glm38 wrote:Stickboy46 wrote:Wufan wrote:I'd be totally okay with the selection committee using KP or other similar metric to select the at-larges. A really good system would be to give each conference (32) the auto-qualifier, grant the next 28 highest ranked schools a bid, and then allow the committee to grant 8 teams the play-in game. The committee then seeds the schools either by analytics or some other method.
I wish they would use the play in game properly. It in no way shape or form should EVER be 4 power conference teams like this year. Use it for a mid major that is right outside the cut line, that didn't have 20 built in opportunities for good wins. Pair them with a middling P5 team that "won more good games" with 5 times the chances and let the mid major play its way into the tourney.
+1. If you did it this way it would also generate more interest than matching 2 middling P5 teams IMO.
Most K State fans I know are pissed off they are in the play in game. Not because they felt like they should be in, but because it makes it harder to fire their coach because they "got in". I'm sure the ratings are going to be horrible.