Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe..

dd wrote:

>I hate the fact that the officiating has become as much of a factor as
>the worth of the teams involved. The end result is too dependent
>on luck. That being said, the officiating in this years tournament
>was better, IMO, than it has been for several years. That ain't
>saying all that much, though.
>
>Cut the field to 16 or 32, no automatic bids, AND make it a double
>elim. tournament

"Double elimination tournament" kills the idea right there. CBS did
NOT pay God's own amount of dollars so they can have a "maybe this is
the championship game and maybe it'll be tomorrow, depending on who
wins" game.

Even without that problem, there's the problem of there being more
rounds in the loser's bracket than in the winner's bracket. Even if
you do something like having double-elimination regionals to a
single-elimination Final Four, you need at least seven (possibly
eight) rounds:
(Assume an 8-team regional and all higher seeds win)

First weekend (current pod system can be used)
Thursday, Site A: 1-8, 4-5
Thursday, Site B: 2-7, 3-6
Saturday, Site A: 1-4 (winners bracket), 5-8 (losers)
Saturday, Site B: 2-3 (W), 6-7 (L)

Second Weekend (all at the same site)
Thursday: 3-5 (L), 4-6 (L)
Friday: 1-2 (W), 3-4 (L)
Saturday: 2-3 (L)
Sunday: 1-2
If 2 beats 1, they play again on Monday

If you want a full-fledged double-elimination tournament, you stop
after the Saturday game with one winner's bracket and one loser's
bracket team per region, and have the Elite Eight (or "Final Four Plus
Four") the same way you had the regional, with the four winners
bracket teams as 1-4 and the losers bracket teams as 5-8.
Assume A,B,C,D are the regions, the 1s are the undefeated teams, and
the 2s are the teams with one loss (assume 1s beat 2s, and As beat Bs
beat Cs beat Ds):

Wednesday: A1-B1 (W), C2-D2 (L), C1-D1 (W), A2-B2 (L)
Thursday: B1-A2 (L), D1-C2 (L)
Friday: A1-C1 (W), B1-D1 (L)
Saturday: B1-C1 (L)
Sunday: A1-B1
If B1 beats A1, they play again on Monday

(Note that back when baseball was complete double elimination, they
actually handled the end a little differently; after the Friday games,
instead of the two losers bracket teams playing each other, they
played the two teams from the final winners bracket game (the pairings
were based on what would cause the fewest rematches), and continued
from there.)

Alternatively, do what baseball and softball do now: have two 4-team
double-elimination mini-tournaments (but in this case, the four teams
that lost in the regionals carry their loss into the nationals):

Thursday: A1-B1 (W), C2-D2 (L), C1-D1 (W), A2-B2 (L)
Friday: B1-C2 (L), D1-A2 (L)
Saturday: A1-B1, C1-D1
Sunday: rematches of Saturday if B1 and/or D1 won
Monday: one-game national championship

Now you have some idea why it's still single elimination.

-- Don
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On Sat, 07 Apr, dd wrote:
> Cut the field to 16 or 32, no automatic bids, AND make it a double
> elim. tournament.......AND train the friggin officials. 32 is better
> because it lessens the argument that the possible eventual winner
> might not even be playing. Much more entertaining for fans of
> basketball if not the homers, but not as lucrative, which is what it's
> all about, of course.

How many games would be played in total with a 32 team double elimination
tournament? Wouldn't it still be pretty much the same as now? And
wouldn't more of the games likely be better games that would get higher
ratings? Which would equal more money...


--Donnie

--
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

The tournament is fine as it is.

"Shambles"??

Are you a sports fan?


<i_tell_it_like_it_is_7 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175974083.952918.183980@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, it is just a shambles the way it is now. Just another weekend
> of basketball so the fat cats at the NCAA can increase their already
> overly large largess!
>
> There are seldom any 'upsets' on the 1st weekend anyway...unless you
> call the occasional 'seed 5 beating seed 4' an 'upset'......barf!
>
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

Donnie Barnes writes:

> How many games would be played in total with a 32 team double elimination
> tournament?

Can't you figure that out for yourself, Barnes? 31 teams would have
to lose twice, making for at least 62 games. If the eventual winner
were to lose once, then that's 63 games.

So easy a cave man could do it.
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On Sun, 08 Apr, tholen.RemoveThis@antispam.ham wrote:
> Donnie Barnes writes:
>
>> How many games would be played in total with a 32 team double elimination
>> tournament?
>
> Can't you figure that out for yourself, Barnes? 31 teams would have
> to lose twice, making for at least 62 games. If the eventual winner
> were to lose once, then that's 63 games.
>
> So easy a cave man could do it.

You took that out of context. The next sentence was "Wouldn't it be pretty
much the same amount as now?" Or something very similar. So the question
was somewhat obviously rhetorical.


