New Rules for NCAA Basketball Tournaments

Here some things I’d like to see considered for the NCAA basketball tournaments (women’s and men’s):

1. If a team goes undefeated in conference play in the regular season, it should earn an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament even if it loses in its conference tournament. I’ve been advocating this for years and, frankly, it won’t make a lot of a difference overall, since many teams that go undefeated within their conferences either win their conference tournaments and make it moot or end up being considered good enough to be an at-large team by the NCAA tournament committees. Tthis season, Memphis and Gonzaga on the men’s side and Boston University, Sacred Heart, Connecticut, and Wisconsin-Green Bay on the women’s side are the only 6 teams to go undefeated in league play. Memphis, Gonzaga, and Connecticut have nothing to worry about, but based on projections by ESPN, the other three will need to win their conference tournaments in order to make the NCAA tournament. This has happened on the men’s side as well. In 2003-2004, Austin Peay went undefeated in the Ohio Valley Conference, but lost in the OVC tournament final and went to the NIT. My thinking here is that a team should not be punished if its one and only loss to a team in its conference came during a conference tournament. Going undefeated in a conference during the regular season pretty much indicates you outperformed the other teams in your conference and I’d think you have more of a right to be in the tournament than a team that lost once in conference during the regular season, but won its conference tournament. Of course, I’d even want to start arguing that both merit serious consideration, but the undefeated rule would set a high and reasonable guideline.

2. In many cases, this might supersede Number 1 (though not in Austin Peay’s case in 2003-2004), but perhaps there should be a win total that mandates inclusion in the NCAA tournament. I think of 25 wins as a starting point for the discussion, but I could see it as 26 or 27, too, to ensure it’s not set too low. I envision this as a win total just for the regular season, before one’s conference tournament. Mandating that you make the tournament if you have 25 regular-season wins would guarantee that teams like Creighton and Davidson on the men’s side (both of whom won 25 games in the regular season) make the tournament, even though each lost in its respective conference tournament. It would also guarantee a spot for Utah State on the men’s side (who won 27 games during the regular season) even if it loses in the WAC tournament. On the women’s side, teams like Bowling Green (yes, the influence of my own loyalties on my positions here is clearly showing with mention of this school and I’ll gladly acknowledge that), Montana, South Dakota State, Middle Tennessee State, Wisconsin-Green Bay, and Marist would have spots. Among these six teams, it looks like South Dakota State and Middle Tennessee State would be or would have been, respectively, okay this season, but the other may have to (or might have had to) sweat out the selection process without a conference tournament championship in hand. I’ve intentionally not included schools from more prestigious conferences in these lists, since the point is moot for them; they’re getting in anyway. This is something to help teams from less prestigious conferences be rewarded for what, frankly, are outstanding regular seasons. Raising it from 25 to 26 or 27 would pare those lists down a bit, but, at least based on teams on those lists, a standard of 25 regular-season wins certainly seems reasonable.

3. A team has to win at least 20 games in order to qualify for the NCAA tournament. So, for instance, Providence and Arizona are discussed on the men’s side as bubble teams, yet each lost today to finish the season at 19 wins. Both are questionable as at-large teams for the NCAA tournament, but both are still getting consideration and may still get in. In a day and age in which teams usually play a minimum of 29 games and, including exempt tournaments and conference tournaments, this turns into 32, 33, 34 games quite easily, winning less than 20 games just doesn’t seem impressive enough to be an NCAA tournament team. So, in this scenario, Providence and Arizona would not be in. The caveat here is that, unlike rule number 2 above, conference tournament wins can count toward one’s win total. So, had Providence and Arizona each won today, each would then have earned consideration for the NCAA tournament. That doesn’t mean each would be in, but it would mean they could be considered. It seems like that would provide an interesting, useful, and beneficial level of intrigue to the conference tournaments.

Of course, I do realize that these rules are not without their downsides. Rules 2 and 3 might encourage teams, especially teams from more prestigious conferences, to schedule less dauntingly in their out-of-conference fare. Yet, I’m not sure that would be too great of a trend to make a big difference to matter. I also realize that the strength-of-schedule critics would argue that a team like Arizona has beaten a number of top-level teams, while Davidson, though they played some of these top-level teams, did not defeat any, and that this should be considered in Arizona’s favor. I understand that point of view and, again, I recognize that as a loyal alum of Bowling Green State University, I do have a bias based on that loyalty here (of course, I also attended Michigan State and Arizona State, on the other side), yet I think these kinds of rules are worthy of consideration and, at least, further discussion in this forum and in more prominent forums, particularly as we might attempt to create a system of college athletics that contains more equity for what have come to be known as “mid-major” schools.