March Madness changes I'd make

Cut the tournament back to conference tournament winners only.

Re-seed the sweet 16.

How would that work for people in pools, or who recreationally fill out brackets? :rolleyes:

Absolutely not. Talk about making the regular season worthless.

I think the way the Tournament is set up now makes for really excellent entertainment (either 64 or 68 games are fine by me), but I’d go with that change. Make the play-in game(s) all between major (or mid-major) conference teams that just barely made it, all the 19-11 teams rightfully decried. You know, Minnesota vs Baylor, rather than (extracting names from my ass) McNeese State vs Florida Atlantic. If those last two teams make the tournament, it’s because they earned their way in, even if the competition isn’t up to snuff, rather than backdooring their way in by being slightly better than mediocre against their cohort. Let the McNeese States play a real NCAA game, sez I.

Go back to 64 teams. (This seems to be popular.) I also agree with the suggestion to give the automatic bid to the regular season conference champion. This will never happen, because it would render most conference tournaments meaningless.

I strongly disagree with the idea that number of wins or losses is important at all. Many 19-11 teams are better 25-5 teams who played a terrible schedule. All that matters with the at large bids is getting the best teams in the tournament. We should reward those who play tougher schedules, as it makes the regular season more fun.

Universe-I appreciate you agreeing with my ideas. BTW, whenever I apply my checklist, I end up with roughly 90 teams, and I agree 19-11 in a BCS conference is better than 19-11 in say, the SoCon.

I made a proposal in a geography of sports class last year when the talk was of making a giganto bracket. that I’ve become irrationally attached to.

Move to 96 teams. As currently there are 32 auto bids (31 conference tournaments and the ivy league season champ). Those 32 start in the second round. The other 64 all have a first round game. Seeding gets wonky, but I think that it would make things more fun as teams have a bit more incentives to win their conference tournaments.

I’d make it the regular season champs (reward 4 months of excellence, rather than 4 days) but otherwise, I like this idea.

No more than 5 teams per conference. I’d rather see the 2nd best in a mid-major than someone who was not dominant in their own conference.

They *should *be rendered meaningless. They only exist to make more money for the conferences and as a “second-chance contest” for the conference season also-rans.

Let the “true” conference champion be decided by blood and guts conference survival over the long haul.

Of course, they will never drop the conference tournaments ($$$$), but winning one should be a secondary honor–kind of like winning the NIT. You get a nice shiny trophy and all, and it’s still a nice achievement, but you’re not the considered champion of the biggest battle, and hence get no automatic bid to the Dance.

Really a great idea! But only as long as it’s the regular conference season champions who get the first-round bye. The conference tournament winners could still have their “second-chance” opportunity, but their prize would only be an automatic bid to a first-round game.

Absolutely right. I second this. And that includes only 5 teams from the Big East and its 27 teams, or 16 teams, or however many it has now.

128 teams .
I love it when a lower rated team knocks off a big program. It happens sometimes and it comes close nearly every year. It only adds one more game.

I 3rd this!

Look at post #29

I vehemently object (and I’m not a Big East fan). If you were to take the top five teams in the Big East right now, that’d be Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Louisville, and Villanova, all fine teams. You’d also be excluding St. John’s, UConn, and Syracuse, who should probably be dancing, and West Virginia and Cincy, two teams that are on the bubble.

It wouldn’t be the worst travesty in the world to exclude UConn and Syracuse, but you’d have to fill those slots somehow. You’d almost certainly have to take five teams from the Pac-10 – welcome to the Dance, Stanford, with your 6-7 conference record and 13-11 overall! The mid-majors would probably have to get four, if not five, a pop, so now you’re talking the likes of Creighton (8-7 in the MVC, 16-11 overall), New Mexico (5-5 in the MWC, 17-8 overall), maybe Idaho (6-6 in the WAC, 13-11 overall).

Or you could leave it as is and see Kemba Walker and UConn, 7-5 in the Big East and 19-5 overall. Hmmmm… Idaho or UConn…

That’s the point. The Big East teams get in the tourney by reputation because the league is too damn big. Mediocre teams piggyback their way into the Tourney based on reputation. I’ve seen enough of UConn over the last 20 years. Let me see Idaho. While we’re reforming NCAA Hoops, I’d cap the number of teams in any league at 12. Louisville, Cincy, Notre Dame, Marquette and DePaul etc can form their own conference.