1 autobid or 100 or 0.
Doesn't matter.
The basic premise of a tournament is the same.
Again, one example anywhere.
You give an elementary school kid the task "make a bracket for a 68 team tournament" and they would have 8 #16 seeds.
Basketball NCAA in final steps to expand March Madness to 76 teams, expected to begin in 2027
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
1 autobid or 100 or 0.
Doesn't matter.
The basic premise of a tournament is the same.
Again, one example anywhere.
You give an elementary school kid the task "make a bracket for a 68 team tournament" and they would have 8 #16 seeds.
If seeds 14-16 were the play ins, the chance of substantial differences between seed lines disappears. Earning a better seed, in turn matters so much less, which for teams that already have collected enough wins to make the field renders the last month plus of the season pointless.
The low seed autobid winners are serving an important role right now in the college basketball structure that’s challenged by its length in terms of fan following and the meaning of any one game already. The more of those bottom of the barrel teams you wipe out the less of a perceived advantage it is to draw a top seed. That’s bad for the sport. At least in my simplistic view, I could care less about revenue, good for the sport = promotes more interest AND bad for the sport = promotes more apathy. Those are my view (opinion obviously) of the meaningful metrics. I don’t care about much else.
Very simple exercise.
Take a piece of paper and create a 54 team bracket.
Then a 27 team bracket.
Then 15 team bracket.
Then create a 68 team bracket for your local rec baseball league.
Tell me what seeds the "play in" games are.
What teams are in the 1st round?
Then look at the B1G basketball tournament (and every other conference tournament). And then CFP tournament. And NFL playoff tournament.
Let me know how many of these brackets have only the lowest seeds as part of the first round.
I'll spill the beans - 100% of them.
So every other tournament in the world is wrong?
There is zero change in incentive if the 16 seeds are all first round games.
The same teams still make the tournament.
Nobody says "oh we're likely a 11 seed instead of a 12 seed/1st round - we can coast now". They keep playing to be a 10 seed or higher.
Nobody even says "oh we are guaranteed a bid" and coasts at the end of the year in CBB.
Maybe for the last game of the year "resting players".
No - that’s the part your missing. Getting the “bye” when your on the cusp matters in the current structure putting 2 evenly matched bubblers against each other. Matters a lot. Your way, it means a tune up game with Howard or Praire View or whatever. Maybe even advantageous practice.
What would happen in reality is that very few cupcake autobids make it into the main bracket and now the gap between the first round opponent a 1 or a 2 team plays and say a 5 or 6 seed can basically be chalked up to match up preference. For the regular season to have any meaning at all, it should be a huge upset for a 15 or 16 seed to beat a 1 or a 2. But instead your way just means playing a slightly worse bubble team as a 1 seed vs a 6. Again - the difference could be attributed to match up. There’s almost no functional difference between drawing Virginia Tech or Miami of Ohio or whatever.
I would like this expansion if the 69 to 76 teams were invited based on record not SOS in order to help lesser conference programs get invited instead of having 16 to18 win major brands
I feel a 26 win program should get preference over a 16 or 18 win major conference teams get the nod because their sos was better.
I feel a 26 win program should get preference over a 16 or 18 win major conference teams get the nod because their sos was better.
This expansion takes more and more shine off the accomplishment of making the tournament
How excited am I going to get if Rutgers makes it at 17-14??? Knowing they’ve had a handful of teams the last 30 years that were better than that and didn’t get in
How excited am I going to get if Rutgers makes it at 17-14??? Knowing they’ve had a handful of teams the last 30 years that were better than that and didn’t get in
Who exactly gets all these extra trophies?
Drama Queens! Nobody gets any trophies for being selected for the NCAA.
I always root for the underdog, so I am happy to see a few more teams get a chance.
Actually if it gives the lesser conferences a better chance to be invited because of W-L record not sos, , might be great for the underdog.
But if this is just to let more major conference programs an chance, because of sos, to make the dance though play-in games, it sucks.
