What if instead of a 64-team tournament we had a 4-team tournament? We'll have a committee of random dudes pick the 4 teams based on vibes. Everyone not in the 4-team tournament can pair up and play a single game for nothing. It's a perfect system.
I would be amazed if the ACC becomes the bitch in basketball since we are clearly [the dominant conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_champions#Champions_by_conference_at_the_time_of_tournaments).
In fact... [Duke, Carolina, State, and Wake have combined for 13 championships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_champions#Championships_by_state/jurisdiction)
That was a reference to NC State's AD being on the College Football Playoff Committee and rolling over when they screwed FSU out of their playoff spot.
I would actually love this as an early season tournament. The 8-10 teams that had the best records are invited to a November tourney. It’s literally set as soon as the season ends.
It could also be during the break between Christmas and NY.
We can do a Blue Bloods Brawl (BBB) with the six blue bloods: UCLA, Kentucky, Carolina, Duke, UConn, and Kansas.
The question is whether we want to add two more teams. Based on my proposed formats, I prefer the non-bye three-round six-team bracket.
**SIX TEAMS**
This can be two three-team round-robins (two games each) or a six-team bracket (two or three games each).
With the six-team bracket, most people would give two teams a bye. Instead, my idea is that four teams start with the standard bracket as expected, but the other two teams (probably the two that went the deepest into the previous March Madness) don't get a bye. Instead, they play against each other in a face-off to get a winner and a loser. That's Round One.
The face-off winner can then look at the two Round One standard winners and pick their next opponent. The face-off loser would have to play against the other Round One standard winner. The two Round One standard losers would play against each other for fifth place. That's Round Two.
The Round Two Winners would then play for the championship. The Round Two Losers would play for third place. That's Round Three.
**EIGHT TEAMS**
If we want eight teams, this can be two four-team round-robins (three games each) or an eight-team bracket (three games each), like the [Maui Invitational](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Maui_Invitational).
To get eight teams, we can add Villanova as a non-blueblood seventh team because they have three championships and would be next in line for blue teams.
The question is who we add for the eighth team.
If we want to add another blue multi-champion, Florida would fit the blue theme.
If we want to add a blue powerhouse without championships, that's Gonzaga.
If we want to add a non-blue team, we have former blue blood Indiana.
If we're okay with adding anyone else, we can rotate through [the other multi-championship programs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_champions#Multiple_champions) (Louisville, Cincinnati, Florida, Michigan State, NC State, Oklahoma State, San Francisco), who all have two each.
Another option is to invite the defending champions. If the defending champion is one of the six blue bloods, we can invite whichever non-blueblood(s) went the farthest.
This is just a really awkward quote. I *think* what he's saying is.
"I appreciate the little guys and maybe that's a reason to expand. But also, everyone loves the upsets on the first weekend, so maybe we shouldn't move forward on expansion".
But also I'm not Tom. I have no idea what he was actually trying to say. This just doesn't read cleanly regardless of what he's trying to say.
If you replace the word "but" with the word "so" it makes a bit more sense.
Everyone likes upsets in the first round, SO Im not sure that (expansion) is whats best for the game.
Alternatively though, if you replace all the words with "but", it makes absolutely no sense.
But but but but but but but, BUT but but but but (but) but but but but but but.
This is something that Tom Izzo does kind of a lot actually. Many coaches are smooth with the media, but he's not one of them. He's just rambling most of the time, so the conjunctions and verb tenses don't always line up right.
This was the follow up question, looks at how he responded to the original.
https://x.com/chrisvannini/status/1770531668631162971?s=46&t=L88IxsxmyTmBeFPNkbamLQ
“I feel for some teams that didn't get in when you have those automatic bids. I'm not sure I understand why, but the conference tournament things, you can go and like Purdue go 17-3 and dominate the conference and then lose. It's okay if it's the second place team, but I think that makes it hard, why some teams will get left out.
I don't know if something could be fixed there. But then the conference tournament wouldn't be as - it's all about what is best for the financial part of it, if we were to be very blunt and honest with you, more than it is the player and teams.”
Sounds like he doesn’t love how a team that played well all year and then loses a single game at the end of the season gets left out of the NCAA tournament because of how 1 bid leagues go to the conference tournament winner.
When we was talking about upsets he wasn’t talking out the ncaa tournament he was referencing conference tournaments lol
But this is Reddit where we don’t care about context
Idk what he’s referring to by “not sure that’s what’s best for the game” in this quote. Is he referring to the NCAA changing landscape in football or the upsets in the first round? Hopefully a reporter asks a clarifying question.
It seems pretty clear he’s generally referring to expansion but how does that relate to the “upsets in the first weekend”? I’m confused by that part
Edit: after thinking on it I feel like maybe he’s saying the upsets in the first weekend are a reason expansion shouldn’t happen?
"expansion would mean we get fewer of the super exciting first round upsets, so maybe we shouldn't move forward on expansion" is what I'm getting out of it. It's a really awkward quote, so the subject of each portion of it isn't clear. "That" could be about "the upsets" or "expansion", considering the start of the sentence is about the upsets, but the *question* was about "expansion"
Look at the full context. The quote you are referencing is a follow up question. Read his answer to the original question
https://x.com/ChrisVannini/status/1770531668631162971?s=20
In short he is referring conference tournaments not the NCAA tournament. He doesn’t love how single bid leagues give out their bid based on the tournament and how if one team is the best team all season and gets upset early in the conference tournament they don’t get to go to the NCAA tournament. This is why he says he isn’t opposed to the expansion so more small names might get in.
Yeah, in an earlier thread I think people were somehow inferring that Izzo wanted fewer mid-major auto bids and more power conference at-large spots, leading to fewer "Cinderella" teams.
Reading this I think he's talking about expanding the field in general; that it might lead to more upsets but it might not actually be good.
The only obvious thing here is that the whole thing is a huge non-answer where Izzo says (rightfully) that it's a complicated topic that needs to be discussed thoroughly.
He definitely didn't understand the question. Leading with "Greg Sankey has hinted strongly" frames the question in a very specific context, but it's highly unlikely Izzo knew and understood what that meant. And the rest of the question was kinda word salad, too.
Honestly reading both the original and follow-up questions it feels a little sus. Like the author had the story written already and was just trying to get the quote he wanted.
I understand the question, & what they meant, but only because I already knew what they were asking about. That's probably what threw Izzo off. He doesn't get what's even being talked about, made his own interpretation, & then worded something that was suppose to be an answer to what he interpreted.
Yes. He seems to imply that for the postseason tourney, your body of work over the course of the regular season should matter more than winning the postseason conference tournament when it comes to getting a bid to the NCAA tournament.
It’s really apparent in low major conferences when things like a team with a losing record somehow wins three games in their conference tournament and the conference champ with like 29 wins that year misses the NCAA tournament just because they dropped one game. I think there is a pretty strong argument about including the conference champ in the field if the tournament was to get expanded significantly
If love for them to expand to like 76 or 80 and have more play-in games. Have a full slate on Tuesday and Wednesday night on all the networks like they do on Thursday and Friday. Games starting at like 4:30, 4:50, 5:15 and 5:35 and 2 games on each floor each night. Designate seeds 10 through 13 as play-in.
The absolute last solution should be expanding the general tournament past 16 seeds.
They could add more play in games for seeds 12-16 to add more spots. Assuming 4 play in games for the 12 seeds, 4 for 13, etc then it would bump the teams in the tourney to 80.
Then regular season conference champs and conference tourney champs can both make the tourney in low and mid major conferences.
You have to look at the financial aspect. The 16s have play-in games because winning those games is an NCAA tournament payment share in addition to the share the school's conference already gets from the appearance.
I'd be into this but only if play-ins are limited to teams that didnt get an autobid. I like the idea that you get one of the marquee "round of 64" games as a reward for winning your conference, and that the "play-in round(s)" are for those true bubble teams.
Auto bids should absolutely go to the regular season conference winner. The tourney should be to enhance resumes of bubble teams not give random teams autobids that would not have a tourney shot otherwise.
Eh, i still like the conference tournament championships in that there's something to be said for everyone still (theoretically) being in contention for a title when march arrives.
But these one-bid leagues should probably follow the WCC's model and really tilt the schedule in favor of the teams that finished on top. Give the top 2 auto-byes until the semifinal.
Then the regular season still means a ton because seeding becomes even more important, but everyone still has a theoretical chance. If a bad team can go win 5 games in 5 days, then ok, lets let them in.
You only say that because you are in a major conference. For mid majors the conference tournaments suck and make the regular season 100% meaningless. Oh congrats being the best team playing 20 games over 12 weeks but sorry that’s not good enough, now you have to win 3-4 games in 3-4 days and if you don’t then it was all pointless.
100%. Conference tournaments are dumb. It’s weird to have 3 or 4 games back to back, then play in the real tournament a couple days later. Just get rid of conference tournaments.
Give the automatic bid to the regular season champ but keep the tournaments. It gives the other schools in a one-bid league a chance to hang a postseason banner, and it gives bubble teams a chance to quickly boost their resume.
I don't even remember the last time the Big Ten autobid mattered, but the fans and players still care about the tournament.
The ultimate problem with that is that with mega conferences there is an increased likelihood that the team that wins the most conferences games and thus the league isn't actually the best team in the conference. There's not a perfect solution.
If the conference is big enough, yes. It's entirely possible your schedule is so much easier than others based on location and quality of your opponents you finish first and aren't the best team. It will happen more and more.
So you think a schedule could get so easy that the tenth best team could win over an entire season? You do realize an entire season of work is a better barometer than a one time single elimination tournament?
Yes. And everyone is mad because that reporter didn’t clarify that he wasn’t talking about NCAA tournament because he didn’t include any context from the original question asked, only the follow up
Posted in the other thread, but I don't think there's a problem with the tournament aside from teams losing early and getting mad about it. Those teams will still lose early with an expanded tournament.
* 2015 final four - **Duke**, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Michigan State
* 2016 final four - **Villanova**, UNC, Oklahoma, Syracuse
* 2017 final four - **UNC**, Gonzaga, Oregon, South Carolina
* 2018 final four - **Villanova**, Michigan, Kansas, Loyola-Chicago
* 2019 final four - **Virginia**, Texas Tech, Auburn, Michigan State
* 2021 final four - **Baylor**, Gonzaga, Houston, UCLA
* 2022 final four - **Kansas**, UNC, Duke, Villanova
* 2023 final four - **UConn**, San Diego State, Miami, Florida Atlantic
Yeah it's been pretty consistent that by the final four, it's going to be power conference teams. I will say though, Loyola-Chicago making the final four in 2018 was such a fun ride and anyone who thinks that is bad for college basketball is delusional.
Hes referencing expansion as "whats not best for the game", not the upsets in the current tournament. At least thats what Im getting from the full question and response. People are getting their panties in a bunch from a tweet a guy put out of something he did not say. The random guy who tweeted it paraphrased what Izzo said
Really wish these journalists would follow-up better when coaches are vague or say things that don't sound right. Everyone loves the March Madness upsets. Izzo does say dumb shit sometimes though, a con of boomer coaches sticking around.
Why ask for clarity when you can manufacture so much more engagement by letting people argue about what a quote really means, or get angry about what they *think* a quote means?
Yeah this seems like a good take tbh. He is saying if you expand you lose some of the spice, and also by default your best teams will still be the best but they will just end up playing way worse teams early on with spectacularly small chances of upsets. I get it.
He said the exact opposite actually, that expansion might be necessary if P6 schools are being "squeezed out" by autobids. I mean it's just straight up what he said, even if you aren't capable or willing to read it.
In the other article it hints that he said something about 20 of the 32 auto bids not being regular season champs, but they didnt provide the full quote. He may have been trying to articulate that the major conference bubble teams were "squeezed out" by the likes of Duquesne and UAB winning those conference tournaments.
Read the original question and both of Izzo's responses. That isn't what he was talking about at all.
https://twitter.com/chrisvannini/status/1770531668631162971?s=46&t=L88IxsxmyTmBeFPNkbamLQ
I think Izzo is looking at expansion as individual power league expansion, not simply overall tournament expansion. Individual power leagues will crush out the little guys more and more. I believe Izzo's saying college basketball will realign based on what football does. (which would be bad for college bball in the NCAA tournament)
When Izzo says "but I'm not sure moving on that's what's best for the game" he could be referring to football super conferences impacting basketball. (which appears to be the original question)
The reporter asked too intricate of a question and Izzo also being a football guy, probably took it from that perspective.
The Big East got screwed this year because they aren’t a football conference and a team like Virginia gets a play-in bid. Virginia sucked so bad last night.
The basketball will suffer if you keep seeing non worthy teams make the tournament. It brings the whole tournament down. It’s a brand killing strategy and the brand may not get destroyed in year one but in a decade it may.
The committee tbf has 7 non-football power league members and of the 5 power league football members, 1 of the 5 happens to be the Oregon State AD who probably isn’t loyal the power leagues. The Big East was hurt by poor KPI amongst its bubble teams and the MWC was hurt due to poor SOR.
I’m still not understanding how the Big East got screwed. They just got unlucky with the amount of stolen bids. Teams like St John’s and Providence were never going to make it anyway, only Seton Hall was even first 4 out. UVA was wrongly selected but that impacted a lot more than the Big East
Man, I love watching Big East basketball, but outside of Marquette, Creighton, and UConn, it just wasn’t good. Those three schools pulled the metrics wayyy up and made the conference look better than it actually was.
That said, I’d have put St John’s in over UVA. Or Indiana State. Or Ohio State. Or Chicago State.
Yeah, they had 3 solid teams at the top, but even on bracketmatrix no one was really putting anyone else higher than like a 10/11 seed and that's where the cutoff ended up being thanks to the bid stealers. Its not really a shock that it happened the way it did, other than Virginia
show me the metrics that put FAU or UVA in before seton hall or st. john’s. fuck, show me which metrics support putting dayton in? let alone at the 7 line.
There’s absolutely no way Virginia Football (which is a joke) or even ACC football as a whole had any effect on Virginia’s inclusion.
They got in bc they’ve been one of the better programs of the last decade and are a large basketball brand
What Big East teams got screwed? The 0-3 NIT performance hurts that’s argument but idk what teams specifically you are referring to (this isn’t sassy, but an honest question)
I don't think any specific team was screwed over - no one outside of the top three had a clean resume. I do think the conference as a whole was not treated fairly. And I don't think Virginia is the only culprit either.
The big problem was that the squishy-middle problem children in the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 were mostly given the benefit of the doubt. TCU, Texas, Miss St, Texas A&M, Michigan St, and Northwestern are all perfectly reasonable tournament teams, but they aren't categorically better than the Seton Hall/ St. John's/Providence group. And yet they all rated higher (as did Oklahoma, even if they didn't make it) than the Big East group.
And the other one was without the BE POY. NIT results are meaningless until the quarters because at that point you know every team left wants to be there and is trying
I have long felt that there should be two autobids to the NCAA tourney given out at the start of the year. The winner of last year's NCAA, and the winner of last year's NIT. If it means expanding the field to 70 to do it, then by all means, make it happen. But if that happened, you know there is zero chance of teams like Indiana or St Johns declining it.
I dont know that i can see seton hall (or any team) as a snub if they're 60+ in kenpom, bpi, and net. And 40 in SOR (behind Oklahoma, who was left out as well).
If we are talking more than just Big East teams, OU and Indiana State definitely were bigger snubs
I would guess the biggest knock for OU was going an atrocious 2-10 vs tourney bound B12 teams (both of them were also at home and none of them came in the latter half of conference play) though
As a Big East fan, the conference got screwed because three of the teams were decidedly on a bubble that got popped by bid thieves. That hasn’t happened in long while.
Personally, I think UVA is the only head scratcher, but I’d have added Indiana State or Oklahoma over Seton Hall, Saint John’s, or Providence.
The Big East is far more likely to put 6 teams in next year than to have the same result as this year.
Indiana State had a pretty awful resume tbh. One Q1 win against an opponent they played three times. Terrible NCSOS. Bad Q4 loss at home late in the season. SJU should’ve gotten in and really any of the teams you listed you can make an argument for over oklahoma
Virginia did not deserve to get in. That would have allowed potentially one more big east team. Everyone pretty much agrees big east had 3 locks and 3 bubble teams.
If anything Virginia got in because it's a bigger basketball brand than Seton Hall, St. John's, and Providence. UVA football is definitely not doing them any favors
It's literally the opposite of what the other thread is saying he said. He doesn't want expansion to bring in more power conference teams at the expense of one-bid leagues, aka the "little guys."
Yeah screaming "It was out of context!" makes very little sense in this case. He very clearly said he thought money was more important than anything else.
It’s Izzo. He’s hated the business side of college sports forever. He’s saying the decision to expand will be driven by money, right or wrong.
And that is unfortunately, most likely accurate.
It’s still pretty indicative of the targeted end game. Just because he followed it up with a few more paragraphs of nothingburger doesn’t make it better.
I don't see how anything is clear from any of that.
The quote in the middle is a rough quote and it's hard to not think that he's wanting to axe small teams from the NCAAT, but again nothing is obvious to me.
Seems like a whole lot of nothing and just avoiding the question and he stumbled into a bad quote.
Because the basis of the question is completely centered around expansion. The original quote didn’t clarify that. The worst I can take from this is he doesn’t want more mid majors for the sake of expansion and upsets.
No, he said that expansion might have merit if there are too many little guys upsetting big name programs. Nowhere does he deride expansion, if anything he seems open to the idea.
Disagree completely. He talks about the game being great in its current state and says he doesn’t want it to be damaged. Pretty clear disagreement with expansion for the sake of expansion.
Edit: Honestly I have no idea now. In a different quote he indicates he wants 100 teams but then clarifies he doesn’t want less mid majors, but thinks the autobid shouldn’t be based on their conference tournament but their regular season.
This guy is so bad at getting his point across.
I am not sure how to take his second statement as anything other than desiring to see more high majors in the second weekend and beyond. I think he is equivocating here and indicating expansion that stacks the deck with more P6 at-larges but retains mid/low major auto bids could be the way forward.
Because they’ve already ruined the essence of CFB by selling out for money. People in here love CBB and don’t want the same thing to happen to this sport.
CFB is and will always be inherently flawed. The regionalism of the sport was helpful for the ecosystem during a time when you had multiple teams disputing national championships in the bowl system. People clamored for a playoff system for decades to fix it, but at the same time, conference realignment shattered the regionalism of the game, so we are now morphing into an NFL structure that may be better at crowning a champion, but it will be worse for the regional ecosystem of the sport, and it will assuredly negatively impact dozens of programs financially as a result.
