+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: CAAbbs (/forum-676.html)
+---- Forum: CAA Conference Talk (/forum-677.html)
+----- Forum: William & Mary (/forum-691.html)
+----- Thread: Lose our soul (/thread-844963.html)
Lose our soul - nj alum - 03-09-2018 07:42 AM
Purdue's basketball dinner was last night.
During the course of same, Head Coach Matt Painter apparently said that Purdue wants to get to the Final Four, but doesn't want to lose its soul in getting there.
Purdue's President, Mitch Daniels, lauded the men's basketball program as being a model given all of the problems in the sport.
I bring this up for two reasons.
First, Purdue's Holy Grail is the Final Four of the Dance. The Tribe's Holy Grail is making the Dance. Same event, different levels. This event is a problem because it's causing schools "to lose their souls". This event is a problem because it becomes the elephant in the room that obscures a program's other achievements and results.
Second, there are other schools in the land who have a problem with the landscape. We need to connect with those schools, and effectuate change ... starting with OOC schedules and the virtual ban of mid-major at large schools from the NCAA and NIT tourneys.
RE: Lose our soul - mrjoolius - 03-09-2018 09:43 AM
Unfortunately, college sports are big business. They could care less about mid major inequities. It's all about generating income and return on investment. Any inroads that midmajors make (ie- tournament wins and P5 upsets) take away from the pie that is available money. P5 schools want to eat the entire pie and try to get more. So a system propped up by a group angling for maximizing returns has less than zero interest in helping mid majors get more opportunities for exposure or advancement.
RE: Lose our soul - billymac - 03-09-2018 09:50 AM
Sad, but true.
I am always amazed that it took them as long as it did, to figure out that if they matched the Mid-Majors up against each other, in the first round, they could eliminate half of us right away...and put away those embarrassing upsets when a "lower" team actually has a level playing field and knocks one of the "mighty" off their perch.
My prediction: URI will get a decent seed...and be matched up against another Mid-Major.
Earlier Prediction: URI will NOT win the A-10 Tourney.
RE: Lose our soul - Zorch - 03-09-2018 10:52 AM
(03-09-2018 09:50 AM)billymac Wrote: Sad, but true.
I am always amazed that it took them as long as it did, to figure out that if they matched the Mid-Majors up against each other, in the first round, they could eliminate half of us right away...and put away those embarrassing upsets when a "lower" team actually has a level playing field and knocks one of the "mighty" off their perch.
My prediction: URI will get a decent seed...and be matched up against another Mid-Major.
Earlier Prediction: URI will NOT win the A-10 Tourney.
Everything is true. My only caveat is that sometimes those pesky mid-majors (Butler, VCU, Gonzaga, Middle Tenn, etc) are matched up in the second round. That is, they might give a power team a chance to beat them in round 1 but, heaven forbid, if two mid-majors are predicted to win (and do so) then they are guaranteed to lock horns in round 2. That way there is perhaps one Cinderella to make the Sweet 16 but unlikely to be two (unless there is a true Cinderella that nobody saw coming, like Richmond those years when it went to the sweet 16). CBS likes at least one Cinderella in the sweet 16 just to keep up the interest of those fans (like me) who don't give a crap about the power teams and watch the tournament ONLY for the upsets. When the mid-majors are eliminated I completely lose interest in the tournament.
Another major irritating thing they did was when they made four bottom-feeder conferences match up in two play-in games. However, to even it out bracket-wise, they also aligned four 11 seeds to duke it out in a play-in game. That actually gave the power schools at least two more invitations to the dance (because of the two seed 16 play-in games). They then took one or two mid-majors and put them in the seed 11 play-in games, hoping to knock them off there. Even if they win on Tuesday they won't win on Thursday and they absolutely will be too gassed to win on Saturday. That is what made VCU's Final Four run so great -- because they did it out of the play-in game!!!! And it cost mid-majors dearly because there have been even fewer mid-major at-larges since then. Lastly, the fact that the play-in games are played in Dayton (at least, in previous years; I don't know about this year) and then those teams have to travel to another site on their only off day and play again, is absolutely the most unfair thing that could be imagined and I do not understand why the non-P5 schools haven't banded together as a bloc to vote that out. I guess those teams are just happy to be there and, hey, they do get the TV all to themselves on those two days, so what is to complain about?
