What if you had to be .500 in your conference to get At Large Bid?

NCAA would never do it, but it would at least be a BRIGHT LINE for selection. Kinda like having to be .500 to go to a bowl game. Regardless of how tough your league is, do you really have an argument to go dancing if you can't at least go .500 in your league?

In 2018, the following would have been eliminated from consideration. (There may be others. I couldn't find a source showing all at large teams with their conference records.) Does anyone think any of these teams would be a great loss if they weren't in the tourney or under consideration at the end?

Maybe you add in their conference tournament record, but that could cut both ways.

Syracuse (8-10)

Notre Dame (8-10)

Oklahoma (8-10)

Oklahoma St. (8-10)

Texas (8-10)

Alabama (8-10)

Arizona St. (8-10)

I am not opposed to it.

Few teams in the same conference play the same schedule. An 8-10 from one team might be better than an 11-7 from another. Until the schedules are balanced this is an unreasonable plan. However with balanced schedules (which is impossible with such massive conferences) it would be a very good baseline.

ACC got 9 teams in it. 3 teams with a 2 or better seed. Good conference and may make it hard to play .500 with 3 dominating teams in the conference.

PAC-12 only 3 teams total, not so good this year.

NCAA would never do it, but it would at least be a BRIGHT LINE for selection. Kinda like having to be .500 to go to a bowl game. Regardless of how tough your league is, do you really have an argument to go dancing if you can't at least go .500 in your league?

 

In 2018, the following would have been eliminated from consideration. (There may be others. I couldn't find a source showing all at large teams with their conference records.) Does anyone think any of these teams would be a great loss if they weren't in the tourney or under consideration at the end?

 

Maybe you add in their conference tournament record, but that could cut both ways.

 

Syracuse (8-10)

Notre Dame (8-10)

Oklahoma (8-10)

Oklahoma St. (8-10)

Texas (8-10)

Alabama (8-10)

Arizona St. (8-10)

Put it on the ballot, I'll vote for it.

I honestly don't care about the record. The at-large bids should be the best teams available, regardless of record. The only defense of this is that it might help get in some more of the mid-major teams that had good seasons but slipped in the conference tournament.

I definitely agree with those saying that unbalanced schedules can make this a problem. If Notre Dame had a couple more regular-season games at full-strength, I expect we'd have discovered that they were among those teams, even if their record hadn't reflected it.

Until every conference has a balanced schedule within thier conference this is a bad idea.

I feel the same way about needing to have balanced conference schedules. However, if that was in place, I could see this theory being a nice option. I know it'll never happen, but IMO the tournament is too large as it is, so rather than trying to figure out how to get the best 68 teams in, I'd like to see the tournament drop down to 32 teams. Use a formula similar to the BCS to get the top 24 teams from the power five conferences in, then do the same to determine 8 teams from non power five conferences to participate as cinderella's.

I haven't thought it through real well, so that could be a complete garbage idea, but I think with some work, it would make for a really entertaining tournament. That said, it'll never happen due to lost revenue because of fewer teams.

It will be bigger before they ever shrink the field.

Whole lot easier to go .500 in the OVC than the SEC.

Whole lot easier to go .500 in the OVC than the SEC.

On top of that, how about a team that goes 8-10 in the ACC but played Duke and Carolina twice while a team that went 9-9 only played them each once and one of those games at home. Or maybe a SEC team plays UK twice and Florida twice while another team in the conference only plays them once each...without ballanced conference schedules .500 to qualify is a bad idea.

I feel the same way about needing to have balanced conference schedules. However, if that was in place, I could see this theory being a nice option. I know it'll never happen, but IMO the tournament is too large as it is, so rather than trying to figure out how to get the best 68 teams in, I'd like to see the tournament drop down to 32 teams. Use a formula similar to the BCS to get the top 24 teams from the power five conferences in, then do the same to determine 8 teams from non power five conferences to participate as cinderella's.

 

I haven't thought it through real well, so that could be a complete garbage idea, but I think with some work, it would make for a really entertaining tournament. That said, it'll never happen due to lost revenue because of fewer teams.

Tournament is great now...why cut out an entire round?

I like the idea of every team having a shot to get in if they can win their conference tourney also.

Until every conference has a balanced schedule within thier conference this is a bad idea.

Just trying to put some objective criteria into a system that is brutally flawed currently. (Although, many will argue that the media loves the flaws so they can generate so much content about the flaws - just look at all the OU, ASU, etc. discussion.)

Even with an unbalanced schedule where you play UVa, Duke and UNC 2x and Pitt and GaTech only 1x, do you really belong in the tournament if you are UNDER .500 in your league? Show me a team that truly "belongs" / "belonged" in the tournament that was UNDER .500 in conference.

Also, knowing this requirement in advance would expand the "bubble" into FEB and late JAN and make conference games more exciting. ("X team is 3 under .500 going into their last 7 conference games. In order to be postseason eligible, they'll need to go 5-2 on those games.")

Whole lot easier to go .500 in the OVC than the SEC.

When was the last time a sub-.500 OVC team was in the disussion for an at large bid?

Remember, being .500 or above doesn't automatically qualify you OR even help your argument. Being below .500 in conference simply makes you "NCAA tournament ineligible."

We talked about this not long ago. If everything were equal (conference strengths, playing everyone), then sure. 8-10 this year in the SEC is not the same as 8-10 in the SEC five years ago.