I am reading there will be a Dayton site and a site out west with the equivalent. All 16 seeds and two 15 seeds will play a play-in-game. So if I read correctly the 12 bottom seeds need a play in. So 8 more one bid leagues in the play in. No additional big schools as the added 8 at large will play with the old first four at large. If i read correctly
1 Like
The public: âWe want more mid-majors. That makes the tournament fun!â
NCAA: âOh, âMIDâ majors. Hereâs another 18-15 Syracuse team. And Auburn.â
4 Likes
The tournament expanding only works if the smaller schools get those additional bids. Again, no one wants to see a barely above .500 (overall record) high major make the tourney over a way above .500 mid or small major team.
1 Like
This is the worst outcome possible for the mid to low majors. Yes it does seem like two additional MWC teams would have made it and Miami would have made it easier
But Wright State (who was a 14 seed) would have been in a play in game played during the day likely as a 15 seed
And a typical MAC champ seed of 12/13 is now going to be pushed down at least one line to 13/14
1 Like
When a change is made because of a push by high majors, only one living in Narnia would think it is for the benefit of mid majors.
4 Likes
They would have, which sucks.
A bad MAC year or a surprise conference tournament champion will probably result in a 15 play in game. And the thing that hasnât been confirmed yet is whether the additional games will all count for tournament units. If they donât that will be devastating financially for the small conferences.
At this point, just split with big schools and play a separate tournament.
3 Likes
Miami did just get an at-large bid. Granted it took a season that was truly one massive historic anomaly but the team just proved it is, in fact, possible for a MAC school to earn an at-large berth. Going with the âsplit it into two tournamentsâ idea is something you do if itâs literally not possible to get a fair shake.
Including, in many instances, the fanbase of said barely above .500 high major. If Auburn squeaked in this past year, anyone really think their fans would have been excited or even cared?
1 Like
MAC gets a âshakeâ not sure if you can call it âfairâ
I donât necessarily mind 76 since it basically treats all regions the same, but since high majors will use it to shove as many AQ teams into play-ins (and let mediocre high major teams get more at-larges straight into the Round of 64) Iâm opposed.
An easy solution would be if play-ins were all limited to at-large teams so all AQs got into the Round of 64, but thatâs obviously not the intention here. Sad.
2 Likes
Right, the intention here is pretty obvious. Since tournament revenue payouts to the conferences are based rounds and advancing, this will guarantee the vast majority of non-P5 teams are bounced by the Round of 32 instead of the Sweet 16.
This is dumb. That is all.
1 Like
And it should always have been that way. If youâre an AQ, you should be in the round of 64. If youâre not an AQ, you may be in danger of being in a play-in game. But big money doesnât dictate a fair system.
5 Likes
Next step: 96. 6 regions. re-seeding after first and second rounds. Mo Money, mo money, mo moneyâŚbut for thee, not for me as in Mid-AMErican Conference.
This is great, fellas! Weâre gonna get to see more bad big conference teams in the tournament, just like weâve all been clamoring for. We all know that 10 B10 and 10 SEC teams just isnât enough. Thanks, NCAA!