2010 expansion- doesnt NCAA have to go back to seeding all?

[Go Apps]

Seems that they must return to full seeding?

[seattlespider]

I think you have to at least expand seeding. Top eight seeds? Twelve?

[McTailGator]

Seems that they must return to full seeding?

God I hope so.

[UNH Fanboi]

I guess they could theoretically name the top 12 teams in no order for bye purposes, and only give seeds to the top 4. I've been wondering about this though.

[MacThor]

I'm guessing top 8 seeds.

The nightmare is going to be trying to "regionalize" play-in games, while trying to avoid having a team win its play-in game just to get matched up against a conference foe.

[FCS Go!]

I thought the seeds (four teams) get a bye. Everyone else is matched up regionally while avoiding in-conference match ups. More chumps for CAA and Southern to beat on in the first round. :D ECB Conspiracy to be sure!

[LacesOut]

I don't know the answer to the question posed.

But I do know that playoff expansion is A HORRIBLE IDEA. (my opinion only, obviously).

[UNH Fanboi]

I thought the seeds (four teams) get a bye. Everyone else is matched up regionally while avoiding in-conference match ups. More chumps for CAA and Southern to beat on in the first round. :D ECB Conspiracy to be sure!

That doesn't work. You would have 12 teams in the second round.

12 teams will get a bye, and 8 will play in the first round to bring the field down to 16.

[theasushow]

seems like i read the top 8 were seeded...but idk how that would work out mathematically.

[furpal87]

I guess they're going to have to put three "tiers" in.
1-4 byes and games against 1st round winners
5-12 bye, but both teams will be off week 1
13-20 play first week.

I think they'll have to figure out 1-4 seeds, then just figure out the next 8, then the same.

[Jackman]

They'll have to pick 12 teams to skip the first round, but they don't necessarily have to seed them. I bet they keep the 1 to 4 seeding and designate 8 more teams as having byes. Then they'll add the 4 teams that survive the play-in and treat it like they treat the current 16 team format, even allowing the first round survivors to host a playoff game in the second round if they bid high enough. That's my guess.

[FCS Go!]

That doesn't work. You would have 12 teams in the second round.

12 teams will get a bye, and 8 will play in the first round to bring the field down to 16.


xoopsx

[UMass922]

What I wonder is how they're going to choose the eight teams for the opening round. If they choose the eight weakest teams--regardless of whether those teams are at-larges or conference champs--then the result might actually be a more competitive round of 16 than we currently have (since stronger at-large teams will have beaten weaker conference champs in the opening round). Maybe that should be a consolation to those of you who feel that an expanded tourney will be a watered-down one.

Of course, if all ten auto-bid teams are given free passage to the round of 16, that's a very different story . . .

[Go Apps]

its beginning to look like they need to either go to 24 or best of all back to 16

[JayJ79]

I'm guessing top 8 seeds.

The nightmare is going to be trying to "regionalize" play-in games, while trying to avoid having a team win its play-in game just to get matched up against a conference foe.

They aren't "play-in games". That first week is the first round of the playoffs. It's just that 12 teams will get first round byes.

Therefore, I don't think they are required to avoid potentially having teams from the same conference play each other in that second week, because even though it will likely be the first playoff game for one of the teams, it isn't technically the "first round".

But who knows, they may draw up the guidelines differently with the different format.