Welcome to the post-Valentine's Day edition of Bracket Banter. This week, it's only love!

NCAA Tourney Eligibility, Part II
I back the Lunardi Plan 100 percent.

I had a more radical brainstorm: The consolidation and re-alignment of smaller conferences to strengthen those conferences, eliminate the play-in game and provide more bubble spots for all teams.

A prime example of where this could be done are the conferences in the west. There you have four conferences with at best 3-4 legit tourney hopefuls: the WAC, WCC, Big Sky and Big West. The consolidation of these down to three stronger conferences would mean the rising of the cream to the top. Gonzaga, Fresno State and Pepperdine, for example, would have more quality games against each other, while also having games to gather wins against the likes of Sacramento State and Idaho State.

My re-alignment of these four conferences would also mean that natural rivals would play twice, like Idaho vs. Idaho State. I'd also suggest moving Louisiana Tech, Tulsa, UTEP and SMU to conferences back east, and having Southern Utah and Denver join these three western conferences.

The same could be done on the east coast and in the midwest. I tried to make for geographical rivalries and travel partners when possible. All told, when the Mid-Major Regrouping Plan is complete, four conferences would be eliminated, and the independents plus three D-I newcomers (Savannah State, Gardner Webb, IPFW) would have homes.

Now to phase two: Each conference would be required to allow total participation in their conference tournament. The Big East would change their tournament to include the No. 13 and No. 14 teams, providing EVERY TEAM in Division I an opportunity to win 10 straight games and be national champs. This is the beauty of college hoops.

When the carnage is complete, there would be 27 automatic bids (with 11 smaller conferences strengthened), 37 at-large bids (add the Lunardi Principle and you've got 3-5 mid-major at-larges per year) and no Opening Round game. The majors like it (no changes to major conferences, more at-larges), the mid-majors like it (better schedules, more at-larges), the small conferences SHOULD like it, because in the event they have a great year and lose in the conference tourney, they have better at-large chances. And, of course, they don't have the humiliating Opening Round game.

I'm working out the details on how to implement NCAA assigned in-season mini-tournaments (eight teams apiece at locations like Maui, San Juan and Alaska) in a way that would allow teams to play up, guaranteeing chances for mid-majors to bump off big boys, and small schools to play some mid-majors. But that's more difficult.

Kevin Wilkinson
Dayton, Ohio

And people think I'm nuts! Seriously, Kevin, you are a big thinker and I like that. The first two flies in the ointment that I see are: 1) Some schools wouldn't be in position to resource the increased level of competition.
2) Many current conference alignments are football-related, and we're not accounting for that.

However, I'll put your message (and accompanying data) aside for off-season review.

I really enjoy your column on ESPN.com. I like your suggestion of teams having at least a .500 record in their conference to be considered for the NCAA Tournament. Some of the better mid-major teams that get at-large bids make the tournament very interesting.

I would like to suggest taking that a step further. How about applying that rule to entrants in the conference tournaments? I suppose it would have to be applied somewhat loosely so that the tournament could be planned for a given number of teams prior to it taking place.

Every year, it seems some team(s) in the 33rd to 35th ranked area gets bumped by a mediocre team winning its conference tournament. The regular season should count for more than conference tournament seeding. I can remember a couple years ago when at least two major conferences ended up that way. If I remember correctly, Saint Louis won the Conference USA tournament with a 15-14 record, and Arkansas won the SEC tournament with a similar record.

The other issue with this is the lower-ranked conferences that only get one representative. I would think they'd want to have their conference represented well. I'm from Bethlehem, Pa., home of Lehigh University. In 1985, Lehigh took their awesome 7-18 record into the conference tournament, got hot, won three games and went to the NCAA Tournament with a stellar 10-18 record. They were soundly thrashed by Patrick Ewing and Georgetown in the first round. John Thompson was very polite in his comments about Lehigh after the game, but they were the joke of the tournament.

Central Connecticut could be a sound representative from the Northeast Conference with a 77 RPI. It would be one thing if Wagner (14-6) knocked them out of the tournament, but Sacred Heart (6-15) has the same opportunity. They shouldn't. I know the conferences wouldn't make as much money, but the tournaments should be kept to the top four or six (or at most eight) teams, depending on the conference size. I know there are a couple conferences that exclude some teams, but not enough.

Thanks for letting me bend your ear (or eyes as it may be).

Tom Schaedler

The following words of yours cannot be taken lightly: "I know the conferences wouldn't make as much money."

If conference tourneys weren't, in most cases, profitable, they would not exist. Cutting their respective fields by a third or half is not the answer. Cutting them altogether would make more sense in terms of competitive fairness, instead awarding NCAA automatic bids based solely on regular season performance.

However, since we know the golden calf will not be slain, we might as well invite everyone to the party. People pay to see upsets, both in-person and on the tube. If only the acknowledged best teams played (and won), eventually there would be less interest in the competition. Kind of like major league baseball.

I cannot believe the out and out arrogance of some of the "power" conference fans, and their ignorance of basketball as well.

Most of the winners of the low-majors do not "stink." Some of them hold their own against the power conference teams. The teams that really stink in those conferences hold down the good teams because of their awful power ratings. Hampton beat Iowa State last year, but these guys think Hampton "stinks." Hampton plays good basketball.

I would call Valpo's conference low-major, yet they hold their own. IUPUI beat Georgia Tech at Georgia Tech. A lot of the SWAC and MEAC schools play nothing but cash games to boost their school's bottom line. That's not their fault.

And Gonzaga's conference choices may be limited by its size and academic mission. The WCC is mostly private, smaller, religious schools. They have similar resources and serve similar purposes. Why should they compromise that just to play in another athletic conference? I work at a small Division III school, and we chose our athletic conference because of academic mission and core values, rather than convenient geography or the desire for athletic success.

Plus, with scholarship limitations, the difference between the Big 10 and the MAC is shrinking. Yes, Duke would still whap Mount St. Mary's into submission, but how bad would Auburn beat Central Connecticut State (on a neutral court)? Not by much, I don't think.

I cannot believe these people have ever seen Butler play this year, or Ball State, or Gonzaga, or Pepperdine. They just have big conference myopia. Who cares about teams that can't finish .500 in their league? Having seen Ball State and Butler play, they would hold their own in ANY conference this year.

Scott Fendley
Crawfordsville, Ind.

Scott is a long-time, thoughtful reader. We appreciate his point(s) of view.

Scheduling Thoughts
I am currently in college studying to become a sports writer. Needless to say, I watch college basketball, as well as many other televised sports, with deep devotion. My favorite, however, is college basketball. I love the Michigan Wolverines and I cheer for the Big Ten when there they are not playing the U of M.

There is something about the NCAA tourney selections that angers me more this year than ever before. Teams "dodging" the competition. For instance: the Big East is projected to put 4-5 teams in the tourney (SU, ND, Miami, Pitt and UConn). Of the five projected teams, their non-conference SOS goes: SU-139, UConn-88, Pitt-254, ND-168 and Miami-194. They haven't played anyone and have struggled in a conference with no dominant team.

The Big East's conference RPI is No. 5, and most of the conference plays the same weak non-conference SOS. The Big East's record against opponents with an RPI in the Top 25 is 8-19. I think that it is unfair for these teams to be considered over much more deserving teams, because they have boosted their records by feasting on the cupcakes.

I am not saying that the U of M belongs in the tourney just because their SOS is in the 20s, but I am saying that teams with a low non-conference SOS should be punished. Do you agree with me on this subject?

Derek Hamilton

I agree with your scheduling thoughts more than your choice of careers. From the Big East's perspective, why schedule more difficult non-conference opponents if you are getting multiple teams into the bracket? It's up to the men's basketball committee to send that message.

C-USA vs. MWC
Your column is the best thing on the web about college basketball each week; I love it. First, can you explain the S-curve? Second, last week a reader asked you to compare the Mountain West and C-USA. To make the analysis fair, you arbitrarily included Wyoming from the MWC so each conference would have four teams. However, no one is arguing that Wyoming, with an RPI of 96 deserves to go to the tournament, nor should they be included to talk about deserving Utah, BYU and maybe New Mexico. Including Wyoming unfairly skews your results.

People abuse math and statistics all the time; this is a slight but salient example. If you wanted to be fair, you could have broken down those records per team, or dropped the fourth place C-USA team, the much-hyped Memphis. I'll eagerly await a response.

Toby Hyde
Washington, D.C.

Thanks for the kind words. Actually, hundreds of people have been arguing FOR Wyoming almost from the first bracket projections. Now that the Cowboys have won at Utah, no MWC contender list is complete without them. I think the comparison of these two conferences, while imperfect, made the point appropriately. Without the data is a more simple truth: The top teams in C-USA are significantly better than those at the top of the Mountain West, and there is a coattail effect accordingly.

Rules of Engagement
It was my understanding that your email address is put on the bottom of your column in order for people to communicate with you about their likes and dislikes of your articles. I'm now aware that it's put there not to communicate with you, but so people can communicate to you. If I had known you would not reply to any of my emails regarding your columns, I would have never bothered to send you my thoughts.

I guess I was thinking you actually reply to your email, but now I realize that's not the case. It would be nice if you answered people who challenged you in certain areas. However you must not be able to back up what you write.

Have a great day!

Howard Kaplan

First of all, Howard, nothing juices me more than a little "healthy" dialogue on my favorite subject. And there was a time, not all that long ago, when I did respond to every message sent. But more than a quarter-million of you are now viewing the Bracketology site each week and, as I write this (a boring Thursday afternoon), there are 554 unread messages in my queue. I scan them all and respond to some, then pick the best and most representative for Bracket Banter.

And I assure you there is not a single sentence of Bracketology that is not supported by enough data to choke a small dog. I've been called worse, after all.

Happy Hearts
I have a question for you. My husband says that Tulsa gets overlooked in the polls because of its new coach. My premise is that Tulsa has institutionalized excellence such that the predatory practices of larger conferences enticing our coaches (and recruits?) away-leaving us with a first-year coach far more often than most teams-shouldn't matter. Who is right?

Karen Raper
Maramec, Okla.

Far be it from me to start a Valentine's Day spousal argument. So let me answer by saying neither of you is correct. Tulsa is overlooked, if in fact it is overlooked, largely because it plays in a conference with mostly western teams that receive little eastern media exposure. Those late Thursday games at San Jose State or Hawaii just don't boil the blood of most poll voters (come to think of it, I'm not sure most poll voters have blood). Also, either by its own choosing or more likely by a refusal of "name" schools to play you, Tulsa doesn't pack much sizzle into its non-conference schedule. That's what's institutionalized here, in my humble opinion.

Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He is also editor and publisher of www.bracketology.net. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.