Expand the Field

Syracuse's coach was on PTI looking for an expanded NCAA Tournament field. His team won 10 conference games this year. Well, so did the Kansas State Wildcats. First time a team in one of the major conferences has won 10 games and been left out of the field and it happens twice! People are also talking about Drexel, Air Force, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina State, Akron, etc.

I say, if you're going to have 65 teams, you might as well have them all (336, I think is the number I heard).

People say college basketball is better than college football because the top team is determined on the court, not in the polls and computers. Well, that is mostly true. But, there are teams left out of the tournament who could, potentially, make a run. NC State almost won the ACC Tournament! Oklahoma State has a talented squad that made a run in the Big 12. Syracuse beat Georgetown recently. They must be pretty good. The field in the bball tourney is bigger, which is better, but the selection committee still has their hands in things, especially with seeding and match-ups.

People say that conference tournaments are an extension. Well, I guess in a way. If you win your conference tourney, you get into the field of 65. But, losing in your conference tourney doesn't keep you out of the field. And, if you're going to be an at-large team anyway (KU, UNC, Georgetown, Florida, Ohio State, etc.), winning your conference tournament doesn't gain you much in the big dance. Duke lost in the first round and they were still a #6 seed despite having a poor year in ACC play (or at least mediocre). UCLA lost early and they moved from a #1 seed to a #2 seed. Oooh ... big punishment. So, there may be a little incentive in seeding to win your conference tourney, but it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things. So, my question is why, if the conference tournaments are an extension, do some teams get double elimination and some teams get single elimination? So ... stop kidding yourselves and saying that they are an extension.

In fact, it's time to get rid of the conference tournaments. I'm tired of having a regular season champ and a tournament champ. Let everyone in the big dance. Determine some rating to rank the field. Use some kind of RPI or an average of a system of computers. It will get teams close enough to their value.

Let's say there are 336 teams. We need to cut the field to 256 (that's 2 to the 8th power). So, we need 80 teams to lose. So, the bottom 160 in the RPI will play.
177 vs. 336
178 vs. 335
179 vs. 334
etc.
255 vs. 258
256 vs. 257

Then, we'll proceed with 4 groups of 64 (or 16 groups of 16). So, in the week when conference tournaments are usually played, the preliminary 80 game round will be played, along with the first two rounds that cut the field from 336 to 256 to 128 to 64. Then, it'll be just like usual. So, no time is added. Everyone gets a shot. There isn't a hand (selection committee) dealing a team a good draw of a bad draw. You get what you get, and no one can change things around to adversely impact one team or another. It will be determined on the court, through the regular season as it pertains to seeding based on RPI (or whatever is used) and in the tournament.

We won't need Joe Lunardi and people like him. We won't have to hear about snubs and insane inclusions. We won't have to hear about stacked regions and easy roads. It will be real march madness and teams will have to keep it together for 8 (or 9) rounds if they want to be the champ, although the first two weeks should be relatively straightforward for the major contenders. Well, actually, maybe the first 3 games. Including everyone will make the top of the field deeper and challenge some of the big guns earlier, in all likelihood. They'll still probably win, but not with the ease that they've done so in the past.