Latest Sports News, NCAA Basketball, NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament NEWS
MoonDog Solves Bubble Bursting Issue
Published by MoonDog on March 17, 2009
Last year after the field of 65 was announced for the men’s NCAA basketball tournament, I posted an article that laid out a plan to potentially eliminate the problem of worthy teams being left out of the big dance.
Like some, I believed increasing the field to 128 teams would resolve the annual debate on which teams were left out of the tournament field.
After pondering it some more, I now realize increasing the number of teams isn’t the answer. But I do believe there’s a way we can eliminate the possibility of worthy teams being left to wonder what might have been.
The original plan called for the elimination of conference tournaments, and this plan does as well. We all know the only reason these conference tourneys are played – money. There’s no other logical explanation and no arguments that can be presented to justify the need.
Every conference plays a regular season schedule to determine a champion. Why is it then that we need to play a conference tournament to crown a conference champion? Each conference already crowned a champion upon completion of the regular season schedule.
During the week conference tournaments are presently being played, we’re going to have a mini-tournament among the conference champions of the 16 lowest rated conferences based upon RPI ratings.
Those 16 teams will be seeded accordingly and play will begin on the Tuesday following the completion of each team’s regular season schedule.
Once the field is narrowed to four teams, those schools will automatically be assigned as the No. 16 seeds for each region in the NCAA tournament.
Instead of only 34 at-large teams having an opportunity to participate in the field, we’re now going to take the 60 most deserving teams.
Some may argue this eliminates the smaller schools from getting an equal opportunity to play in the tournament. Based on the plan, that’s true. Moreover, its by design.
Historically, the bottom 16 teams in the field of 65 are from the smaller conferences, most of which are given seeds between 13 and 16.
The statistical facts prove those bottom 16 teams have absolutely no chance of winning the tournament. None.
The bottom four seeds in each region basically serve no purpose other than to provide a warm up game for the top seeds.
In this current environment, the NCAA men’s selection committee has made it clear how each team is going to qualify for the tournament – you’ve got to play a schedule against quality competition.
But the NCAA contradicts itself every year, allowing teams from small conferences with no shot of winning the championship to compete.
We all love the Cinderella’s that occasionally make a run deep into the tournament, but ultimately those smaller schools can’t hold up to the truly best teams.
This plan provides an additional advantage by forcing the smaller conference teams to weed themselves out. Therefore, we’ll be able to put the four best No. 16 seeds into the tournament.
I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Unless I’m missing the point, the whole idea behind this tournament is to have the best teams in college basketball playing to earn a national championship.
Obviously, it’s common knowledge the best teams are going to come from the major and mid-major conferences, not the Ivy League or the Southwest Athletic Conference.
Its not that I necessarily want to prevent the smaller schools from participating. I want a plan, like all of us do, that puts the best 64 teams in the field. This plan goes a long way in achieving that goal.
Let me know what you think by voting in the poll below.
Loading ...
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...635 views
6 so far
Tagged with: At-Large Teams, College Basketball, Conference Tournaments, Field of 64, Men's NCAA Basketball Tournament, MoonDog, Plan, RPI, selection committee
DMtShooter on Tue, 17th Mar 2009 11:08
(Dan Akroyd SNL voice on) Moondog, you ignorant slut. (Voice off)
Look, no one *really* wants to see the best 64 college teams in the tournament. What we want to see is a bunch of number one seeds running confetti bucket drills, while one sleeps for 30 minutes and gives us all hope of an epic fail, only to turn it on and win when it counts. As for the remaining bottom teams in the draw, one or two will come out of nowhere and make the Madness, well, Madness.
If you want to see the best teams in a format that produces the best champion, watch pro ball. The colleges are for random porn and gamblers. That’s why people love it, as is.
MoonDog on Tue, 17th Mar 2009 12:12
Pro Ball? Are you kidding? Pro basketball? Either you’re completely devoid of rational thought or you’ve recently fallen asleep in an opium den. When the NBA routinely presents a playoff format that includes several teams with sub .500 records and seven-game series that amount to nothing more than a total waste of time, I find it hard to fathom anyone with a modicum of common sense would believe the NBA is the best format to produce a champion.
Pinkies Up!!! How to Celebrate St. Patrick’s Day Like an Irishman Edition on Tue, 17th Mar 2009 13:23
[...] MoonDog Solves Bubble Bursting Issue (MoonDog Sports) [...]
The Wednesday Love Fest at The Love of Sports on Wed, 18th Mar 2009 08:00
[...] MoonDog solves bubble bursting issues. [MoonDog Sports] [...]
GMoney on Wed, 18th Mar 2009 09:07
Don’t fuck with the little guys. They actually earned the right to play there. My suggestion would be to take the last team allowed in (Arizona) and the next 7 closest teams based on RPI and match them up in play-in games. 4 games between 8 bubble teams and the winners get to be 12 seeds and take on the 5′s. That way, if you are on the bubble, you have a chance to play your way in. And get rid of the Tuesday night play-in game for the 16 seed.
JM Van Horn on Wed, 18th Mar 2009 09:12
My only problem with the current selection process is they put too much weight on the tournament champion for the smaller conference. They are hurting those teams who absolutely dominate the regular season but have one bad game in the tournament conference. The best example for 2008-2009 is Davidson. How many of us were counting on watching Curry light it up in the Big Dance?