Pope dropped another Q&A video
College Sports (Basketball)
I think the priority is ensuring appropriate matchups for the 5 and 6 seeds (want all the 12 seeds to be "worse" than all the 11 seeds).
The way to get the best teams all seeded correctly into the R64 would be to have the worst 24 teams (regardless of at-large or autobid) play each other (seeded so the best of these plays the worst, etc), then sort the winners and place them in the R64 as the 14-16 seeds. But that's not happening.
I think the 11/12 games may make a significant difference.
- The 5-11 game is won by the 11 35% of the time.
- The 4-12 game is won by the 12 20% of the time.
The stronger 11/12 seed should have an even better chance of advancing. Look at how the last 4 in winners have done thus far.
The stronger 15 seed in the 2/15 game is pretty unlikely to matter. I still don't understand why they were not spread out more.
The Sprouting Divot
Invisible and Bulletproof
- Miracle Mile
5s play 12s and 4s play 13s.
~~~~~~
I hate this new paradigm and I hope that those responsible for it will die of syphilis quickly and painfully.
Will never like 15 and 16 seeds, who won their conference tournaments, having to play their way into the field of 64. All of the opening round games should be bubble teams truly having to win their way into the field of 64.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Amen. The pursuit of the “better” teams at the expense of what separates March Madness unique among all postseason formats is so unspeakably stupid and short sighted.
He actually won 4 state titles...back to back in 81-82 and 82-83.....went undefeated both seasons....34-0 each season.... attended many of his camps....was a tremendous motivator, relentless competitor and cared deeply about his players....legendary...for sure
Why not invite all the D1 teams - pick the top 64 or so. Then have the other 300 or so play 3 games to weed them down to 36 or so. Have those play the 33-64 seeds. Give the top 32 byes. then play the tourney - would add about a week and generate a whole lot more revenue.
I know the numbers don't jive exactly but you could adjust a few play in games to balance it out.
This is where it is heading - might as well just go there. Then there could be no issue about leaving anyone out.
I know the numbers don't jive exactly but you could adjust a few play in games to balance it out.
This is where it is heading - might as well just go there. Then there could be no issue about leaving anyone out.
I live in Cape Girardeau, so I'll try to catch a couple SEMO games and give y'all a scouting report.
Illinicpa14
- Chicago
lol that is the conference tournaments
I don't find the Pope thing bad at all. Actually pretty classy and well-given insight. KY fans will hate you for coughing....
If they are paired like this (where # in parentheses is their overall s-curve seed):
6 (21) vs 11 (44)/11 (45)
6 (22) vs 11 (43)/11 (46)
6 (23) vs 11 (42)
6 (24) vs 11 (41)
Then the 11-seed play-in winners are theoretically "worse" (by original seeding) than the 11-seeds who avoided the play-in.
As for how that's played out, winners of at-large play-in games have indeed slightly under-performed similar seeds in the R64 (link with data through 2024; for 2025/26, they were 1-3 vs 3-5 for all 11 seeds). This is a small sample size though.
I get what you're saying, but really I disagree...
The proposed system would give the #40-#64 teams (who hypothetically wouldn't win their conference tourney) an excellent path in, and would give the #64-100 teams a much better shot than than just one per conference. It could help boost some mid-major conferences at the expense of the bottom feeder conferences. But it would also de-value (or eliminate) the conference tournaments.