Single most important change for NCAA tourney?

[2c]

So, what do think is the single most important change needed for the tournament. We all know there are a lot of necessary changes needed, but what is THE biggest in your opinion?

Regionalization change?
Hosting sites format?
Selection process?

Personally, and I know this is cold and somewhat Republican-like, but I really wish they'd expand the number of at-large bids by doubling up some of the less VB-emphasized confs into play-in matches. Does every conf deserve a rep in the tournament? I think it is important to allow all conf's a way to have a member qualify for the field of 64 but I just think there are too many automatic qualifiers. Let the top 16 confs have automatic qualifiers, Let the next 16 conferences have playin matches for another 8 qualifiers. This would leave 40 at-large bids which would allow the WitchitaState/CSLO/NMSU/IowaState.

I think getting more of the top teams in the country in the tournament the better. You'll see more early round upsets which always make the tournament a little more interesting.

[JHAM]

I think they're all equally important and feed into each other so I can't just pick one.

[Wolfgang]

It depends on your goal.

If you want to improve competition, you may want to have more closely matched teams play against each other. However, "fairness" may suffer.

If you want to improve attendance, you have to get rid of predetermined sites and go with hosts who are still alive in the tourney. However, this may give the advantage (fairly or unfairly) to the historically dominant and big market programs like the Hawaiis and Nebraskas and Wisconsins of the volleyball world.

There are other factors, too. However, fudging with one goal or factor will affect another goal or factor. Some factors and goals go hand in hand, while others work in opposing pairs. For example, if you want to improve fairness, you may sacrifice cost. If you want an exciting tournament, you may have to sacrifice fairness. So many variables.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, what I want (versus what the NCAA, the schools, and everyone else for that matter wants) is pool play, from start to finish.

1. Conferences? You can use them if you want, but I prefer to dispense with them. Group all the Div I teams into pools (of 8-12 teams each). You'll probably have over 30 groups. Play 1 or 2 matches with everyone in your group. So, you have each team playing roughly 16-22 matches. This will be deemed the "regular season."

2. Take top 3 or 4 (pick one) of each group. Group all qualifying teams into pool play groups again. Play each other once in each group.

3. Take top 3 again from these groups. And so on until you are left with only 4-8 teams. Then, play single elimination (or double) until you get one champion.

The concept is simple. Pool play from start to finish. Keep whittling it down by taking the top 3 from each group in each round of pool play until you have a manageable number of, say, 4 teams. Then, single or double elimination.

The actual numbers of matches and teams will vary depending on how many teams you have in each group for each round of pool play.

Neutral sites work for me.

I'm not sure whether this is a feasible idea though, because this would be a radical change from the current system.

[2c]

wolfgang said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, what I want (versus what the NCAA, the schools, and everyone else for that matter wants) is pool play, from start to finish.

1. Conferences? You can use them if you want, but I prefer to dispense with them. Group all the Div I teams into pools (of 8-12 teams each). You'll probably have over 30 groups. Play 1 or 2 matches with everyone in your group. So, you have each team playing roughly 16-22 matches. This will be deemed the "regular season."

2. Take top 3 or 4 (pick one) of each group. Group all qualifying teams into pool play groups again. Play each other once in each group.

3. Take top 3 again from these groups. And so on until you are left with only 4-8 teams. Then, play single elimination (or double) until you get one champion.

The concept is simple. Pool play from start to finish. Keep whittling it down by taking the top 3 from each group in each round of pool play until you have a manageable number of, say, 4 teams. Then, single or double elimination.

The actual numbers of matches and teams will vary depending on how many teams you have in each group for each round of pool play.

Neutral sites work for me.

I'm not sure whether this is a feasible idea though, because this would be a radical change from the current system.

Isn't this just basically known as JNCs?

[Wolfgang]

Or the Olympics. Or the Grand Prix.

The difference is the sheer number of teams. So, you have to have multiple rounds of pool play to keep whittling the number of teams down.

Ultimately, this is a very fair way of determining a champion instead of a single elimination tournament. You're going to have to play a lot of good teams to get deep into the tournament. Not just beat a couple good teams like the current system. Oooh, we won a match...now we're in the Round of 32. Oooh, we won another match...now we're in the Sweet Sixteen. Come on...one victory and you take a giant leap forward?? That's not right.

[ohiostatetad]

What exactly is "cold?" And how exactly is it "republican-like?"