March Madness is Flawed
- Thread starter SacramentoKat
- Start date
They didn't have overall 1s back then.
I mean maybe they did internally but they didn't start putting out official seed lists until around 2010 I believe.
This is the problem. We are in love with the flawed process. If we went to some kind of filtered solution, we obviously would be changing the system. I'd prefer the change to see more top notch games. Cinderella is old to me. Who cares anymore if overseeded Minn loses to underseeded Middle TN St.
TV ratings would be just fine with only 1-4 seeds playing each other in a round robin. Many Many more games like we saw last night and less FL vs S. Carolina, which no one really cared about. Think S. Carolina vs Gonzaga will bring the ratings?? We all know S. Carolina is not a top 10 team.
Better yet, regular season ratings would go much higher as you need to be a top 16 team. That UK vs UCLA Dec game just got much much more important. I know this sounds outlandish, but more money is there for this system than what we have. There's a large call to disband the NCAA. If you disbanded the NCAA, do you think the major conferences would keep the Cinderellas?
Going to 16 tho which would be the absolute maximum IMO to do any sort of round robin action, I see a problem with as well. Realistically how many teams are battling for those 16 spots? 25? 30? There's 356 Division I schools currently.
That's alot of meaningless games being played in Jan/Feb.
That's alot of meaningless games being played in Jan/Feb.
Here's a good article that talks about odds of other formats, however they are not considering a 3 game series, which will substantially increase the odds of advancement: http://deadspin.com/redesigning-the-madness-is-there-a-better-format-for-t-1547166924.
Here's an article that talks about the benefits of an NBA like system: http://uproxx.com/dimemag/10-reasons-nba-playoffs-better-ncaa-tournament/2/
I'm looking for a model that says: 1 vs 16 seed = 100% chance of victory, 2 vs 15 = 95% chance of victory and so on. Continue this the end, and you'll see the odds of the #1 seed making the final is much less than if we assigned the odds, and instead played 3 game series. I expect we'd increase the odds of a final 4 from about 25% to about 40-50%.
While I personally would like to see a change, I'm completely OK to keep rolling the dice like we do. I've loved it since I was a kid. However, realizing that this is a roll of the dice and not an NBA series loss really helps you accept the results and laugh it off. S.Carolina is not a better team than KY because they are in the Final Four and we are not. I mean they hang a banner and we don't, so there is a reward here. However, we all know that Kentucky owns S.Carolina 90% in a 7 game series this year. UNC vs KY this year...probably 50/50, so I'm not that jaded. 2010 we take home the championship no doubt. 2015, we take home the championship no doubt.
It seems your desire for a better system = a system that UK wins more NC's. Part of the pride of winning it all is because it's so difficult. Additionally, the NCAAT is not about who was best all season. While they do seed based on the season, its all about preparing your team for that 6 game run. Lastly, there is history and tradition to the current format. Changing the current system adds the risk of devaluing past NC's. Did you know the NIT used to be the top tournament? We won it in 46 but you don't hear people bragging about our NIT wins.
I really don't see why that should be a problem, the SEC could schedule refs accordingly and any coach could have that put in the contract with OOC games.
You telling me that people wouldn't tune in to a smaller format in college basketball like they would in college football? They would. College football takes the four best teams (used to be two) of the regular season and put them against each other. It didn't make all of them play five other tournament games before that.
A 16-team tournament would be very cool as well.
A 16-team tournament would be very cool as well.
The thing is doing this really doesn't increase UK's odds of winning. It decreases them.
We didn't win in 2011 and 2014 but under any format being purposed here, we are more than likely not in the championship game.
Even in this great Cal run we've had, only been the overall 1 in 12 and 15.
We didn't win in 2011 and 2014 but under any format being purposed here, we are more than likely not in the championship game.
Even in this great Cal run we've had, only been the overall 1 in 12 and 15.
But in college football all the talk is expanding the playoff to include at least 8 teams. Your wanting to contract the NCAA basketball tournament is going totally against that grain.
And I don't see how any of this has anything to do with (or would have changed) the outcome of yesterday's game. UK had to play UNC, a 1 vs 2 matchup, and UNC happened to win.
Nothing to do with our game and everything to do with the likes of South Carolina getting there and Gonzaga. Have the absolute best play each other. It's ridiculous to me that South Dakota State had the same exact chance as Kentucky and UNC. The regular season is absolutely meaningless.
JMO of course no stats, references or links. The popularity of the NCAAT is fueled by the office pool, the present format is perfect for that. The casual fan, or even non fans that get in the pool do no want to wait for a play off, they want to watch games and mark winners and losers
I agree and I'll add the bragging rights of picking that 13 seed to the Sweet 16 is what people chase. Changing the format may get a ton of people out of the NCAA tournament.
It sounds like you don't want the championship to be decided on the court. South Carolina had to win their games, including beating Duke. I doubt you were complaining about the unfair system when that happened.
A much fairer tournament would be something like the double elimination brackets used in college baseball. Keep it single elimination until the Sweet 16. Then the final 16 teams play double elimination. This would add fewer games than a 2-out-of-3 playoff for each round.
I think it would add excitement! The elimination games could be played mid-week, after the Sweet 16 weekend, etc. It would help diminish unfair initial seedings.
You certainly don't see professional basketball or baseball champions determined by single elimination.
I think it would add excitement! The elimination games could be played mid-week, after the Sweet 16 weekend, etc. It would help diminish unfair initial seedings.
You certainly don't see professional basketball or baseball champions determined by single elimination.
For what's it's worth, I did the math and changing to a best of 3 system only increases the odds of the top team making it by about 3%-4%. Hypothetically, if you changed to a best of 5, you'd increase the odds by about 8-10% of the better team making it. This math assumes that being down in a series doesn't affect the outcome of the next game from the 1st.
I did expect the math to be more beneficial to a best of 3 type format. While it is beneficial and could really help with bad refs, sickness, and really rare shooting like KY going 4-32 against WV in 2010, it doesn't help by that much.
I'll add, if you are a huge favorite, playing best of 3 really helps. For example, If you are 60% favored to beat a team. Best of 3 in this case leads to 0.65% chance of winning the series. However, if you are 90% favored, you change to a 97% favorite.
I did expect the math to be more beneficial to a best of 3 type format. While it is beneficial and could really help with bad refs, sickness, and really rare shooting like KY going 4-32 against WV in 2010, it doesn't help by that much.
I'll add, if you are a huge favorite, playing best of 3 really helps. For example, If you are 60% favored to beat a team. Best of 3 in this case leads to 0.65% chance of winning the series. However, if you are 90% favored, you change to a 97% favorite.
Last edited:
let's not forget site locations, tip times, region placement, and the indistinct criteria loopholes that protect ncaa and media darlings.
I'd agree with this from the elite 8 on. If you lose then you drop to the losers bracket. It makes the person that comes out of the losers bracket have to play more games but that's the punishment for losing early. And then they have to beat the team that comes out of the winners bracket twice.
what I have wanted is a 32 team double-elimination tournament, if that is workable. Just as much basketball, and at an overall higher level.....and also giving teams that have an off night or terrible officiating another chance. Seeding would still be important but not as important.
Don't think you'll see it though because of $$$$$. The more teams involved, the greater viewership I think, and more ad revenue. Just the way it goes in a world about quantity over quality.
Leave the format alone. Have teams pick their seeds in reverse order of season ending rankings. (16 seeds choose first then the 15 seeds then the 14 seeds and so on...) The seeds would be fair and nobody can complain about being jobbed.
Then hire full time refs. With all the $$ the NCAA makes there is no reason we need to have part time refs.
Then make the Refs be available for any questions by the media after the game. Make them defend their calls.
Then allow full replays on anything. Or allow coaches to have challenges like in football.
Going to 6 fouls would be nice as well. That way we don't lose a key player for 12 minutes out of the first half and totally kill his flow.
Those are things that needs to be addressed WAAAAAAAYYYYY before changing the tournament format.
Then hire full time refs. With all the $$ the NCAA makes there is no reason we need to have part time refs.
Then make the Refs be available for any questions by the media after the game. Make them defend their calls.
Then allow full replays on anything. Or allow coaches to have challenges like in football.
Going to 6 fouls would be nice as well. That way we don't lose a key player for 12 minutes out of the first half and totally kill his flow.
Those are things that needs to be addressed WAAAAAAAYYYYY before changing the tournament format.
When it comes to seeding, I'd prefer a straight up S curve with a BCS type model. I want these non-basketball people taken out of it. None of their brackets make any damn sense. That's why we always end up with a garbage team in the Final Four. That's why one region is always stacked.
I like the format, it creates a lot of excitement and drama. Like sudden death overtime.
However, the only alternative I can think of, would be a pool setting. Where you have 16 groups (A-P) each group gets 4 teams. Rank the teams into the groups in an the snake pattern. Round robin the first week, not just weekend. Every team gets 3 games no matter what. Overall winner from each group advances to sweet 16. Then from there do a best of 3.
However, the only alternative I can think of, would be a pool setting. Where you have 16 groups (A-P) each group gets 4 teams. Rank the teams into the groups in an the snake pattern. Round robin the first week, not just weekend. Every team gets 3 games no matter what. Overall winner from each group advances to sweet 16. Then from there do a best of 3.
Take it back to 32 teams. That would suit me just fine. Imagine a 1 seed playing a team borderline top 25 in their first game?!?! No cupcakes allowed.
You said it right there.
The NCAA is just more concerned with making money than they are on delivering a true champion, the needs of the student athlete, or any other type of logic that's not financially motivated.
a few of you that are comparing college basketball to college football are not living in reality. College football reigns supreme, and people wanted a play off for years and im pretty sure people want an nfl style playoff when it comes to college football, NFL has the potential for Cinderella (wildcard) and it is a one and done format. also if we changed it to a best of 3 or only the best teams 8 teams or 10 teams get in ratings will plummet because the casual fan will not care. the super fan who keeps up with their team will care and rankings will matter, but this would hurt college basketball.