The final 4 auto-bids and the last 4 at-larges will play it out for the spots. The at-large teams will be given the same seed, but there apparently is no set number the seed will be (article mentions 10-12).

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5374116

I wish they would have had the last 8 at-large teams match up in the first four games. Conference winners should be rewarded over teams that finish 7th or 8th in their conferecne.

Ditto to what Al Bundy said, they are still punishing teams for winning their conferences

The rich get richer...sure it gives more lower seeded teams a chance to win a NCAA game, but how often are the last 4 out (under the current format) not from major conferences?

This is the reason I did not like the 68 team option. I was saying 128 or no change.

mattinctown;421692 wrote:Ditto to what Al Bundy said, they are still punishing teams for winning their conferences

I was hoping they would address this, but I also knew better, unfortunately.

ts1227;421764 wrote:I was hoping they would address this, but I also knew better, unfortunately.

I knew better too. I wish they would have just gone back to 64 teams. I just have hard time feeling sorry for teams that were "cheated" out of the tournament when the didn't even play .500 ball in their conference.

Jughead;421735 wrote:The rich get richer...sure it gives more lower seeded teams a chance to win a NCAA game, but how often are the last 4 out (under the current format) not from major conferences?

This is the reason I did not like the 68 team option. I was saying 128 or no change.

They didn't go to 128 because it would have killed the NIT.

Al Bundy;421926 wrote:They didn't go to 128 because it would have killed the NIT.

I think they would rather kill the NIT and only have the responsibility of running 1 postseason tournament.

The NCAA owns the NIT (purchased it in 2005), and would have no problem killing it. Had they gone to 96 it would have been the same amount of teams as before (64 NCAA + 32 NIT), just in one tournament.

Eventually that will happen, the the NCAA will just absorb the NIT.

Its not terrible. Its better than the original 15 and 16s playing for the 16 line....

At least this way the final 4 out arent just getting into the toruney, they actually have to beat each other.

ts1227;422237 wrote:The NCAA owns the NIT (purchased it in 2005), and would have no problem killing it. Had they gone to 96 it would have been the same amount of teams as before (64 NCAA + 32 NIT), just in one tournament.

Eventually that will happen, the the NCAA will just absorb the NIT.

Agreed. 96 seems likely because the only reason they even bought it was to stop losing out on the small amount of revenue there was to gain.

just another chance for small schools to get robbed of spots in the tournament

madman11;428019 wrote:just another chance for small schools to get robbed of spots in the tournament

I don't understand this. I mean, I know you are saying that the two small school champs that lose aren't really getting to play in the tournament, but really they are and they basically get their own time slot so that can't be all that bad. But the other thing I wonder when people want this "equality" for the small schools is - do you not really want the BEST teams in the tournament? A #16 has never beaten a #1. But plenty of #11s and #12s have won games - those spots are most often reserved for lower level big conference teams. You really think a team that wins 20 games and a conference like the Summit League is more valuable than winning 18 games in a major conference?

madman11;428019 wrote:just another chance for small schools to get robbed of spots in the tournament

I tend to agree with you, but the small schools dont mind it at all (their conferences love it) because they make more money. They make the SAME money if they lose either game, but the winner is making money in both games for their conferences.

This isn't college football. This is a tournament with the purpose of deciding the national championship. If the Big West (or whatever) champion can't beat the 7th place Big Ten or 8th place ACC team or something in a play-in game, they obviously weren't going to win the national championship, so what difference does it make if they weren't "rewarded" for winning their conference?

Cleveland Buck;428771 wrote:This isn't college football. This is a tournament with the purpose of deciding the national championship. If the Big West (or whatever) champion can't beat the 7th place Big Ten or 8th place ACC team or something in a play-in game, they obviously weren't going to win the national championship, so what difference does it make if they weren't "rewarded" for winning their conference?

I buy that argument to an extent, but being a fan of A10 school I can only do it halfway. A school's conference doesn't have to reflect their dedication to a basketball program, so if the Big West has a team win the conference that has spent time and money developing a program they deserve to get in. That scenario is the minority I know, and only Gonzaga and the Xavier types come to mind on who actually compete with the larger conferences have a realistic shot.