New NCAA Bracketing Process

[ChiClones]

NCAA makes changes to the tournament bracketing process - CBSSports.com

Based on this, Iowa State would have been in the East and played San Diego State in the first round.

 

[Judoka]

Basically the Tourney committee is admitting that a 14 team "conference" isn't really a conference in the traditional sense of the word.

 

[VeloClone]

I still wish that they would keep teams from the same conference in separate halves of each region's bracket until there are 9 or more conference teams in the tourney. We will be complaining before long that they have strong (I would still consider 5 and 6 seeds as strong) Big 12 teams playing each other early knocking each other out of the tourney.

 

[TurbulentEddie]

I still wish that they would keep teams from the same conference in separate halves of each region's bracket until there are 9 or more conference teams in the tourney. We will be complaining before long that they have strong (I would still consider 5 and 6 seeds as strong) Big 12 teams playing each other early knocking each other out of the tourney.

I get what you're saying, but, applying a hypothetical to last year's tourney, I'd rather see OSU play a bubble B12 team (or really any bubble team) than Oregon in the first round. I'd rather early round upsets be "real" upsets rather than bad matchups due to bracketing principles.

 

[clone52]

I still wish that they would keep teams from the same conference in separate halves of each region's bracket until there are 9 or more conference teams in the tourney. We will be complaining before long that they have strong (I would still consider 5 and 6 seeds as strong) Big 12 teams playing each other early knocking each other out of the tourney.

The kind of do. If 2 teams play 3 times, they can't meet until the elite 8. If 2 teams play twice, they could meet in the sweet 16. So for the Big 12, the earliest 2 teams could meet is the Sweet 16.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Jerry Palm, eh? I'm stunned he didn't leave us out of the resseded tournament based on the new selection process.

 

[cyclones500]

After quick read, the changes appear reasonable, especially considering the mega-conference trend.

I'll have to reassess after some consideration. The top-4 teams from a league in the seeding process looks to make sense on the surface, I'd have to think a bit on that.

As VeloClone noted, I like the no pre-Elite 8 matchups until more than 8 teams from a conference, but I'm sure with expansion that's becoming a headache. I think it should still be among the goals, but true seeding and geography probably should take precedence.

I also think some of the intra-conference bracketing difficulties may stem from the play-in additions (I'd have to check the rules again — maybe those weren't factored into the old rules??).

It doesn't apply to this round of changes (and I won't elaborate in this thread), but some of the regional placement and seeding also can be limited by pre-determined sites. Maybe they'll address that next year.

 

[Cy$]

doesn't affect Iowa State a ton given that each B12 team plays each other twice. meaning ISU won't play another conference team til atleast the sweet 16. Last year would have seperated ISU from KU/OU til the elite 8. Teams through 4 will be seperated in different regions.

For Royce's year, this means we'd avoided Kentucky. Oh well, wish the changes were enforced 2 years ago...

 

[DBQ]

I've always thought it would be interesting if the NIT or one of the other postseason tournaments that nobody cares about would experiment with re-seeding.

 

[ISUpadre]

I've always thought it would be interesting if the NIT or one of the other postseason tournaments that nobody cares about would experiment with re-seeding.

How much fun would the NCAA tourney be with a blind draw for the 1st round (not play in games) :smile: