Can't imagine this would get any traction, but man that would be a crazy tournament

I mean...isn't it basically already set up that way without being labeled as such? Win your conference tournament and you're in.

Presumably the idea here is to get the NCAA to pay for the extra protocols that are going to have to be in place rather than it be up to the conferences themselves right?

bobinator said:

---

Presumably the idea here is to get the NCAA to pay for the extra protocols that are going to have to be in place rather than it be up to the conferences themselves right?

---

I don't follow

Well we already know that every athletic department, and presumably conference, is facing massive budget shortfalls this year.

And I don't know exactly what kind of format they're thinking, but if we call the SWAC Tournament the SWAC Tournament, then it's up to the SWAC to pay for testing/hotels/food/etc for all of the teams, but if we call the SWAC Tournament part of the early round NCAA Tournament then the NCAA pays for at least some of that.

Seems like maybe a way for the big conferences to kind of throw a bone to the smaller conferences who may not be able to play as many games this year because they can't afford all the testing and things that are going to go into the season.

Idk that makes it seem like they're proposing to convert the conference tournaments into the first 4-5 rounds of a jumbo NCAA tournament and I seriously doubt that's what they're proposing.

This seems to be more about trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of one of the NCAA's money makers by adding even more games to the tournament.

And probably to shift as much liability away from the individual schools, if you dig down deep enough. Which sort of relates to what you're talking about with testing, but more about lawsuit $$$ than testing $$$

I'd also guess that a bunch of single-bid leagues don't even play this year, turning 350 D1 teams into about 120-ish high-major, mid-major teams. And then it becomes much more feasible to add another round to make it 128 and of course at that point all the Power 5 schools will want to be included

I think if they want to have everyone in the tournament that that's going to be about the only way to do it.

bobinator said:

---

I think if they want to have everyone in the tournament that that's going to be about the only way to do it.

---

You really think the ACC (just taking 1 conference as an example) is going to willingly turn itself into a single bid conference?

I don't think that would be their first choice, no, but I don't see how a 300-something team tournament is very workable either.

Was it Bobby Knight that proposed expanding it to 128 teams and also suggested let them all in? Maybe the time has come.

The time hasn't really come, but it makes sense for this year since the scheduling imbalances are going to be pretty wild.

wacarnolds said:

---

I'd also guess that a bunch of single-bid leagues don't even play this year, turning 350 D1 teams into about 120-ish high-major, mid-major teams. And then it becomes much more feasible to add another round to make it 128 and of course at that point all the Power 5 schools will want to be included

---

I'd have to imagine that if they were to say that every team makes the tournament, as many of the smaller leagues would try and have a season to get a chunk of the post season revenues

McGibblets said:

---

wacarnolds said:

---

I'd also guess that a bunch of single-bid leagues don't even play this year, turning 350 D1 teams into about 120-ish high-major, mid-major teams. And then it becomes much more feasible to add another round to make it 128 and of course at that point all the Power 5 schools will want to be included

---

I'd have to imagine that if they were to say that every team makes the tournament, as many of the smaller leagues would try and have a season to get a chunk of the post season revenues

---

That's what they're hinting at (see Steve Forbes "let's provide incentive to play"), but if every small conference canceled their football season, I'm really skeptical they will be able to fund a basketball season that involves more games, more road trips, less revenue.

bobinator said:

---

I don't think that would be their first choice, no, but I don't see how a 300-something team tournament is very workable either.

---

I think the odds of 300-something teams playing basketball this winter is infinitesimally small

They can't even put 15 or 20 football games together at this point

Yeah I don't know, I'm glad I'm not in charge of the whole thing.

The collateral damage of the NCAA tournament not being played could put the NCAA in bankruptcy. And the athletic departments might not be far behind. You can't easily unwind scholarship commitments without causing reputational damage.

The idea of a 64-game play-in round on Tuesday Wednesday is a little daunting. But maybe extended over four days...that's four games per region per day. We might by then be able to attend games, but without ticket revenue they have to have television revenue.

There are enough CBS affiliate networks to spread it out. But it's twice as many games as the 64 to 32 reduction. Traditionally I'd guess half the fans are tracking some form of pool betting, and there might not be enough information to care/bet the f they play mainly conference games (which also kills home games revenue.)

Wow...what a mess.

The whole situation is a mess.

The large conferences may want to reduce or completely bail on the buy games against smaller conference teams, to save themselves some money. In exchange, they throw out the NCAA tourney idea, but as others have said the small schools, without the revenue from buy games and with little or no TV revenue, may have a difficult time fielding a team even with the promise of an NCAA tourney bid, which for most means one extra game.

Also, will this impact the TV payout for the NCAA tourney? Will CBS dramatically up the ante to broadcast a bunch of games between weak teams, just to catch the small handful of upsets that will occur? If not, how much more money is being put in the small school coffers?

LawHall88 said:

---

If not, how much more money is being put in the small school coffers?

---

Whatever it is, it would likely be spread out over the next 6 years as NCAAT $ is normally distributed. So it isn't going to save any programs that are in danger of shutting down in the next 8 months.

I still think this has little to do with the blue bloods being concerned about the survivability of Texas Southern and Cleveland State, and more to do with Wake Forest and Clemson thinking it would be swell to be rewarded with a tournament berth for going 10-14 in a basterdized regular season.

We made the tournament!!!

amercer said:

---

We made the tournament!!!

---

Already amped to buy the shirt!

94chem said:

---

---

When I heard this proposal, this was the first video I was thinking of. Billy Kennedy would probably support this idea.

wacarnolds said:

---

bobinator said:

---

I think if they want to have everyone in the tournament that that's going to be about the only way to do it.

---

You really think the ACC (just taking 1 conference as an example) is going to willingly turn itself into a single bid conference?

---

Like 1974, when NC State beat Maryland in the ACCT 104-103. State took the NCAAT bid and ran the table with DAavid Thompson, beating UCLA again.

That practiced ended the following year and not coincidentally UCLA's epic run. East Coast powers eliminated themselves via one bid or the Sweet 16 while the Bruins often skated through the West bracket.

AggieTFA06 said:

---

94chem said:

---

---

When I heard this proposal, this was the first video I was thinking of. Billy Kennedy would probably support this idea.

---

DukeMu said:

---

AggieTFA06 said:

---

94chem said:

---

---

When I heard this proposal, this was the first video I was thinking of. Billy Kennedy would probably support this idea.

---

---

Freeze frame the brackets as they go by. I think there's Duke Intramurals, Tyler Hansbrough Fan Club, and other stuff...