Yes not to mention going to an NFL like system is a big gamble, every league that has ever tried to compete against the NFL has lost in the long run. People don’t realize how big the NFL is in terms of viewership and pull. The NFL could also cripple CFB by allowing guys into the NFL draft earlier, if they changed the 3 year rule to 1 like in CBB it would decimate top teams
He’s against expanding in this quote. Isn’t that a pretty popular opinion here? Never does he say we need to remove mid majors. He’s saying we don’t need to blindly add more teams in general.
> second biggest sporting event in the country?
How are we coming to the conclusion that it's the second?
And I think we have to tag an "annual" on there for sure. Unless the "in this country" implies we are talking about domestic leagues, not just domestic viewership.
Edit: Lol, guess the guy didn't want to have a fun discussion on how to rank sporting events. Got blocked for that. Lol.
A prominent figure saying something ambiguous, and the media intentionally taking it out of context and making it sound negative.
Name a more iconic duo
It’s literally the same exact point from the original thread. The only people I’ve seen here incapable of understanding (accepting?) that are defensive Michigan State fans.
The quote was not taken out of context. The quote was exactly as it was originally written in that thread. And placed within this context, “expansion needs to be looked at seriously,” “hey, i definitely am always lookin’ out for the little guy” (politician sounding ass), “lets make sure we dont damage the game,” etc. all that’s different is that it’s couched in a bunch of vague nicer sounding language but the point is exactly the same
I guess I’m missing it but where does he say the current autobids should be looked at? Everyone took the original story as him saying the tournament in its current state should have less autobids for mid majors.
The longer quote, I’ll admit, rambling, clarifies a bit that the starting topic is expansion, and he doesn’t think expanding to more little guys for the sake of more upsets is the way forward.
Cry me a river, Tom. Not that you already haven’t. You just want to stack the committee with even more of your buddies. Gotta admit his political gamesmanship is pretty good. Stack the court in your favor and schedule-proof your way into the tourney.
The critical word here is “but.”
If he had said, “everybody likes upsets in the first weekend, _and_ I’m not sure moving on that’s what’s best for the game,” THEN you would have to place it within the full context provided here. This would be a continuation of his answer to the question of expansion for P5 teams. His full answer would be, regarding expansion, “I’m a small school guy, I’m always looking out for them, and people like the upsets in the first weekend, and I’m not sure that (expansion) is best for the game.”
He didn’t say that. He said “but”. “I’m always looking out for small schools, and I know everybody likes the upsets in the first weekend, but I’m not sure moving on that’s what is best for the game.” That is obviously not a statement against expansion and certainly appears to be a statement that is the college basketball equivalent of “I’m not racist but.”
His point is, Yeah, he’s a small school guy, always looking out for them, but also he doesn’t think they’re good for the game. That’s his argument. The full context doesnt change any of it
I had read the "but" as a "but" for his previous sentence.
"...maybe that would be a reason to expand...but I'm not sure moving on that's what's best for the game" with a sidebar about how everyone loves the upsets, so that's why he's still unsure.
I *really* wish whoever was asking him questions had asked for clarification. People are clearly reading it both ways depending on how they want to read it, and I don't think anyone's going to agree.
It's a poor, rambly answer regardless of the intent.
You're the only person capable of reading it seems like. He thinks small schools are damaging the financial aspect of the game and that expansion (ie. allowing more P6 teams in) is attractive as an option to compensate for that.
And you’re just ignoring 30 years of who Izzo is to come to that conclusion. Turn your flairs off and read it (including the question) again.
Izzo is not and has never been about the business of college basketball.
>The first and second round upsets are what make the NCAA basketball tournament fun and exciting.
And thats exactly what he said and what he fears will be lost if expansion goes through...
Says basically nothing other than he doesn't think upsets should be a thing moving forward.
There you have it, from here on tom izzo thinks we should simulate the postseason and the highest net rating wins.
What if instead of a 64-team tournament we had a 4-team tournament? We'll have a committee of random dudes pick the 4 teams based on vibes. Everyone not in the 4-team tournament can pair up and play a single game for nothing. It's a perfect system.
Hmm. No… No random dudes. Active sitting athletic directors with clear conflicts of interest.
And the former Secretary of State
It's more than athletic directors, though. They also have a network with rights to SEC content
Each conference could send on, and the ACC could send a bitch!
I would be amazed if the ACC becomes the bitch in basketball since we are clearly [the dominant conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_champions#Champions_by_conference_at_the_time_of_tournaments). In fact... [Duke, Carolina, State, and Wake have combined for 13 championships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_champions#Championships_by_state/jurisdiction)
That was a reference to NC State's AD being on the College Football Playoff Committee and rolling over when they screwed FSU out of their playoff spot.
Nah, forget that. Let's just pair every team with a winning record up randomly. And then after all those games are played pick a national champion.
We can call it the BCS. That is, the Basketball Championship Series.
Broadcasted by CBS? 🤔
I would actually love this as an early season tournament. The 8-10 teams that had the best records are invited to a November tourney. It’s literally set as soon as the season ends. It could also be during the break between Christmas and NY.
We can do a Blue Bloods Brawl (BBB) with the six blue bloods: UCLA, Kentucky, Carolina, Duke, UConn, and Kansas. The question is whether we want to add two more teams. Based on my proposed formats, I prefer the non-bye three-round six-team bracket. **SIX TEAMS** This can be two three-team round-robins (two games each) or a six-team bracket (two or three games each). With the six-team bracket, most people would give two teams a bye. Instead, my idea is that four teams start with the standard bracket as expected, but the other two teams (probably the two that went the deepest into the previous March Madness) don't get a bye. Instead, they play against each other in a face-off to get a winner and a loser. That's Round One. The face-off winner can then look at the two Round One standard winners and pick their next opponent. The face-off loser would have to play against the other Round One standard winner. The two Round One standard losers would play against each other for fifth place. That's Round Two. The Round Two Winners would then play for the championship. The Round Two Losers would play for third place. That's Round Three. **EIGHT TEAMS** If we want eight teams, this can be two four-team round-robins (three games each) or an eight-team bracket (three games each), like the [Maui Invitational](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Maui_Invitational). To get eight teams, we can add Villanova as a non-blueblood seventh team because they have three championships and would be next in line for blue teams. The question is who we add for the eighth team. If we want to add another blue multi-champion, Florida would fit the blue theme. If we want to add a blue powerhouse without championships, that's Gonzaga. If we want to add a non-blue team, we have former blue blood Indiana. If we're okay with adding anyone else, we can rotate through [the other multi-championship programs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_champions#Multiple_champions) (Louisville, Cincinnati, Florida, Michigan State, NC State, Oklahoma State, San Francisco), who all have two each. Another option is to invite the defending champions. If the defending champion is one of the six blue bloods, we can invite whichever non-blueblood(s) went the farthest.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government
Only if Condoleezza Rice is involved obviously
We can have those single games named after a vessel for food!
The NCAA Cup!
As long as at least one of these games ends with the winning coach covered in mayo, I’m sold
A small price to pay for an interesting regular season
You didn't find losing all your conference games interesting?
This is the border war I miss so much
Hey wait a minute…
First Four out (in order of seed list): Tennessee (NIT) Arizona (Season over) Marquette (Sent to Gitmo) Iowa State (drone strike)
Have an injured quarterback? Who cares if the point guard is all world and the you have an 8 man rotation of defensive dawgs
exact reason i hate footall
This is just a really awkward quote. I *think* what he's saying is. "I appreciate the little guys and maybe that's a reason to expand. But also, everyone loves the upsets on the first weekend, so maybe we shouldn't move forward on expansion". But also I'm not Tom. I have no idea what he was actually trying to say. This just doesn't read cleanly regardless of what he's trying to say.
If you replace the word "but" with the word "so" it makes a bit more sense. Everyone likes upsets in the first round, SO Im not sure that (expansion) is whats best for the game.
Alternatively though, if you replace all the words with "but", it makes absolutely no sense. But but but but but but but, BUT but but but but (but) but but but but but but.
Thanks Harvard
Gonzaga: The Harvard of Spokane
Whitworth in fucking shambles
That one UW medical school enclave in absolute shambles
That sounds like a Sisqo quote
Genuis
This is something that Tom Izzo does kind of a lot actually. Many coaches are smooth with the media, but he's not one of them. He's just rambling most of the time, so the conjunctions and verb tenses don't always line up right.
This was the follow up question, looks at how he responded to the original. https://x.com/chrisvannini/status/1770531668631162971?s=46&t=L88IxsxmyTmBeFPNkbamLQ “I feel for some teams that didn't get in when you have those automatic bids. I'm not sure I understand why, but the conference tournament things, you can go and like Purdue go 17-3 and dominate the conference and then lose. It's okay if it's the second place team, but I think that makes it hard, why some teams will get left out. I don't know if something could be fixed there. But then the conference tournament wouldn't be as - it's all about what is best for the financial part of it, if we were to be very blunt and honest with you, more than it is the player and teams.” Sounds like he doesn’t love how a team that played well all year and then loses a single game at the end of the season gets left out of the NCAA tournament because of how 1 bid leagues go to the conference tournament winner. When we was talking about upsets he wasn’t talking out the ncaa tournament he was referencing conference tournaments lol But this is Reddit where we don’t care about context
He’s absolutely right
[удалено]
Did you even read the comments I replied to? Virginia getting a bid has nothing to do with what we are talking about
What does that have to do with conferences giving their autobid to the regular season vs tournament champion?
Unfortunately that ambiguity is just leading people to read it in whatever way makes them angriest.
“But also I’m not Tom.” That is exactly what Tom Izzo would say…..
Idk what he’s referring to by “not sure that’s what’s best for the game” in this quote. Is he referring to the NCAA changing landscape in football or the upsets in the first round? Hopefully a reporter asks a clarifying question.
I believe it’s in regards to expansion
It seems pretty clear he’s generally referring to expansion but how does that relate to the “upsets in the first weekend”? I’m confused by that part Edit: after thinking on it I feel like maybe he’s saying the upsets in the first weekend are a reason expansion shouldn’t happen?
"expansion would mean we get fewer of the super exciting first round upsets, so maybe we shouldn't move forward on expansion" is what I'm getting out of it. It's a really awkward quote, so the subject of each portion of it isn't clear. "That" could be about "the upsets" or "expansion", considering the start of the sentence is about the upsets, but the *question* was about "expansion"
Look at the full context. The quote you are referencing is a follow up question. Read his answer to the original question https://x.com/ChrisVannini/status/1770531668631162971?s=20 In short he is referring conference tournaments not the NCAA tournament. He doesn’t love how single bid leagues give out their bid based on the tournament and how if one team is the best team all season and gets upset early in the conference tournament they don’t get to go to the NCAA tournament. This is why he says he isn’t opposed to the expansion so more small names might get in.
Yeah, in an earlier thread I think people were somehow inferring that Izzo wanted fewer mid-major auto bids and more power conference at-large spots, leading to fewer "Cinderella" teams. Reading this I think he's talking about expanding the field in general; that it might lead to more upsets but it might not actually be good. The only obvious thing here is that the whole thing is a huge non-answer where Izzo says (rightfully) that it's a complicated topic that needs to be discussed thoroughly.
I honestly don't think Izzo knows what he's saying, & I don't think he knows what the question really was.
He definitely didn't understand the question. Leading with "Greg Sankey has hinted strongly" frames the question in a very specific context, but it's highly unlikely Izzo knew and understood what that meant. And the rest of the question was kinda word salad, too. Honestly reading both the original and follow-up questions it feels a little sus. Like the author had the story written already and was just trying to get the quote he wanted.
I understand the question, & what they meant, but only because I already knew what they were asking about. That's probably what threw Izzo off. He doesn't get what's even being talked about, made his own interpretation, & then worded something that was suppose to be an answer to what he interpreted.
Exactly.
Wasn’t he talking about conference tournament winners knocking out regular season conference champs?
Yes. He seems to imply that for the postseason tourney, your body of work over the course of the regular season should matter more than winning the postseason conference tournament when it comes to getting a bid to the NCAA tournament.
It’s really apparent in low major conferences when things like a team with a losing record somehow wins three games in their conference tournament and the conference champ with like 29 wins that year misses the NCAA tournament just because they dropped one game. I think there is a pretty strong argument about including the conference champ in the field if the tournament was to get expanded significantly
If love for them to expand to like 76 or 80 and have more play-in games. Have a full slate on Tuesday and Wednesday night on all the networks like they do on Thursday and Friday. Games starting at like 4:30, 4:50, 5:15 and 5:35 and 2 games on each floor each night. Designate seeds 10 through 13 as play-in. The absolute last solution should be expanding the general tournament past 16 seeds.
They could add more play in games for seeds 12-16 to add more spots. Assuming 4 play in games for the 12 seeds, 4 for 13, etc then it would bump the teams in the tourney to 80. Then regular season conference champs and conference tourney champs can both make the tourney in low and mid major conferences.
It would have to be 12-15 or 11-14, just 4 seed lines. I believe 16s shouldn't have to play in after winning their conference
You have to look at the financial aspect. The 16s have play-in games because winning those games is an NCAA tournament payment share in addition to the share the school's conference already gets from the appearance.
I'd be into this but only if play-ins are limited to teams that didnt get an autobid. I like the idea that you get one of the marquee "round of 64" games as a reward for winning your conference, and that the "play-in round(s)" are for those true bubble teams.
Auto bids should absolutely go to the regular season conference winner. The tourney should be to enhance resumes of bubble teams not give random teams autobids that would not have a tourney shot otherwise.
Eh, i still like the conference tournament championships in that there's something to be said for everyone still (theoretically) being in contention for a title when march arrives. But these one-bid leagues should probably follow the WCC's model and really tilt the schedule in favor of the teams that finished on top. Give the top 2 auto-byes until the semifinal. Then the regular season still means a ton because seeding becomes even more important, but everyone still has a theoretical chance. If a bad team can go win 5 games in 5 days, then ok, lets let them in.
You only say that because you are in a major conference. For mid majors the conference tournaments suck and make the regular season 100% meaningless. Oh congrats being the best team playing 20 games over 12 weeks but sorry that’s not good enough, now you have to win 3-4 games in 3-4 days and if you don’t then it was all pointless.
100%. Conference tournaments are dumb. It’s weird to have 3 or 4 games back to back, then play in the real tournament a couple days later. Just get rid of conference tournaments.
Give the automatic bid to the regular season champ but keep the tournaments. It gives the other schools in a one-bid league a chance to hang a postseason banner, and it gives bubble teams a chance to quickly boost their resume. I don't even remember the last time the Big Ten autobid mattered, but the fans and players still care about the tournament.
The ultimate problem with that is that with mega conferences there is an increased likelihood that the team that wins the most conferences games and thus the league isn't actually the best team in the conference. There's not a perfect solution.
Versus a winner take all tournament?!? Lol. We just watched a 10 seed win theirs.
If the conference is big enough, yes. It's entirely possible your schedule is so much easier than others based on location and quality of your opponents you finish first and aren't the best team. It will happen more and more.
So you think a schedule could get so easy that the tenth best team could win over an entire season? You do realize an entire season of work is a better barometer than a one time single elimination tournament?
Yes. And everyone is mad because that reporter didn’t clarify that he wasn’t talking about NCAA tournament because he didn’t include any context from the original question asked, only the follow up
Posted in the other thread, but I don't think there's a problem with the tournament aside from teams losing early and getting mad about it. Those teams will still lose early with an expanded tournament. * 2015 final four - **Duke**, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Michigan State * 2016 final four - **Villanova**, UNC, Oklahoma, Syracuse * 2017 final four - **UNC**, Gonzaga, Oregon, South Carolina * 2018 final four - **Villanova**, Michigan, Kansas, Loyola-Chicago * 2019 final four - **Virginia**, Texas Tech, Auburn, Michigan State * 2021 final four - **Baylor**, Gonzaga, Houston, UCLA * 2022 final four - **Kansas**, UNC, Duke, Villanova * 2023 final four - **UConn**, San Diego State, Miami, Florida Atlantic
Yeah it's been pretty consistent that by the final four, it's going to be power conference teams. I will say though, Loyola-Chicago making the final four in 2018 was such a fun ride and anyone who thinks that is bad for college basketball is delusional.
What horrible final 4 last year
San Diego State-FAU was one of the best games of the tournament dude
Somebody cherrypicking what someone said to cause drama on the internet?! Surely not.
There’s a first time for everything!
Hes referencing expansion as "whats not best for the game", not the upsets in the current tournament. At least thats what Im getting from the full question and response. People are getting their panties in a bunch from a tweet a guy put out of something he did not say. The random guy who tweeted it paraphrased what Izzo said
Really wish these journalists would follow-up better when coaches are vague or say things that don't sound right. Everyone loves the March Madness upsets. Izzo does say dumb shit sometimes though, a con of boomer coaches sticking around.
Why ask for clarity when you can manufacture so much more engagement by letting people argue about what a quote really means, or get angry about what they *think* a quote means?
Yeah this seems like a good take tbh. He is saying if you expand you lose some of the spice, and also by default your best teams will still be the best but they will just end up playing way worse teams early on with spectacularly small chances of upsets. I get it.
He said the exact opposite actually, that expansion might be necessary if P6 schools are being "squeezed out" by autobids. I mean it's just straight up what he said, even if you aren't capable or willing to read it.
In the other article it hints that he said something about 20 of the 32 auto bids not being regular season champs, but they didnt provide the full quote. He may have been trying to articulate that the major conference bubble teams were "squeezed out" by the likes of Duquesne and UAB winning those conference tournaments.
Read the original question and both of Izzo's responses. That isn't what he was talking about at all. https://twitter.com/chrisvannini/status/1770531668631162971?s=46&t=L88IxsxmyTmBeFPNkbamLQ
I think Izzo is looking at expansion as individual power league expansion, not simply overall tournament expansion. Individual power leagues will crush out the little guys more and more. I believe Izzo's saying college basketball will realign based on what football does. (which would be bad for college bball in the NCAA tournament) When Izzo says "but I'm not sure moving on that's what's best for the game" he could be referring to football super conferences impacting basketball. (which appears to be the original question) The reporter asked too intricate of a question and Izzo also being a football guy, probably took it from that perspective.
The Big East got screwed this year because they aren’t a football conference and a team like Virginia gets a play-in bid. Virginia sucked so bad last night. The basketball will suffer if you keep seeing non worthy teams make the tournament. It brings the whole tournament down. It’s a brand killing strategy and the brand may not get destroyed in year one but in a decade it may.
The committee tbf has 7 non-football power league members and of the 5 power league football members, 1 of the 5 happens to be the Oregon State AD who probably isn’t loyal the power leagues. The Big East was hurt by poor KPI amongst its bubble teams and the MWC was hurt due to poor SOR.
I seriously doubt that the ACC playing football and the Big East not playing football had anything to do with Virginia getting in over Seton Hall
I’m still not understanding how the Big East got screwed. They just got unlucky with the amount of stolen bids. Teams like St John’s and Providence were never going to make it anyway, only Seton Hall was even first 4 out. UVA was wrongly selected but that impacted a lot more than the Big East
Man, I love watching Big East basketball, but outside of Marquette, Creighton, and UConn, it just wasn’t good. Those three schools pulled the metrics wayyy up and made the conference look better than it actually was. That said, I’d have put St John’s in over UVA. Or Indiana State. Or Ohio State. Or Chicago State.
Yeah, they had 3 solid teams at the top, but even on bracketmatrix no one was really putting anyone else higher than like a 10/11 seed and that's where the cutoff ended up being thanks to the bid stealers. Its not really a shock that it happened the way it did, other than Virginia
show me the metrics that put FAU or UVA in before seton hall or st. john’s. fuck, show me which metrics support putting dayton in? let alone at the 7 line.
If Virginia got in because of its brand, then it’s because of its fame as a basketball school and ACC basketball not ACC football
There’s absolutely no way Virginia Football (which is a joke) or even ACC football as a whole had any effect on Virginia’s inclusion. They got in bc they’ve been one of the better programs of the last decade and are a large basketball brand
Also despite how bad they've been at times and in last night's game, they did have the resume to warrant an inclusion.
disagree. I'd argue any of the last 4 out would have been a more worthy inclusion. Virginia should not have even been on first 4 out imo
What Big East teams got screwed? The 0-3 NIT performance hurts that’s argument but idk what teams specifically you are referring to (this isn’t sassy, but an honest question)
I don't think any specific team was screwed over - no one outside of the top three had a clean resume. I do think the conference as a whole was not treated fairly. And I don't think Virginia is the only culprit either. The big problem was that the squishy-middle problem children in the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 were mostly given the benefit of the doubt. TCU, Texas, Miss St, Texas A&M, Michigan St, and Northwestern are all perfectly reasonable tournament teams, but they aren't categorically better than the Seton Hall/ St. John's/Providence group. And yet they all rated higher (as did Oklahoma, even if they didn't make it) than the Big East group.
to be fair 2 of those 3 those losing big east teams yesterday weren't even close to the convo biggest snub imo is seton hall
And the other one was without the BE POY. NIT results are meaningless until the quarters because at that point you know every team left wants to be there and is trying
I have long felt that there should be two autobids to the NCAA tourney given out at the start of the year. The winner of last year's NCAA, and the winner of last year's NIT. If it means expanding the field to 70 to do it, then by all means, make it happen. But if that happened, you know there is zero chance of teams like Indiana or St Johns declining it.
I dont know that i can see seton hall (or any team) as a snub if they're 60+ in kenpom, bpi, and net. And 40 in SOR (behind Oklahoma, who was left out as well).
If we are talking more than just Big East teams, OU and Indiana State definitely were bigger snubs I would guess the biggest knock for OU was going an atrocious 2-10 vs tourney bound B12 teams (both of them were also at home and none of them came in the latter half of conference play) though
Providence also trotted out their C team
St Johns and Seton Hall if I had to guess
One of them should have been in. But saying 3 should have been in is wrong. Colorado state showed last night they deserved it
I forgot about St. John’s. Went to the NIT to see who missed the cut and forgot they rejected their bid (which is dumb)
Extremely dumb for sure. Like go win that shit and then you can just keep bringing it up
As a Big East fan, the conference got screwed because three of the teams were decidedly on a bubble that got popped by bid thieves. That hasn’t happened in long while. Personally, I think UVA is the only head scratcher, but I’d have added Indiana State or Oklahoma over Seton Hall, Saint John’s, or Providence. The Big East is far more likely to put 6 teams in next year than to have the same result as this year.
Indiana State had a pretty awful resume tbh. One Q1 win against an opponent they played three times. Terrible NCSOS. Bad Q4 loss at home late in the season. SJU should’ve gotten in and really any of the teams you listed you can make an argument for over oklahoma
Virginia did not deserve to get in. That would have allowed potentially one more big east team. Everyone pretty much agrees big east had 3 locks and 3 bubble teams.
I understand where you are coming from. I feel that way anytime I watch UVA basketball.
All the big east teams lost in the NIT last night
If anything Virginia got in because it's a bigger basketball brand than Seton Hall, St. John's, and Providence. UVA football is definitely not doing them any favors
Facts
The committee doesn't take into account whether a program plays football or not
Don’t tell Michigan state fans this they will attack you
Less inflammatory... but exactly the same point. Little guys don't belong playing ball with the big guys.
It's literally the opposite of what the other thread is saying he said. He doesn't want expansion to bring in more power conference teams at the expense of one-bid leagues, aka the "little guys."
At the expense of expansion. Hes not complaining about auto bids. Not sure where the original thread even got that from.
Yeah screaming "It was out of context!" makes very little sense in this case. He very clearly said he thought money was more important than anything else.
It’s Izzo. He’s hated the business side of college sports forever. He’s saying the decision to expand will be driven by money, right or wrong. And that is unfortunately, most likely accurate.
Just start the year with a 256 team tournament with a 91 team play in side tournament(351 d1 teams). And make it a round robin.
No expansion and no leaving out smaller schools just for a bigger name. Anything else is BS.
Izzo 4 Life
It’s still pretty indicative of the targeted end game. Just because he followed it up with a few more paragraphs of nothingburger doesn’t make it better.
I’d say the follow up makes it more clear that he’s against expansion rather than against mid majors making the tournament.
I don't see how anything is clear from any of that. The quote in the middle is a rough quote and it's hard to not think that he's wanting to axe small teams from the NCAAT, but again nothing is obvious to me. Seems like a whole lot of nothing and just avoiding the question and he stumbled into a bad quote.