--Donnie

--
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On 7 Apr 2007 22:05:36 GMT, Donnie Barnes
<djbSPAMSUCKS.DeleteThis@donniebarnes.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Apr, dd wrote:
>> Cut the field to 16 or 32, no automatic bids, AND make it a double
>> elim. tournament.......AND train the friggin officials. 32 is better
>> because it lessens the argument that the possible eventual winner
>> might not even be playing. Much more entertaining for fans of
>> basketball if not the homers, but not as lucrative, which is what it's
>> all about, of course.
>
>How many games would be played in total with a 32 team double elimination
>tournament? Wouldn't it still be pretty much the same as now? And
>wouldn't more of the games likely be better games that would get higher
>ratings? Which would equal more money...


it's all about the homers....fewer fan bases involved equals fewer
total viewers, even with the same number of games.

At least that's my theory for why it's 64 plus to begin with. It
ain't about good basketball.
>
>
>--Donnie
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

Donnie Barnes writes:

>>> How many games would be played in total with a 32 team double elimination
>>> tournament?

>> Can't you figure that out for yourself, Barnes? 31 teams would have
>> to lose twice, making for at least 62 games. If the eventual winner
>> were to lose once, then that's 63 games.
>>
>> So easy a cave man could do it.

> You took that out of context.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> The next sentence was "Wouldn't it be pretty much the same amount as now?"

Further evidence that you didn't figure it out for yourself, Barnes.

> Or something very similar. So the question
> was somewhat obviously rhetorical.

Classic failed attempt at a face-saving response.
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On Sun, 08 Apr, dd wrote:
> it's all about the homers....fewer fan bases involved equals fewer
> total viewers, even with the same number of games.

They don't care about the total number of individual viewers. They care
about maximum viewers per hour. During the first weekend you currently
have so many schools there that only have a handful of fans compared to the
big schools that you don't get the effect you're after anyway.

I promise you, taking the top 32 teams and playing 62 games between them
would draw a lot higher RATINGS (which is what they are after, not total
number of different individuals for the tournament) than 64 games with 65
different teams do.

As for that "maybe it's a championship game, maybe it isn't" thing at the
end, you fix that by *forcing* the first game between the last two teams to
be the championship. You haven't lost your game yet? Too bad. I still
think that's "more fair" than the single elimination system. So it's 62
games *period*.

I think it could work.


--Donnie

--
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

<i_tell_it_like_it_is_7 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175974083.952918.183980@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, it is just a shambles the way it is now. Just another weekend
> of basketball so the fat cats at the NCAA can increase their already
> overly large largess!
>
> There are seldom any 'upsets' on the 1st weekend anyway...unless you
> call the occasional 'seed 5 beating seed 4' an 'upset'......barf!
>

I think 16 teams double elimination tournament is a great idea. Also, I
recommend some extra steps:

1. All conference champions, and only them participate the tournament.
2. Using RPI ratings, the best eight conferences are automatically qualified
and their champions are seeded 1-8.
3. Other conference champions participate the qualify round(s) and eight
schools will advance to the tournament and seeded 9-16.
4. Conferences could decide to send either regular season champion,
post-season tournament champion or the winner of one additional game between
the two to the NCAA tournament.
5. NIT will certainly be packed with lots of good teams from power
conferences.
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

I respectfully disagree.
For me ( and I stress that, "for me") double elimination would kill the
tournament. It's the "one or done" that makes it exciting. It's not the
"Little League World Series." It's March Maddness.

Your point 1. Only conference champs make the tournament?

Only one team from the ACC, Big East, etc. make it?
You're telling me that the Ivy League champ had more reason to be there than
Duke, Memphis or Louisville, etc?

2. It already happens. Once again, the Ivy league champ is going to get a
higher seed than the ACC? Don't think so.

3. Again, there are non-champion teams in the ACC, Big East etc, that are
superior to the champs of many conferences.

4. The NIT is the FNC of college post season tournaments.

With all respect, once again, the beauty of the NCAA Basketball tournament
(for me and many many others) is the "wild card" aspect.
Yes, this year everything went "according to plan" (you had a Final Four of
two 1's and two 2's)
But you're taking the fun away from a small school that gets in and pulls at
least one upset. The spirit at those campuses, for at least another week, is
electric. To me, it's what makes the tournanament fun. Remember George Mason
last year? Gonzaga? With your system those teams would have either not been
there, or gotten an impossible match-up in game one.

be well.
hope you and yours had a great day.

robw

"Ar Q" <ArthurQ283.RemoveThis@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:C_0Sh.135525$_73.17027@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <i_tell_it_like_it_is_7.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1175974083.952918.183980@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > Yeah, it is just a shambles the way it is now. Just another weekend
> > of basketball so the fat cats at the NCAA can increase their already
> > overly large largess!
> >
> > There are seldom any 'upsets' on the 1st weekend anyway...unless you
> > call the occasional 'seed 5 beating seed 4' an 'upset'......barf!
> >
>
> I think 16 teams double elimination tournament is a great idea. Also, I
> recommend some extra steps:
>
> 1. All conference champions, and only them participate the tournament.
> 2. Using RPI ratings, the best eight conferences are automatically
qualified
> and their champions are seeded 1-8.
> 3. Other conference champions participate the qualify round(s) and eight
> schools will advance to the tournament and seeded 9-16.
> 4. Conferences could decide to send either regular season champion,
> post-season tournament champion or the winner of one additional game
between
> the two to the NCAA tournament.
> 5. NIT will certainly be packed with lots of good teams from power
> conferences.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On 8 Apr 2007 04:13:54 GMT, Donnie Barnes
<djbSPAMSUCKS.RemoveThis@donniebarnes.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr, dd wrote:
>> it's all about the homers....fewer fan bases involved equals fewer
>> total viewers, even with the same number of games.
>
>They don't care about the total number of individual viewers. They care
>about maximum viewers per hour. During the first weekend you currently
>have so many schools there that only have a handful of fans compared to the
>big schools that you don't get the effect you're after anyway.
>
>I promise you, taking the top 32 teams and playing 62 games between them
>would draw a lot higher RATINGS (which is what they are after, not total
>number of different individuals for the tournament) than 64 games with 65
>different teams do.
>
>As for that "maybe it's a championship game, maybe it isn't" thing at the
>end, you fix that by *forcing* the first game between the last two teams to
>be the championship. You haven't lost your game yet? Too bad. I still
>think that's "more fair" than the single elimination system. So it's 62
>games *period*.
>
>I think it could work.

I won't argue the specifics of the marketing, but I understand ratings
is the desired objective. I have to believe that, like everything
else they contaminate, the money they spend gets them considerable
influence over the way things are set up, and you would assume that to
be to their advantage.

The bigger obstacle though is the thinking, or lack therof, of the
average fan. Most think that a single elimination tournament, one
where each team plays only a small fraction of the entire field, can
actually, consistently non-coincidentally determine the 'best' team.
And that with officiating that introduces a roll-of-the-dice factor
into virtually every game.
>
>--Donnie
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

dd wrote:

>The bigger obstacle though is the thinking, or lack therof, of the
>average fan. Most think that a single elimination tournament, one
>where each team plays only a small fraction of the entire field, can
>actually, consistently non-coincidentally determine the 'best' team.
>And that with officiating that introduces a roll-of-the-dice factor
>into virtually every game.

If they didn't want every team to have a chance to win, the first
thing the NCAA would do is to change the rules so that all bonus foul
shots are 2 shots - none of this 1-and-1, miss the first and give the
other team a chance to run down the court and sink a three, stuff.

I seem to recall not that many years ago that they did change the
rules so that all bonus fouls in the last five minutes were two shots
(I think this was before the double bonus rule was in effect);
needless to say, enough teams complained that it was now impossible to
come from behind at the end (to which the reply should have been,
"Well, you should have played better in the first 43 minutes") that
the rule was scrapped.

-- Don
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe.. 

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 07:39:14 GMT, "Ar Q" <ArthurQ283 DeleteThis @hottmail.com>
wrote:

>
><i_tell_it_like_it_is_7 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1175974083.952918.183980@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Yeah, it is just a shambles the way it is now. Just another weekend
>> of basketball so the fat cats at the NCAA can increase their already
>> overly large largess!
>>
>> There are seldom any 'upsets' on the 1st weekend anyway...unless you
>> call the occasional 'seed 5 beating seed 4' an 'upset'......barf!
>>
>
>I think 16 teams double elimination tournament is a great idea. Also, I
>recommend some extra steps:
>
>1. All conference champions, and only them participate the tournament.
>2. Using RPI ratings, the best eight conferences are automatically qualified
>and their champions are seeded 1-8.
>3. Other conference champions participate the qualify round(s) and eight
>schools will advance to the tournament and seeded 9-16.
>4. Conferences could decide to send either regular season champion,
>post-season tournament champion or the winner of one additional game between
>the two to the NCAA tournament.
>5. NIT will certainly be packed with lots of good teams from power
>conferences.
>



although I would LOVE to revive the virtual war that used to be the
ACC tournament, which was the finest basketball I've ever seen, it
would render the NCAA anti-climatic to some extent.

A tournament needs to have all the best teams involved if the quality
of basketball is an issue, and this would happen only coincidentally
if only the confernce champions participated. If it was just to
satisfy the homer instinct, that's a different story. I have that
instinct, but it doesn't totally eclipse my desire to see really good
college basketball.....again.

There have been NCAA tournaments past where my Heels were not involved
to the end, but the basketball still was well worth watching. In some
cases, that would not have happened if only conference champions were
allowed to compete. However, I like the idea of using this somehow
to revive the stature and excitement of the NIT.

Maybe some sort of NIT vs NCAA championship game?
 >> Stay informed about: Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe..