Attached is my estimate of the conference payouts for 2018 from the NCAA Basketball Fund based upon the results of the last six NCAA tournaments. I've included an "adjusted" tab to reassign the units earned by the C7 and Notre Dame that they were able to take with them when they left the old Big East. I've also included a "pro forma" tab to show what the conference payouts would be based on current conference membership.
For the third year in a row, the ACC earned the most NCAA tournament units with 18. Here are the final standings for units earned in the 2017 tournament:
ACC 18
SEC 16
B12 15
B1G 15
P12 14
BE 13
WCC 7
A10 4
AAC 3
MVC 2
CUSA 2
BW 2
NEC 2
Pretty clear line between P6 and the rest of the conferences
I fully expect that to continue to widen
(03-27-2017 08:12 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty clear line between P6 and the rest of the conferences
I fully expect that to continue to widen
I'm not so sure. I think there is still a chance the AAC can put it all together. They have really all the pieces to do just that- especially if they add Wichita. I know you as a Big East fan don't want to say that- but it's reality. I just think a conference with UConn, Cincy, Memphis, Temple, Wichita, and even now SMU, Houston, and UCF(playing in NIT SF tomorrow)- has a chance to have a lot of years where they get 5 or 6 teams in and have some runs in the tourney. I mean this year the league had 16 losses OOC by less than 5 points. They get some of those games turned around, and it's a different league.
(03-27-2017 07:10 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]Bump
I get that you're trying to get people to forget that, on the court, this tournament was a big bust for the ACC, but you get a billion credits when you put 9 teams in the tournament, something that is given to you not earned, even if they perform collectively much worse than expected. For context, we could have a chart that shows how many credits each conference should have earned, based on seed.
lets look at what the difference is between expected units and actual units.... Counting play in teams as the 1 for the PIG game and then .5 for the winner of that game...
ACC- actual 18 should have had 23.5 -5.5
SEC- actual 16 should have had 12 +4
B12- actual 15 should have had 15.5 -0.5
B10- actual 15 should have had 14 +1
P12- actual 14 should have had 11.5 +2.5
BE- actual 13 should have had 14.5 -1.5
so for someone to feel great about the ACC this year in the tourney is a joke. They were a bust. period, end of story.
(03-27-2017 08:12 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty clear line between P6 and the rest of the conferences
I fully expect that to continue to widen
Looks like it.
No wonder we hear comments and rumors of UConn wanting into the Big East. With the Big East TV deal at $4 million/team plus $1.1 million just in tourney credits (and that's only in 4 years) that will continued to get bigger as the 6 year average increase for the Big East.
That basically means the Big East gets about $2 million more than the AAC currently(with TV + Current credits) and the AAC will be dropping those credits off in which there will be a bigger gap between the BE and AAC.
Seem like the AAC, just to keep even with the Big East, will need to have ESPN pay more than double the current contract just to keep almost even with them.
(03-27-2017 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2017 07:10 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]Bump
I get that you're trying to get people to forget that, on the court, this tournament was a big bust for the ACC, but you get a billion credits when you put 9 teams in the tournament, something that is given to you not earned, even if they perform collectively much worse than expected. For context, we could have a chart that shows how many credits each conference should have earned, based on seed.
You do not earn your tournament spot over the course of an entire season? You can likely make a case for someone replacing WF, as they were among the last 4 in, but the rest of the ACC earned their spot. But yes, collectively the ACC was a bust in this tournament.
(03-27-2017 08:52 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2017 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2017 07:10 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]Bump
I get that you're trying to get people to forget that, on the court, this tournament was a big bust for the ACC, but you get a billion credits when you put 9 teams in the tournament, something that is given to you not earned, even if they perform collectively much worse than expected. For context, we could have a chart that shows how many credits each conference should have earned, based on seed.
You do not earn your tournament spot over the course of an entire season?
If by earned we mean "won it on the court independent of anyone's opinion", which to me is the best definition, the only teams that actually earned a tournament bid were each conference's automatic qualifier. All at-large teams, whether they were 18-15 and scraped by on the bubble or were 29-4 and clearly were one of the ten best teams, were invited via the opinion of the committee, who could have chosen someone else.
(03-27-2017 08:34 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]lets look at what the difference is between expected units and actual units.... Counting play in teams as the 1 for the PIG game and then .5 for the winner of that game...