Confirmation bias at its finest - typical of this site.
Knee-jerk reaction we have seen over and over again - every time a tournament expands in any sport; "this is terrible".
Then we have post after post inventing new reasons this must be bad. My favorite is the, " now everyone gets a trophy" one. Pure ********! Too many kids do get trophies, but the kids also realize how significant or insignificant a particular trophy is.
I am impressed with how inventive posters here in coming up with justification to support their confirmation bias, although many don't apparently realize that is all it is.
I confess my confirmation bias leads me to come up with justifications for just the opposite, but I am mad that I don't get much help.
Folks will dislike it for a few years but the reality is it won’t impact all that much about the actual tournament (unless they do what Nick suggested which would in my opinion be awful and kill the whole tradition of what March Madness is about - basically wiping out all the low major autobids in play in round). In the end if some of those 17-16 teams end up beating the 19-14 teams in the play in round, nobody is going to feel bad for the 19 win teams that would’ve earned their spot in a field of 64. Sure - the regular season should “matter” but where the cutoff for “good enough” sits can shift without destroying the premise of the tournament.
What looks interesting to me about the way it’s been proposed, is that the structure doesn’t lend itself to much coasting for any team - which I see as a very strong positive. They are taking more teams, but any team remotely near that cut line for play in will have incentive to keep playing hard. It’ll be interesting to see how the committee thinks about conference tourney performance in this regard. Example - Will a trip to the BIG finals get a 13 loss team off the play in line? As I said before - in the long run, if the change creates a net of more late season meaningful games for more fan bases - that will at least be a good thing.
What about 16-16?
Usc would have a decent argument for inclusion at 17-14 despite losing their last 8 games. Their 14-14 q123 mark excellent among bubble schools
These 8 extras are generally trash teams that no one wants to see
Last edited:
Yeah but the point I’m making is - at the end of the day, what is the overall impact on a whole? Your Seton Hall or worse type team dukes it out in a play in game against a 19-14 team and occasionally pulls off the upset. Who cares? Nobody is thinking at that point - this sucks, the field would be so much better with that 19-15 team. The narrative is the 19-15 team blew it when it mattered. All Im saying is with the passage of time, this is what the worst of it really amounts to.
On the flip side, far more fan bases will have a vested interest in game outcomes for longer into March. Clearly nobody would dispute that’s a positive - obviously right now the cons of the change for many outway this plus - but what I’m saying is this will likely shift a bit with the passage of time as everyone gets used to it. That’s all. Folks will complain as always about how crappy the bubble is. Now it will be even worse - but again - in the long run - so what?
This is not being done to benefit any mid majors … this is to draw more $ from the major conferences and let more teams in from the leagues that bring revenue
No problem. Let them have their chance. If they are not late bloomers, they will quickly be gone.
Please explain to me why it bothers you so much that they are given a chance to find their place in the sun.
It dilute the prestige of the tournament and the metric of a successful season
tournament bids used to be a barometer for keeping or canning a coach
if pike finished 17-14 4 years in a row and was in the play in game every year would that be grounds for a contract extension or letting him go … careful cause it’s one or the other
and yes easy to answer now because we’ve done nothing but probably tough call if that’s how it played out
There will be new barometers over time. Most of the concerns come down to folks not liking the idea of change.
The irony is almost laughable.
"We can't have all #16 seeds in the first round/play-in. Nobody wants to watch these bad teams. Ratings will be terrible. Mid P4 teams are needed to boost ratings."
"They are going to let in more mid P4 teams? Just for ratings? Outrageous. What about the integrity of sports!"
"We can't have all #16 seeds in the first round/play-in. Nobody wants to watch these bad teams. Ratings will be terrible. Mid P4 teams are needed to boost ratings."
"They are going to let in more mid P4 teams? Just for ratings? Outrageous. What about the integrity of sports!"
There are a bunch of reasons. Most importantly - there doesn’t seem to be much interest in shifting away from the traditional “round of 64” - call it the “real” or “main” bracket. 128 would water down the Thursday and Friday because so many game would not be close.
Because then there’s no outbracketThe idea is that anyone on the cusp is going to have to play in to make the field.
He was being facetious
The change is universally opposed… when they expanded to 68 it was not met with nearly as much disgust and unhappiness as this change as
A lot of that has to do with the transparency now to the casual fan that this is a complete money grab… and people are already turned off by college hoops with NIL ( even though the ratings say otherwise)
the only people who will be in favor of this move are fans of MIDDLING high major team (like Rutgers) and the sports books
I know he was. The point I’m making is that despite all the criticism expressed about the change, it doesn’t have very much effect on the teams that solidly make the team year in and out. A 5 or a 6 seed is still a 5 or 6 seed. The only difference is on occasion, the 11 pr 12 seed advancing to play them on their first game might end up being a Seton Hall type who won an outbracket game instead of the bubbler they previously would’ve played.
That’s drastically different from a 128 team field where an extra round of 64 games is added. So no - the premise of - if 76 why not 128 isn’t appropriate as it’d be a completely different structural change to the tradition of those first 2 days of the 64 team bracket (Thurs / Fri).
I addressed that too. With the passage of time the metric will simply “shift”. Perhaps making the field without needing a play in will replace the current “making the field” bar for success.
Big difference between the expanded NCAAs and loser tier bowl games is that the winner moves on and becomes part of the field of 64. A team that gets hot at the end of the season could turn a so so season into a memorable one.
No - it’s not like that at all. With those - there’s no additional chance to “prove” yourself and redeem your season. Win or lose - those games are meaningless and the fact that guys opt out makes it even worse.
With this - making the “play in” might eventually equate with making the NIT if you lose that game or even if you win and then get blown out in the round of 64 from an accomplishment perspective. But it’s the polar opposite in the sense that you still theoretically have a chance to compete for the championship. In general, I think that winning a play in game along with a round of 64 game will be deemed an accomplishment in line with at least what “making” the tournament has traditionally been - even if the team wouldn’t have previously been on the right side of the bubble.
But again - the biggest gripes with this seem to be simply about “change” in the selection process and giving a punchers chance to a couple additional teams. For the most part, the tournament itself from the round of 64 forward isn’t going to change much so those who don’t like it can just wait for the main bracket to start following.
I'm in a bunch of youth baseball FB groups.
Someone asked for help with a 5 team single elimination tournament.
I suggested the following:
Seed the five teams: 1, 2, 2, 3, 4
First round: #2 v #2
Second round: #1 v #4 and #2 v #3
Championship: Winners of 1v4 and 2v3
Makes perfect sense, right?
Someone asked for help with a 5 team single elimination tournament.
I suggested the following:
Seed the five teams: 1, 2, 2, 3, 4
First round: #2 v #2
Second round: #1 v #4 and #2 v #3
Championship: Winners of 1v4 and 2v3
Makes perfect sense, right?
I'm in a bunch of youth baseball FB groups.
Someone asked for help with a 5 team single elimination tournament.
I suggested the following:
Seed the five teams: 1, 2, 2, 3, 4
First round: #2 v #2
Second round: #1 v #4 and #2 v #3
Championship: Winners of 1v4 and 2v3
Makes perfect sense, right?
Actually - isn’t that exactly how MLB works? I’m not a big baseball follower but doesn’t winning the division automatically earn you a better seed than making the playoffs via wildcard (even if as a wildcard you have a better record and a better overall season than another division champ)?
Your labeling the best teams with “seeds” but in reality the logic behind the MLB playoff structure is the backbone of how thr NCAA bracket was designed. A conference champ earns their right to be in the field by design. If anyone shouldn’t play in at all it’s the 15s and 16s. With a field of 76 - the first round shouldn’t be considered part of the tournament. It should be a “play in” for the right to be in the tournament. And the traditional field of 64 should be restored as the true bar for “making it”. At least that’s my opinion and would meet in the middle of both sides to this discussion.
Coaches wanted less snubs, right? Networks want more content? Traditional fans want “making the tourney” to mean something. This would’ve been a nice, easy, clean solution. The would be 9-11 seeds getting home play-in match ups against the 12 teams first out on the bubble cut line. It’s not a snub if you don’t make it because you lose a play in match up. In that case - you blew it.
Last edited:
No it's not.
You continuously misunderstand (purposefully) the difference between making play-in (the right to entry in a tournament) and seeding (ranking within the tournament).
Play-in games aren't part of the tournament.
If you win a play-in you make the field.
You have to "play" to get "in". Right there in the name.
NFL: Steelers-Ravens was a play-in. Winner made the playoffs and the loser didnt.
The coincidence that the winner would be seeded 4th had nothing to do with it being a play-in.
They were locked into the 4th seed by their resume.
The playoff bracket didnt say
#4 Steelers v #4 Ravens
The first round of NCAA tournament isn't play in. I get you think it should. But its not. The frequent conflating of this doesn't make a difference.
MLB/NFL do label the best teams with seeds. Just like everyone else.
They define their seeding as winning a division makes you better than every other non-winner.
But that's not a "play-in" for a top 4 seed.
Its a play in the make the tournament.
Then the seeding is based on resume and they over value division champion on resume.
NCAA does a great job with seeding.
Pure resume and don't "officially" over value anything (such as conference champion).
You continuously misunderstand (purposefully) the difference between making play-in (the right to entry in a tournament) and seeding (ranking within the tournament).
Play-in games aren't part of the tournament.
If you win a play-in you make the field.
You have to "play" to get "in". Right there in the name.
NFL: Steelers-Ravens was a play-in. Winner made the playoffs and the loser didnt.
The coincidence that the winner would be seeded 4th had nothing to do with it being a play-in.
They were locked into the 4th seed by their resume.
The playoff bracket didnt say
#4 Steelers v #4 Ravens
The first round of NCAA tournament isn't play in. I get you think it should. But its not. The frequent conflating of this doesn't make a difference.
MLB/NFL do label the best teams with seeds. Just like everyone else.
They define their seeding as winning a division makes you better than every other non-winner.
But that's not a "play-in" for a top 4 seed.
Its a play in the make the tournament.
Then the seeding is based on resume and they over value division champion on resume.
NCAA does a great job with seeding.
Pure resume and don't "officially" over value anything (such as conference champion).
Again - it’s just terminology. I clearly stated - they should now call it “play in” and it’s a clean solution.
What your proposing makes the regular season (which many already view as too long) significantly more pointless for way more teams than it already is. The current 11-16 seed level teams would play each other and for the most part, wipe out the current 14-16 seed level teams entirely from the field of 64. You do realize it’s already the case that there’s often little difference between 12 and 13 seeds in the field right? Well guess what - your solution is adding a collection of 12 additional distant bubblers (3 seed lines worth who would be basically the same level as those teams). The seeding 12-16 would be a complete crapshoot rendering achievement of a one seed basically meaningless. 1-3 seeds aren’t supposed to get upset often in the first round. When it happens, it’s very exciting watching a small conference team that had a great season continue to excel. Do you really think it’d be good for the sport to see teams with 500 records upset teams that lost only 5-6 games the whole damn season because of one bad day? That’s the point of the first round. Top teams are supposed to have it really easy. They earned it. That’s been the historical structure of this tournament and a big part of what makes it work for the sport.
The 11 seeds in the previous structure first have to go out and upset a fringe ranked team - somewhere between 21-24 on the S curve before a 3 seed (top 10ish team). When a bubbler pulls off two back to back wins that way, then ok, you tip your cap. Regular season is still meaningless but you chalk it up to that 11 seed did just enough to avoid getting left out. With 76 teams - that “just enough” might not even need to be a 500 record. That’s awful.
Last edited: