the NCAA tourney, just because you are in the top 68. Teams in the 50s down certainly have something to play for, because if everyone lays down and gives up the conference tourney, then more teams that felt confident heading into the conference tourney, may find themselves on the outside looking in, if too many underdogs get the automatic bids.

 

[CrazyCarl69]

I would like to see a knockout criteria to be .500 or better in conference play. If the committee wants us to believe the "whole body of work" scenario, then any team under .500 in conference play need to win it's conference tourney to get in.

Those teams have had all season to prove they can win games against top opponents and avoid bad losses; if you're under .500 in conference play, you've already proven that you don't belong in the NCAA tournament.

This could afford opportunities to teams in small 1 bid conferences that have played well all season and get tripped up in their conf tourney. Why reward a 18-12 BIG team with a bid and exclude a 26-3 regular season champ from the MEAC (or other small conf.) that didn't win their conference tourney.

Also - screw geography...none of these teams are taking a 36 hour bus ride to get to any of these sites - they are all on planes for 2-3 hours.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Interesting that Bilas' ranking of the top 68 includes 9 SEC teams and 7 from the ACC (unless I miscounted). Of course, you wouldn't expect the initial ranking to stand, that's his point, so some of those bottom SEC schools would be displaced. Still....

 

[Peeled Oak Cat]

I agree with this approach but it makes too much sense for the NCAA to do it.

 

[bthaunert]

I think his proposal would be a nightmare. We found out in football this year that doing weekly rankings is what made it a mess. If they would have just released their standings at the end of the season, there would have been much less of an argument about teams jumping teams to get into the playoffs. With this proposal, you would be doing daily rankings. So, on March 8th, you put out your list of 1-68. You would have to be updating that thing all week long every day. Tomorrow alone, there will be about 150 teams playing in a game. Let's say that 34 of the 68 teams in the top 68 play tomorrow, you would then have to re-rank teams after the wins and losses. And then you would do the same thing on Friday. It would be an absolute nightmare.

 

[mashburned]

It ain't broke. Just take it back to 64 teams and seed them right - meaning cut out this cutesy matchup ****. Go back to the snake seeding. Perfect. Quit messing with it. Still the greatest event in sports.

 

[Huma1894]

He forgot one thing: get rid of the stupid RPI.

 

[neilborders]

My gripe with the tournament is that teams who win their conference tourney shouldn't have to win a play-in game. The four play in games should be played by 8 bubble teams.

 

[BlueCat43]

Originally posted by bthaunert:
I think his proposal would be a nightmare. We found out in football this year that doing weekly rankings is what made it a mess. If they would have just released their standings at the end of the season, there would have been much less of an argument about teams jumping teams to get into the playoffs. With this proposal, you would be doing daily rankings. So, on March 8th, you put out your list of 1-68. You would have to be updating that thing all week long every day. Tomorrow alone, there will be about 150 teams playing in a game. Let's say that 34 of the 68 teams in the top 68 play tomorrow, you would then have to re-rank teams after the wins and losses. And then you would do the same thing on Friday. It would be an absolute nightmare.

The rankings would be the weekly rankings through the regular season. After the regular season the rankings stop other than replacing bottom teams, if necessary, with tourney champions.