ACC- actual 18 should have had 23.5 -5.5
SEC- actual 16 should have had 12 +4
B12- actual 15 should have had 15.5 -0.5
B10- actual 15 should have had 14 +1
P12- actual 14 should have had 11.5 +2.5
BE- actual 13 should have had 14.5 -1.5
The B1G might be a surprise, because probably the two thoughts that come to mind about their tournament are (a) they put 7 teams in the tournament, but (b) none of them advanced to the Elite 8. And (a) + (b) seems to add up to "B1G Bust".
But truth is, of those seven seeds, only one, Purdue, was a 4-seed or better, meaning they were only expected to place 1 team in the sweet 16, and they actually placed three.
So overall, the B1G did better than expected.
Now, bigger picture, you can definitely claim that the B1G was relatively weak this year because it really didn't have a top-15 team, and that would be true. But as far as tourney performance alone was concerned it did well.
(03-27-2017 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2017 07:10 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]Bump
I get that you're trying to get people to forget that, on the court, this tournament was a big bust for the ACC, but you get a billion credits when you put 9 teams in the tournament, something that is given to you not earned, even if they perform collectively much worse than expected. For context, we could have a chart that shows how many credits each conference should have earned, based on seed.
I'm quite confident that nobody is going to forget the rough performance by the ACC in the second round. However, I wouldn't read too much into this year's disappointing results, just as I wouldn't read too much into last year's tremendous run by ACC schools. In general, this is why the NCAA distributes the Basketball Fund based upon six years worth of data, not just one. Things tend to even themselves out.
The ACC's performance this year was actually very similar to the Big East's performance in 2011, when it received 11 bids. Four of the 11 lost in the Round of 64, and five more lost in the Round of 32. The Big East still earned 22 units that year, the most of any conference that year, and among the highest totals ever.
(03-27-2017 10:24 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2017 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2017 07:10 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]Bump
I get that you're trying to get people to forget that, on the court, this tournament was a big bust for the ACC, but you get a billion credits when you put 9 teams in the tournament, something that is given to you not earned, even if they perform collectively much worse than expected. For context, we could have a chart that shows how many credits each conference should have earned, based on seed.
I'm quite confident that nobody is going to forget the rough performance by the ACC in the second round. However, I wouldn't read too much into this year's disappointing results, just as I wouldn't read too much into last year's tremendous run by ACC schools. In general, this is why the NCAA distributes the Basketball Fund based upon six years worth of data, not just one. Things tend to even themselves out.
The ACC's performance this year was actually very similar to the Big East's performance in 2011, when it received 11 bids. Four of the 11 lost in the Round of 64, and five more lost in the Round of 32. The Big East still earned 22 units that year, the most of any conference that year, and among the highest totals ever.
Yep, the Big East was a Big Bust in the 2011 tournament, similar to this year's ACC.
And there is likely to be one more similarity: One Big East team carried on all the way to the title, which seems likely now for Carolina as well.
(03-27-2017 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2017 10:24 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2017 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2017 07:10 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]Bump
I get that you're trying to get people to forget that, on the court, this tournament was a big bust for the ACC, but you get a billion credits when you put 9 teams in the tournament, something that is given to you not earned, even if they perform collectively much worse than expected. For context, we could have a chart that shows how many credits each conference should have earned, based on seed.
I'm quite confident that nobody is going to forget the rough performance by the ACC in the second round. However, I wouldn't read too much into this year's disappointing results, just as I wouldn't read too much into last year's tremendous run by ACC schools. In general, this is why the NCAA distributes the Basketball Fund based upon six years worth of data, not just one. Things tend to even themselves out.
The ACC's performance this year was actually very similar to the Big East's performance in 2011, when it received 11 bids. Four of the 11 lost in the Round of 64, and five more lost in the Round of 32. The Big East still earned 22 units that year, the most of any conference that year, and among the highest totals ever.
Yep, the Big East was a Big Bust in the 2011 tournament, similar to this year's ACC.
And there is likely to be one more similarity: One Big East team carried on all the way to the title, which seems likely now for Carolina as well.
Unless, of course, Carolina continues its long standing tradition of losing its star point guards to injury during the tournament. Joel Berry now has two gimpy ankles, having rolled the left one yesterday against Kentucky. Last week he was getting around with a walking boot on the right ankle. Can you wear two walking boots at the same time? Carolina is a very different team without Berry.