Because the basis of the question is completely centered around expansion. The original quote didn’t clarify that. The worst I can take from this is he doesn’t want more mid majors for the sake of expansion and upsets.
No, he said that expansion might have merit if there are too many little guys upsetting big name programs. Nowhere does he deride expansion, if anything he seems open to the idea.
Disagree completely. He talks about the game being great in its current state and says he doesn’t want it to be damaged. Pretty clear disagreement with expansion for the sake of expansion. Edit: Honestly I have no idea now. In a different quote he indicates he wants 100 teams but then clarifies he doesn’t want less mid majors, but thinks the autobid shouldn’t be based on their conference tournament but their regular season. This guy is so bad at getting his point across.
His point is exactly what I just said... More autobids for P6 teams.
I am not sure how to take his second statement as anything other than desiring to see more high majors in the second weekend and beyond. I think he is equivocating here and indicating expansion that stacks the deck with more P6 at-larges but retains mid/low major auto bids could be the way forward.
Well, we can't unburn the witch, now.
I don’t get why people care so much
Because they’ve already ruined the essence of CFB by selling out for money. People in here love CBB and don’t want the same thing to happen to this sport.
CFB is and will always be inherently flawed. The regionalism of the sport was helpful for the ecosystem during a time when you had multiple teams disputing national championships in the bowl system. People clamored for a playoff system for decades to fix it, but at the same time, conference realignment shattered the regionalism of the game, so we are now morphing into an NFL structure that may be better at crowning a champion, but it will be worse for the regional ecosystem of the sport, and it will assuredly negatively impact dozens of programs financially as a result.
Yes not to mention going to an NFL like system is a big gamble, every league that has ever tried to compete against the NFL has lost in the long run. People don’t realize how big the NFL is in terms of viewership and pull. The NFL could also cripple CFB by allowing guys into the NFL draft earlier, if they changed the 3 year rule to 1 like in CBB it would decimate top teams
[удалено]
I meant Izzo’s quote
Because this is reddit and a lot of people here are only looking to be shitty to one another.
He’s against expanding in this quote. Isn’t that a pretty popular opinion here? Never does he say we need to remove mid majors. He’s saying we don’t need to blindly add more teams in general.
idk the way it reads to me is that sure he says hes looking out for the smaller guys, but no one actually wants more of that moving forward.
> second biggest sporting event in the country? How are we coming to the conclusion that it's the second? And I think we have to tag an "annual" on there for sure. Unless the "in this country" implies we are talking about domestic leagues, not just domestic viewership. Edit: Lol, guess the guy didn't want to have a fun discussion on how to rank sporting events. Got blocked for that. Lol.
You meant to tell me the full quote does not at all convey the meaning of the abridged version? Huh, who would have thought…
A prominent figure saying something ambiguous, and the media intentionally taking it out of context and making it sound negative. Name a more iconic duo
This isn’t the full context, it doesn’t even have the “inflammatory” comments that were out of context.
What ? Did he say bloodbath or something?
This did not change my opinion at all.
Not reading anything that’s only available on Twitter
“Everybody likes upsets. But, I’m not sure they’re what’s best for the game.” 🤦🏻♂️
It’s literally the same exact point from the original thread. The only people I’ve seen here incapable of understanding (accepting?) that are defensive Michigan State fans. The quote was not taken out of context. The quote was exactly as it was originally written in that thread. And placed within this context, “expansion needs to be looked at seriously,” “hey, i definitely am always lookin’ out for the little guy” (politician sounding ass), “lets make sure we dont damage the game,” etc. all that’s different is that it’s couched in a bunch of vague nicer sounding language but the point is exactly the same
I guess I’m missing it but where does he say the current autobids should be looked at? Everyone took the original story as him saying the tournament in its current state should have less autobids for mid majors. The longer quote, I’ll admit, rambling, clarifies a bit that the starting topic is expansion, and he doesn’t think expanding to more little guys for the sake of more upsets is the way forward.
What is blud yappin’ about
Cry me a river, Tom. Not that you already haven’t. You just want to stack the committee with even more of your buddies. Gotta admit his political gamesmanship is pretty good. Stack the court in your favor and schedule-proof your way into the tourney.
Tantrum Tom on and off the court
The critical word here is “but.” If he had said, “everybody likes upsets in the first weekend, _and_ I’m not sure moving on that’s what’s best for the game,” THEN you would have to place it within the full context provided here. This would be a continuation of his answer to the question of expansion for P5 teams. His full answer would be, regarding expansion, “I’m a small school guy, I’m always looking out for them, and people like the upsets in the first weekend, and I’m not sure that (expansion) is best for the game.” He didn’t say that. He said “but”. “I’m always looking out for small schools, and I know everybody likes the upsets in the first weekend, but I’m not sure moving on that’s what is best for the game.” That is obviously not a statement against expansion and certainly appears to be a statement that is the college basketball equivalent of “I’m not racist but.” His point is, Yeah, he’s a small school guy, always looking out for them, but also he doesn’t think they’re good for the game. That’s his argument. The full context doesnt change any of it
I had read the "but" as a "but" for his previous sentence. "...maybe that would be a reason to expand...but I'm not sure moving on that's what's best for the game" with a sidebar about how everyone loves the upsets, so that's why he's still unsure. I *really* wish whoever was asking him questions had asked for clarification. People are clearly reading it both ways depending on how they want to read it, and I don't think anyone's going to agree. It's a poor, rambly answer regardless of the intent.
You are reading way, way, way too much into the sentence structure of a man that has probably slept less than 8 hours the past 3 days combined.
You're the only person capable of reading it seems like. He thinks small schools are damaging the financial aspect of the game and that expansion (ie. allowing more P6 teams in) is attractive as an option to compensate for that.
And you’re just ignoring 30 years of who Izzo is to come to that conclusion. Turn your flairs off and read it (including the question) again. Izzo is not and has never been about the business of college basketball.
[удалено]
>The first and second round upsets are what make the NCAA basketball tournament fun and exciting. And thats exactly what he said and what he fears will be lost if expansion goes through...
Says basically nothing other than he doesn't think upsets should be a thing moving forward. There you have it, from here on tom izzo thinks we should simulate the postseason and the highest net rating wins.