NCAA's 68-team bracket is predictably terrible
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 12, 2010 7:30 PM PDT
in College Basketball
Email
PrintLet me ask you a question: What is the purpose of the men's basketball NCAA Tournament?
If you correctly answered, "To fairly determine a champion," congratulations! You're officially smarter than the NCAA, which today announced one of the silliest formats you can possibly think of with regards to its new 68-team bracket.
When the newly expanded field was announced, most assumed the "First Four" -- a nice little bit of symmetry devised by the NCAA -- would be comprised of the final eight teams in the field. This makes the most sense; after all, since the purpose of the tournament is to determine a champion, it's only logical that the eight worst teams in the field should have the most difficult path to the championship by having to play one extra game to win the title, to say nothing of having the "reward" of playing the four best teams in the tournament.
But there was a segment of the population who thought it would be "cool" to have the last eight at-large teams fight it out for the right to get into the tournament. Some thought this was a good idea because it would prop up the value of the conference tournaments of the smaller schools; some thought it would just make for better theater.
Faced with two choices, the NCAA did what it almost always does: Came up with a stupid solution by trying to please everyone.
In making two of the games between small school automatic qualifiers and two of the games between at-large qualifiers, the NCAA is trying to get the best of both worlds (driven I'm sure, at least in part, by the desire to keep its new television partners happy).
"The teams selected for these games will be like teams," [tournament selection committee chairman Dan] Guerrero said. "We felt if we were going to expand the field it would create better drama for the tournament if the First Four was much more exciting. ...
"There was no consensus. We selected a format that will break new ground. We're excited about the concept of the First Four. We think we've added value to the tournament."
Exciting? Yes. Valuable to TV partners? Certainly.
Foolish? Without a doubt.
Those at-large teams that will be playing each other? Likely to slide into the 12-seed line. (Although they apparently could be as high as 11- or 10-seeds.) The idea behind a seeded tournament is that a No. 1 seed should have an easier road to the championship than everyone else in its region, the No. 2 easier than everyone but the No. 1, etc. So how can you say that teams that are rated up to four seeding lines higher than other teams should have a harder road to a championship -- by needing to win seven games rather than six -- than lower seeded teams? That goes against the very foundation of a seeded tournament.
You might say that it doesn't really matter, since 12-seeds don't ever make it to the Final Four or win championships anyway. That's not even remotely the point. (Although, if that's the way you feel, you should be in favor of contracting the tournament to 32 or even 24 or 16 teams.) Should a No. 5 seed (or No. 6 or No. 7!) get the benefit of playing a tired team in its first game? And what if the No. 12 team wins? Should a No. 4 seed get the benefit of facing a team that's now playing its third game in five days?
Beyond that, why do some No. 5 seeds get this advantage, while others don't? How do you decide who gets the lucky draw?
That's the problem with going for the "theater" of having at-large teams play. You're screwing with the very nature of a seeded tournament. And if you're going to do that, you might as well just not have a seeded tournament at all, because this sort of an arrangement just devalues the whole endeavor.
NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen -- the guy on the bad end of this gem -- said those at-large teams forced to play their way into the tournament will have nothing to complain about:
"Three of the four teams that would be in these games [the two First Four games involving at-large teams] wouldn't have been in the tournament in 2010," Shaheen said. "The fact is they weren't in the tournament before."
Oh, well then! That makes it all better! It's most definitely OK, since three of those four teams should just be happy to be there. Oh, and sorry about that, fourth team who would have already been in the tournament -- you're just collateral damage. Better luck next year!
I'm sure it will comfort them to know that they're bringing "excitement" and "value" to the tournament, rather than actually getting a fair shot at winning a championship. Which, again, is the whole point of having a tournament in the first place.
Whatever. If the NCAA wasn't half-assing something, it wouldn't be the NCAA. Congrats on living down to your low bar, fellas.
Besides, it might just be making much ado about nothing in the long run, anyway. Raise your hand if you really think the NCAA is stopping at 68 teams. That's what I thought.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow, I couldn't disagree with you more
I thought the NCAA did a very good job of finding a good balance between the small conferences & the large conferences in this instance. The NCAA tournament, as is, is already biased towards the major conferences. You get 7+ teams from the big conferences (around half the conference) making the dance, while some less “renowned” conferences only get 1 or 2. And how do some of these big conferences end up doing? They SUCK, losing 4 or 5 of the 7 on the 1st 2 days. There’s no real science which accurately predicts the Butlers of the world vs. the Notre Dames unless they go head to head. Why did Pittsburgh get a #3, and as you point out “an easier path than a lower seed” when in fact Butler really was the better team? SOS, RPI, etc. – all theory. Pretty decent attempt, but not fully accurate, as is obvious from the fact 4 #1 seeds making it to the final 4 is extremely rare.
The Missouri Valley Conference teams have proven they can play, as have others. Why should only the Summitt league champion be penalized while a 7th place Big East team can make the dance without even winning their own tournament, and still gets bounced? Many believed that if you’re expanding the tournament then you better ensure the smaller conferences are those who are more represented. The NCAA tourney, as is, and as it was, is clearly biased towards the major conferences. Rightfully so, maybe. But since few teams outside of the top 4 or 5 seeds EVER win their regional what differences does it make anyway?
Is it perfect? No. I agree it’s weird that 1 or 2 of the #5 seeds get to play a #12 who played on Monday/Tuesday, but is that an advantage, or potentially a detriment? Who knows? Sometimes when a team is hot its better to keep playing, rather than having 4-5 off days. And it’s weird that 2 of the last 4 in could be battling for a #12 seed while the other 2 are battlling for a #11 seed. But someone is going to bitch, whine & get all bent out of shape no matter what direction the NCAA ended up going.
I think there were 2 very compelling arguments as to how this should have been handled – 8 worst or 8 last picked. The NCAA listened to both sides, agreed they had compelling arguments and struck a balance. What’s so wrong with that?
I’m with Jason King of Yahoo & actually think the NCAA got it right this time.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=jn-ncaaexp071210
News flash
Those small conference teams are the ones most likely to be screwed and placed in one of those two play-in games. The better thing to do by those teams — who by your argument might just be better than their seeding indicates — would be to put the worst eight teams out there and get those smaller conference teams into the main event.
But it’s thinking like this that apparently misses the whole point of my post:
But since few teams outside of the top 4 or 5 seeds EVER win their regional what differences does it make anyway?
If it makes no difference, why even have more than four teams? Or 16 teams? Why not just go the football route?
The point is the integrity of the tournament. Which is thrown out the window with this arrangement.
there's an argument to be made
Those small conference teams are the ones most likely to be screwed and placed in one of those two play-in games.
that the play-in game gives the smaller schools a chance to say they won a tournament game.
Oh, I'm sure that will make them feel better.
Ask the teams in the play-in games from the last handful of years if they feel like they really won an NCAA Tournament game.
it's one more win than the other 16 seeds that didn't play in dayton
and i didn’t say i necessarily agreed with it, just that there’s an argument to be made there.
What???
You say those “small conference teams are the ones most likely to be screwed and placed in one of those two play in games.” Well, duh. But by your plan instead of 4 of them being placed in the play-in games 8 of these small conference tourney winners would be, while the 8th place Big East team gets a much higher seed, no first round play in game & an auto-seed into the 12 v 5 or 13 v 4 game. How does that make ANY sense? If they guaranteed that the 3 additional teams being added to the field were all going to be #16 seeds, and thus the 2nd place team from these smaller conferences, then it would make sense to have the 8 lowest seeds play. But that’s not what’s going to happen and it wouldn’t make sense either. It wouldn’t have happened last year. Borderline major conference teams are most likely to be the 3 newly added teams, and THEY should have to play in, since they wouldn’t have been in the mix to begin with at 64.
And the integrity of the tournament is not hampered ONE BIT. NONE of these teams has a prayer of winning. It’s never happened in HISTORY, so how is the integrity diminished? And how did you get the whole 16-team argument out of my post? Seriously? A #5 seed made the final. 64+ makes for great theatre as there are some great games in there, but utlimately not all have a realistic shot at the title.
Before, 2 of these small conference teams had to play a totally meaningless play-in game that no one gave a crap about or watched. Now 2 more have to do the same. However, it could have been 8 meaningless games where 8 sheep are being displayed for fun and then lead to slaughter, so by keeping it at 4, and forcing the big boys to earn there way into the tournament rather than getting a free pass I’d argue we’re actually ADDING integrity to the tournament.
We’ll agree to disagree big time on this one.
You sort of contradict yourself.
A #5 seed made the final. 64+ makes for great theatre as there are some great games in there, but utlimately not all have a realistic shot at the title.
So more teams equals more drama? Why, exactly? Because there are more teams? Why not include every team then? Nuss’ argument is that by continuing to expand, the NCAA is making a mockery of the Tournament. First it went to 65, now 68, then what, 90? At some point, you have to realize quality over quantity. Adding below average teams to make more “great theatre” as you put it doesn’t actually make great theater.
Also, if they have zero chance of winning the National Title, as you suggest, then how is there drama in that? If a 12 beats a 5, we get excited because the game was great and, hey, maybe they can win it all? We don’t automatically think, well, they have zero shot to win the title.
I understand what you’re attempting to say overall, and sort of agree with you on some points, but you write kind of stand off-ish and it comes across like you think you’re smarter than people. I’ve read a ton of stuff you’ve written on here and I feel like that’s not what you’re trying to do at all, and it’s super hard to tell tone of voice via them internets, but I’m just sayin’. Perhaps take a deep breath. Remember, we all dislike the Huskies here.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jul 13, 2010 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Wow.
So it must be really hard to disagree with someone and not sound like a jerk. I just re-read my reply and I sound like such a dick. Not what I was goin’ for. My bad, SDCoug.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jul 13, 2010 1:06 AM PDT up reply actions
No worries....
I can get what your saying, but to me it’s all about having a belief & being passionate about it. Hard to disagree with passion without coming off at least somewhat adversarial in text, no matter how hard you try. : ) And the later it gets in the evening……..
As long as someone backs up an argument with support points, as Nuss obviously does & you as well, there’s nothing wrong with passion IMO. Its the “I’m right/you’re wrong” with zero supporting points that always get me (& name calling, which thank God doesn’t happen on this board).
To address your comments above, yes we get excited with a 12 beats a 5. That’s awesome and THE #1 most important benefit/fun aspect of the tournament IMO. But realistically who beyond a #5 or #6 has ever really won the tournament? The NCAA changes are about adding #12/#13/#16 seeds – NONE of whom legitimately have a shot at the national title. Maybe someday, but being realistic here. So how does adding these 4 teams and/or forcing some to “play in” take away from the integrity of the tournament? None of the top 6 seeds are forced to play another game.
I agree with you about at some point you have to realize quality over quantity, but hey, it’s the NCAA. A larger % of teams make post season in football than make the big dance in basketball. I’m old school – Iiked 64, but I do see & understand the benefits of expanding to 68, and I’m MUCH happier the NCAA went that route rather than to 96, as many believed they were going to go.
The point of a seeded tournament
Is to create an environment where each team has a path to the championship that theoretically reflects its quality. The best team in the tournament has the easiest path; the worst team has the hardest. Granted, it’s not always perfect because of various rules (e.g., not having conference opponents play each other early in the tournament), but it tries to stick to this principle.
Anything that gets away from attempting to stick to that principle — in the name of television ratings, “drama,” or some sense of justice because major conference teams shouldn’t be rewarded more than they already are — weakens the integrity of the tournament.
You can hardly argue that the 15 and 16 seeds in this are better than the seventh or eighth — or sometimes, even 10th — team in a major conference. Therefore, making those additional at-large teams (which, as I pointed out earlier, are more likely to be mid-majors anyway, since RPI is going to play a heavy role in selecting play-in first round teams) play 16.7 percent more games than about 16 teams they’ve already been determined to be better than is just absurd — if your point is to have a seeded tournament with any integrity.
If the point is just to create a more exciting tournament that will make for better TV, I’ve got a dozen ideas that start with throwing out seeding.
agreed
and in addtiion. I think you can find a lot of coaches that would rather play a 1st 4 game and 1 more against a 5/6 than playing a 1 seed.
the four at-large teams that will play in the first four game will hopefully be the “first four out” or whatever bracketology calls the four best teams that didn’t make it last year, so they’re not in any position to bitch, as they wouldn’t have even been in the tournament without the rule change to begin with.
I think you're misunderstanding
and in addtiion. I think you can find a lot of coaches that would rather play a 1st 4 game and 1 more against a 5/6 than playing a 1 seed.
Those teams wouldn’t be playing a No. 1 seed. If the worst teams were put in the play-in games, they’d be a No. 12/13 seed, playing a No. 5/4 seed right off the bat.
ok, so define "worst team"
i was assuming the ones coming in at a 12/13 would be the “first four out” guys that wouldn’t have made the tournament under the old format.
aren’t the lowest at-large berths always 12s and 13s?
are you sure you have this down?
or maybe i’m wrong… the way i read it was that the “last four out” that usually take the 1 seeds in the NIT now get a shot to be a 12 or 13 seed if they win their first 4 game.
in addition, they’re adding 2 more Horizon League -style teams to play another play-in game.
what’s bad about this?
What's bad about this is everything I said in my post
It takes away from what is the stated purpose of a seeded tournament.
fair enough
So how can you say that teams that are rated up to four seeding lines higher than other teams should have a harder road to a championship — by needing to win seven games rather than six — than lower seeded teams? That goes against the very foundation of a seeded tournament.
because those four teams should be thanking their lucky stars they’re in the tournament at all. if those four teams are competing for the right to be a 13-seed, they have to play an extra game because presumably the 14 through 16 seeds below them won their conference.
further
i think if you presented this model last selection sunday as a last minute addition to Illinois, Arizona State, Mississippi State and Virginia Tech (the four #1 seeds in the NIT) that they have the option of either keeping their 1-seed in the NIT or giving it away to have the opportunity to get into the tournament as a 12-13 seed, I think they all pick the latter without any hesitation whatsoever.
Agree 100% WoE
It basically comes down to a) everyone plays an equal # of games & therefore you only have 64 teams (or 128 if you’re over the top) while arbitrarily eliminating “bubble teams” based on RPI/SOS, OR b) adding a few extra teams (4) who were arbitrarily eliminated from selection Sunday & allowing them to “play in”. Which is worse? As you say, I think those latter 4 would prefer option B.
The downside is it also forces the “lesser” teams to “play in”; however, since the last 2 teams were already forced to do this previously in a 65-team tourney, we’re basically now asking the #65-#66 seeded teams to “play in”.
Hey, lets face it, the NCAA & March Madness is all about the spectacle. We love it for the last minute wins; the fingernail biting moments, etc. More teams = more games = more opportunities for GREAT games & more fun. I don’t see that as “losing integrity”. Historically only the top 20 or so teams really have a chance to win the title, if that. All the rest is just a show, no matter how you look at it. So what’s the harm in the NCAA, CBS, etc. adding more games, generating more $$ and allowing us to enjoy more games?
If you really want to get down to “integrity”, then do away with autobids, only take the top 32 teams (so teams are more fresh) and go at it with only the “elite”. Have a 2nd tier, or B tournament for the rest if need be (e.g. expanded NIT). The NCAA tournament hasn’t been about having only the top teams in the tournament for decades; as it is now, the #100 team makes it into the tournament for a “CHANCE” to win a game or 2, and that’s one of the beautiful elements of the tournament. They have no prayer to win it all, and historically they haven’t even won a game, but there’s always that chance at a Hickory moment. Right now it’s the top 48 or so, plus the autobids, which are typically teams ranked 15-60+ spots lower but without pushing many conferences down a notch to a lower level and making them ineligible that’s what we’re stuck with.
I have yet to see a “perfect” tournament or championship. The NFL has byes – is that fair? The NBA, NFL, baseball etc. all have home field/court advantage and unbalanced scheduling. And we don’t even have to talk about NCAA football. They all do the best with what they have to work with, and ultimately the mighty $$ dictates a lot of decisions.
If you prefer a 64-team field, I definitely get that (I don’t get the ones arguing for 128, but hey…). If you prefer to see the lowest 8 seeds “play-in,” that’s your preference. If you prefer to have only the “last 8” play in then that’s a legitimate preference as well, They chose a combination of the latter two. But I completely, 100% disagree it takes away from ANY of the tournaments integrity. None.
Personally, I commend the NCAA for realizing that selecting the last 4-8 teams is totally arbitrary, and trying to minimize the likelihood of a legitimate team getting ignored. And I comment them for striking a happy medium between forcing the small conferences and the large conferences to play in the “play in” game, rather than just sticking it to one or the other.
And finally, I didn’t see anything about this being the final solution forever. Will they move to 96 or 128? Hope not, but who knows. A lot can change & evolve over the next 10 years, and if they find this new solution isn’t appealing & doesn’t work, I’m sure they’ll be smart enough to adjust.
"Hey, lets face it, the NCAA & March Madness is all about the spectacle."
Like I said, if it’s all about the spectacle, I can think of a dozen ways to make the tournament more entertaining that start with eliminating seeds entirely.
If you’re going to have a tournament, have a tournament.
I do agree with you on one point: The final teams to make it in are rather arbitrary. Since that’s the case, and you’re OK with the spectacle of it, why not go the full monty and make the final eight teams play in?
Oh, that’s right — because the big conferences would be pissed. Instead, we get this silly thing that both sticks it to the four lowest-rated teams in the tournament AND screws with the integrity of the bracket.
You can disagree that it takes away from the integrity of this tournament, but you cannot disagree that, if the fundamental purpose of a seeded tournament is to determine a champion in the fairest way possible, this messes with the integrity of a tournament.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 13, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually, I don't agree
Once you had ANY play in game it created an unbalanced bracket. So I don’t believe this one change messes with the overall integrity of the tournament.
The 12th seed is still the 45th-48th “best” team, as arbitrarily determined by the committee. The 13th seed is still the 49th-52nd. None of these teams have ever won the tournament back in the 64-team format either. If none of the teams which legitimately have a chance to win the title are impacted how is the integrity really damaged?
Do any of us really believe Duke was the best team in the country last year? It’s about which very good team gets hot at the right time, and gets a little lucky here or there. You can still do that if you play in the play in game, since we really don’t know the true impact of being forced to do so (since the current format has 2 teams with ZERO shot of winning a game thereafter).
I for one will not look at the 2011 NCAA basketball champion and believe they won a tainted championship, or won a tournament with any less integrity than Duke in 2010 or UNC in 2009.
The MVC has proven it can play.
But it really is head and shoulders above the rest of the “mid-major” basketball leagues in terms of top-to-bottom talent. (Since the A-10 and MWC seem to be considered Majors for basketball). They may take offense to you putting them in the same breath as the Summit league.
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
by Craig Powers on Jul 12, 2010 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I can't say I love the master plan for the tourament,
But I think a play in game of 12 seeds will be better than anything else worth watching on the Tuesday before the tournament.
by spencer peaty on Jul 12, 2010 11:09 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
call it stupid but what will happen...
is what always happens with the NCAA selection committee. After the top 4 seeds of each region are agreed upon, they will just start sorting teams however they deem necessary to fill out an interesting bracket. Meaning the last 4 in, always catipult the small conference locks for better seeding. So really the new “First 4” will not necessarily be the last 4 in, but the best 4 that fit particular scenarios that they are trying to create, i.e – ratings, drama, etc. (like Nuss mentioned). It’s really just much of the same confusion and mess.
So while I agree with Nuss, that the NCAA is screwing with the seeding; I’m more in the frame of thought that its been screwed for a long time by giving automatic births to teams that would never sniff a top 64 ranking system. To me this doesn’t change things other than give us hopefully a couple of good games – potentially one that is worth watching.
It will never be an exact science, and I think the NCAA has already resigned from that type of logic many moons ago ;-).
by LeaveItToWeaver on Jul 13, 2010 4:39 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
