NCAA: Bracket Expansion Being Considered

[danefan]

Shouldn't the schools that can make the NCAA the most money always be hosting the playoff games in each round?

Don't get me wrong, Eastern Washington had a great team in 2010 - but boy did they make FCS look like DIII with their stadium.

That's certainly the opinion the NCAA has.

My opinion is that money shouldn't be a factor in determining which team should be rewarded with a home game.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Shouldn't the schools that can make the NCAA the most money always be hosting the playoff games in each round?

Don't get me wrong, Eastern Washington had a great team in 2010 - but boy did they make FCS look like DIII with their stadium.

You think that would have made a difference with Villanova hosting.

To answer the question, no it should not be that way by design. You need to balance what is the fair model with the money maker model and a good compromise is the top 8 seeds having the right to play at home if they win.

If the bigger schools that would make the NCAA the most money want those games at home then they have the opportunity to be in the top 8 just like anyone else.

In fact those teams already have an advantage like NDSU & Montana has had to bring in another FCS and just pay them.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

That's certainly the opinion the NCAA has.

My opinion is that money shouldn't be a factor in determining which team should be rewarded with a home game.
To a point, then you have to go along with the fact that a certain amount of money is necessary to keep things viable. I think 8 is a good cutoff.

[danefan]

To a point, then you have to go along with the fact that a certain amount of money is necessary to keep things viable. I think 8 is a good cutoff.

I think there are better ways to make money than pimping out home games.

The NCAA doesn't want to do any work. They'd rather someone else do the work and pay the NCAA for the pleasure.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I think there are better ways to make money than pimping out home games.

The NCAA doesn't want to do any work. They'd rather someone else do the work and pay the NCAA for the pleasure.

Couldn't we replace "NCAA" with "ursus" or "danefan" or anyone else and still have the statement be true?:D

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I think there are better ways to make money than pimping out home games.

The NCAA doesn't want to do any work. They'd rather someone else do the work and pay the NCAA for the pleasure.

More seriously though, what is your idea for better ways to make money. I know you well enough to realize that you wouldn't make that statement without having some ideas and probably interesting ones at that.

[danefan]

More seriously though, what is your idea for better ways to make money. I know you well enough to realize that you wouldn't make that statement without having some ideas and probably interesting ones at that.

For one, I think including the playoffs in a package TV deal with the non-revenue sports was a mistake. There are new competitors cropping up to ESPN every day (CBS Sports (fka CBS College Sports), NBC Sports (Versus), Fox Sports National (coming on soon)) all need programming. They won't necessarily want all the non-revenue sports that NCAA has championships for, but they may be interested in competing with ESPN for a football playoff.

I also think the NCAA should have come up with a single site for for the DIII, DII and FCS championship game. That plan might now work as well with the January game now, but I think they missed out big time by not following a model similar to the Lax championship.

Small things and maybe they don't cover all the costs of seeding 24, but my point is there is money to be made....it just takes work by teh central body, which no one seems to want to do. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I do understand that the NCAA is a mere conglomerate of the members thereof. The school presidents and ADs should push more.

[dystopiamembrane]

I know that this might make me unpopular, but I'll say it.

The top 24 (or whatever number we agree upon) teams should play in the tournament, regardless of conference affiliation.
There should be a published algorithm for determining the standings and we should stick to the list it produces.

Conference championship status might be diminshed, sure, but we wouldn't need to argue over AQ status.
Cinderellas would still exist - the bottom teams in the standings.

[DFW HOYA]

I know that this might make me unpopular, but I'll say it. The top 24 (or whatever number we agree upon) teams should play in the tournament, regardless of conference affiliation. There should be a published algorithm for determining the standings and we should stick to the list it produces.

Great if you're in the CAA, Socon, and Big Sky, not so good for everyone else. How do you tell the MVC it's top seed is not as good as the 8th place Colonial team?

If they did this in basketball, few I-AA schools other than Georgetown and Villanova would even see the tourney on a regular basis.

Better solution: 12 conference champions, top 12 at-large regardless of affiliation; however, simply playing lots of I-A body-bag games should not give one school an advantage against a team which did not have or get the opportunity.

[MplsBison]

Great if you're in the CAA, Socon, and Big Sky, not so good for everyone else. How do you tell the MVC it's top seed is not as good as the 8th place Colonial team?

If they did this in basketball, few I-AA schools other than Georgetown and Villanova would even see the tourney on a regular basis.

Better solution: 12 conference champions, top 12 at-large regardless of affiliation; however, simply playing lots of I-A body-bag games should not give one school an advantage against a team which did not have or get the opportunity.

Nice try. MVFC would get 4-5 teams in a year under his proposal and our top seed would be higher ranked than the CAA top seed.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I know that this might make me unpopular, but I'll say it.

The top 24 (or whatever number we agree upon) teams should play in the tournament, regardless of conference affiliation.
There should be a published algorithm for determining the standings and we should stick to the list it produces.

Conference championship status might be diminshed, sure, but we wouldn't need to argue over AQ status.
Cinderellas would still exist - the bottom teams in the standings.

That's not the intention of the playoffs in the first place from anything I've seen. It's great to get as close to that as possible but it is about defining ONE team as champion from the different conference champions around the country and you add in the remaining good teams to give a second chance to make the most out of it.

There is not an algorithm out there and never will be that would eliminate controversy over who those top 24 teams are.

[MplsBison]

That's not the intention of the playoffs in the first place from anything I've seen. It's great to get as close to that as possible but it is about defining ONE team as champion from the different conference champions around the country and you add in the remaining good teams to give a second chance to make the most out of it.

There is not an algorithm out there and never will be that would eliminate controversy over who those top 24 teams are.

The playoffs are about determining the best team in the country. End.

You added the part about conference champions, as your own (incorrect) opinion.


The best team in the country is not necessarily a conference champion.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The playoffs are about determining the best team in the country. End.

You added the part about conference champions, as your own (incorrect) opinion.


The best team in the country is not necessarily a conference champion.

I did add that because it is how they determine it. They do so in BB, FB, etc...

[LakesBison]

please NO!! keep it where it is!

[MplsBison]

I did add that because it is how they determine it. They do so in BB, FB, etc...

All the tournaments have AQs, yes, but the purpose of every tournament is simply to determine the best team. End.

The purpose is not to determine which of the conference champions is the best.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

All the tournaments have AQs, yes, but the purpose of every tournament is simply to determine the best team. End.

The purpose is not to determine which of the conference champions is the best.

Yes, the manner it is determined is by taking the conference champions and at larges because trying to determine it across an entire country with the extremely limited interplay would produce more skewed results to determine the ONE eventual champion.

[MplsBison]

Yes, the manner it is determined is by taking the conference champions and at larges because trying to determine it across an entire country with the extremely limited interplay would produce more skewed results to determine the ONE eventual champion.

All the tournaments have AQs, yes, but the purpose of every tournament is simply to determine the best team. End.


The best team in the country is not necessarily a conference champion.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

All the tournaments have AQs, yes, but the purpose of every tournament is simply to determine the best team. End.


The best team in the country is not necessarily a conference champion.

Yes, and it does that now. Good talk Rusty.xthumbsupx

[dystopiamembrane]

There is not an algorithm out there and never will be that would eliminate controversy over who those top 24 teams are.
I understand your point.
My thought is that we create one algorithm, publish the formula and explain the function of the various components, SOS, WP, OWP, etc.
This then would be the rule for entry into the tournament, just like the rule for designating a forward pass.
No controversy, just the way it is.

[MplsBison]

Yes, and it does that now. Good talk Rusty.xthumbsupx

I'm glad you agree that the purpose of the playoffs is only to determine the best team.

[MplsBison]

I understand your point.
My thought is that we create one algorithm, publish the formula and explain the function of the various components, SOS, WP, OWP, etc.
This then would be the rule for entry into the tournament, just like the rule for designating a forward pass.
No controversy, just the way it is.

As long as we can give hefty weight to strength of the conference schedule, I'm in.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I understand your point.
My thought is that we create one algorithm, publish the formula and explain the function of the various components, SOS, WP, OWP, etc.
This then would be the rule for entry into the tournament, just like the rule for designating a forward pass.
No controversy, just the way it is.

Which is fine thinking and all. But is that not the same thing we have already? We know what it takes to make the field. It is pretty clearly defined if you want to be a lock you win your conference and if not then the models you are talking about are employed to some extent to fill in the rest of the field. You better try real hard to have 7 D1 wins, etc...

I'm not saying that the map you suggest would not get us to the same location as it probably would. Just saying this map does the same thing and gives teams that would be missed by an algorithm an OCCASIONAL shot to get in and even win a game.

Plus we wouldn't be able to argue about how bad certain conferences are any more. We get to actually witness it at this point.

No matter which map is used you and I both know that there will always be plenty of controversy and we will always arrive at the destination where the two most deserving are playing for the big trophy.

[AmsterBison]

I don't mind autobids - every other DI team sport I can think of lets conference champions in.

Regionalization is the devil though. Half the fun of the playoffs is seeing teams from different parts of the country. I'd much rather see the Pioneer champ in the playoffs with a chance to prove themselves than set up a system that has the two best teams meet in the quarterfinals about once every three years.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I don't mind autobids - every other DI team sport I can think of lets conference champions in.

Regionalization is the devil though. Half the fun of the playoffs is seeing teams from different parts of the country. I'd much rather see the Pioneer champ in the playoffs with a chance to prove themselves than set up a system that has the two best teams meet in the quarterfinals about once every three years.

I really cant see regionalization creeping in at this point. As long as they can make sorme gate at stadiums that can pack the house I don't think it will change a whole lot from what we now have.

[BucBisonAtLarge]

I know that this might make me unpopular, but I'll say it.

The top 24 (or whatever number we agree upon) teams should play in the tournament, regardless of conference affiliation.
There should be a published algorithm for determining the standings and we should stick to the list it produces.

Conference championship status might be diminshed, sure, but we wouldn't need to argue over AQ status.
Cinderellas would still exist - the bottom teams in the standings.

There are not enough non-conference games to make this anything close to science.

[dystopiamembrane]

There are not enough non-conference games to make this anything close to science.
Science?!?