A simple proposal that would help P5

[EastStang]

Limit the number of dance invites to 4 or 5 per conference. ACC would lose teams. Big XII would reassess.

[CalallenStang]

How would this help P5?

[LA_Mustang]

I was about to ask the same question. None of the P5s would ever agree to this, and why would they?

[EastStang]

Oops G5

[Charleston Pony]

I always thought if they would just require a team has to be at least .500 in conference play that it would thin out how many P5 teams get invited. There are always some that get in with less than .500 record in conference play

[smitty329]

I always thought if they would just require a team has to be at least .500 in conference play that it would thin out how many P5 teams get invited. There are always some that get in with less than .500 record in conference play

But in doing so you could eliminate the hot teams - the ones who went 8 - 12 in conference but won 6 of the last 8 - including being runner up in the championship game. You want the teams firing in March not January.

[MustangStealth]

I've always thought that they should limit the bids per conference to half the size of the conference. So for example, if you have 14 teams, max of 7 bids. 11 teams, 5.5 (round to 6) max bids. If you aren't in the top half of your conference, you shouldn't be in the national championship discussion. I don't care how deep your conference is. If a conference is limited to 5 bids and the committee wants to pick the team that finished 6th over the team that finished 5th, that's fine. They still get to pick the "hot team" that way, but we don't end up with 10 teams from the ACC or any of that ridiculous nonsense.

[hoopmanx]

I've always thought that they should limit the bids per conference to half the size of the conference. So for example, if you have 14 teams, max of 7 bids. 11 teams, 5.5 (round to 6) max bids. If you aren't in the top half of your conference, you shouldn't be in the national championship discussion. I don't care how deep your conference is. If a conference is limited to 5 bids and the committee wants to pick the team that finished 6th over the team that finished 5th, that's fine. They still get to pick the "hot team" that way, but we don't end up with 10 teams from the ACC or any of that ridiculous nonsense.

Its not ridiculous if they're the best teams. This is supposed to be the premier college hoops tourney in the world w/only a handful of participants. Why waste space on teams that are closer to 260 than 64? IF every ACC team makes it over the garbage MEAC or OVC champ, so be it. Develop a G5 style tourney that works for everyone else. I want to see Mudererers row, starting Day 1, not get excited over a few close games and in some years, a few random upsets. Great games and programs make great tournaments, not the occasional David vs Goliath

[SMUstangs22]

But George Mason... VCU... hell one could argue Gonzaga would have never become gonzaga. Consistent cinderella status built that program into a power

[hoopmanx]

Those aren't low majors. Its not the tourney that made them good, it was commitment, coaches, getting players and playing competitive schedules and winning.

[Charleston Pony]

I've always thought that they should limit the bids per conference to half the size of the conference. So for example, if you have 14 teams, max of 7 bids. 11 teams, 5.5 (round to 6) max bids. If you aren't in the top half of your conference, you shouldn't be in the national championship discussion. I don't care how deep your conference is. If a conference is limited to 5 bids and the committee wants to pick the team that finished 6th over the team that finished 5th, that's fine. They still get to pick the "hot team" that way, but we don't end up with 10 teams from the ACC or any of that ridiculous nonsense.

Its not ridiculous if they're the best teams. This is supposed to be the premier college hoops tourney in the world w/only a handful of participants. Why waste space on teams that are closer to 260 than 64? IF every ACC team makes it over the garbage MEAC or OVC champ, so be it. Develop a G5 style tourney that works for everyone else. I want to see Mudererers row, starting Day 1, not get excited over a few close games and in some years, a few random upsets. Great games and programs make great tournaments, not the occasional David vs Goliath

I like the "little guys" getting their chance. Years ago I watched the College of Charleston get into the tourney from a one bid TransAmerica Conference and beat your Terps in the 5/12 game and then go on to lose on a failed buzzer beater to the eventual National Champion 4 seed Arizona Wildcats. I like seeing the relative unknowns getting a chance to play the big boys who so often duck the quality mid-majors. I do agree the "auto bid" for tourney winners often becomes a joke, but a team from a weak conference that wins both regular season and their tourney deserves a shot.

[EastStang]

The idea is that the ACC and other conferences won't load up with great teams if there's a cap. Suddenly the Big XII will decide it has to decide whether it wants to be 10 teams or not. And the ACC will think about whether Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt should dance and UVA, Duke, UNC, should go to the NIT.

[hoopmanx]

So you're telling me, that in order to get the best tourney possible, we need to include the winners of the Big South, MEAC, MAAC, Atlantic Sun, Ohio Valley, southern, Horizon, Ivy, Northeast, summit, patriot league,,America east, big sky, Big west, south land, swac etc? That's the definition of watering down what could be a loaded field. Everyone has a a run they find sentimental, but doesn't change the fact that the winners of those leagues place bottom 3rd, at best, in a P5

[Charleston Pony]

So you're telling me, that in order to get the best tourney possible, we need to include the winners of the Big South, MEAC, MAAC, Atlantic Sun, Ohio Valley, southern, Horizon, Ivy, Northeast, summit, patriot league,,America east, big sky, Big west, south land, swac etc? That's the definition of watering down what could be a loaded field. Everyone has a a run they find sentimental, but doesn't change the fact that the winners of those leagues place bottom 3rd, at best, in a P5

If one team absolutely dominates those weaker leagues, yes; I want to see them play the big boys. Otherwise, we never get to see how the FGCUs of the world might fare. I agree the "auto bid" is a joke and that every conference is not deserving of a bid, but dominant teams in those weaker leagues often have difficulty even getting the big boys to schedule them. I remember talking to C of C's AD about trying to schedule and even Kentucky wouldn't give them a game in Rupp after they took down Maryland and Ga Tech

[hoopmanx]

Well, that mentality needs to be addressed as well. The current system has blue bloods ducking and hiding, unless they play each other and its an acceptable loss. Somehow the selection process needs to really up the ante on road games from high majors. Maybe a required number of home/homes vs quality mids or something of that nature.