Lose our soul - Tribe32 - 03-09-2018 11:47 AM
Take the top 64 based on RPI, seed accordingly. Move teams around geographically to balance things out. Get rid of play in games. Problem solved.
RE: Lose our soul - mrjoolius - 03-09-2018 12:03 PM
I read all the time from disgruntled fans of major programs who argue that RPI is antiquated, bs, and needs to be eliminated. They argue that too many undeserving mid majors take spots away from the more deserving power schools. Can't make everyone happy, but it amuses me to hear fans from lesser P5 schools complain about the unfairness of including all these mid majors.
Bottom line. The major schools control the ncaa, the TV deals, and revenue shares. The lower tier schools are left to fight over the scraps and eat each other to try and get ahead or just stay afloat.
RE: Lose our soul - mrjoolius - 03-09-2018 12:28 PM
(03-09-2018 11:47 AM)Tribe32 Wrote: Take the top 64 based on RPI, seed accordingly. Move teams around geographically to balance things out. Get rid of play in games. Problem solved.Sounds great, but that would completely eliminate mids from the equation. Purely taking the top 64 would get rid of the league autobids and probably fill those seeds with 12th place ACC teams. Teams currently game the system when scheduling to set themselves up for the tournament. In that scenario, why would a high major ever play a mid? Better to just take losses from high RPI major schools than risk a loss from an average RPI mid when millions of dollars are at stake. The inclusion of mids through the auto bid is the only thing that the tournament has to make it seem like a fair opportunity.
RE: Lose our soul - bubbadog57 - 03-09-2018 12:46 PM
All this reflected, of course, in regular season games where you rarely ever see major conference teams travel to play at mid-major schools (heaven forbid they lose, which many would, at the mid-major school...this would be a killer to NCAA tourney chances).
I know W&M has tried everything to get a UVA, UNC or Va Tech (and, in one case, Georgetown) to play at Kaplan, including three or four road games for one home game here. No dice. It's so bad now that neither Richmond or VCU will come to Williamsburg on a home and home basis despite the close proximity and long term rivalries.
An effort was made some years ago to get UVA to play us in football at Zable for this coming season, to highlight W&M's 325th year and 125th year of football...an effort that even included getting state politicos
involved. It was laughed off.
It's a minor miracle that Tony has gotten George Mason to Kaplan next season
RE: Lose our soul - Tribe32 - 03-09-2018 12:53 PM
Then increase the tournament to 128 teams and add an extra round.
Or maybe just take the ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Pac 10, and Big 12 and make it their own league sponsored by Nike or Under Armor and let them play for a 25 million dollar winner take all. It would be more transparent than the current veiled attempt to make things "look" fair.
This is all sort of tongue in in cheek, but until we change how the NCAA operates we're just going to have more of the same.
(03-09-2018 12:28 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:(03-09-2018 11:47 AM)Tribe32 Wrote: Take the top 64 based on RPI, seed accordingly. Move teams around geographically to balance things out. Get rid of play in games. Problem solved.Sounds great, but that would completely eliminate mids from the equation. Purely taking the top 64 would get rid of the league autobids and probably fill those seeds with 12th place ACC teams. Teams currently game the system when scheduling to set themselves up for the tournament. In that scenario, why would a high major ever play a mid? Better to just take losses from high RPI major schools than risk a loss from an average RPI mid when millions of dollars are at stake. The inclusion of mids through the auto bid is the only thing that the tournament has to make it seem like a fair opportunity.
RE: Lose our soul - Zorch - 03-09-2018 02:22 PM
(03-09-2018 12:53 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:(03-09-2018 12:28 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:(03-09-2018 11:47 AM)Tribe32 Wrote: Take the top 64 based on RPI, seed accordingly. Move teams around geographically to balance things out. Get rid of play in games. Problem solved.Sounds great, but that would completely eliminate mids from the equation. Purely taking the top 64 would get rid of the league autobids and probably fill those seeds with 12th place ACC teams. Teams currently game the system when scheduling to set themselves up for the tournament. In that scenario, why would a high major ever play a mid? Better to just take losses from high RPI major schools than risk a loss from an average RPI mid when millions of dollars are at stake. The inclusion of mids through the auto bid is the only thing that the tournament has to make it seem like a fair opportunity.
Then increase the tournament to 128 teams and add an extra round.
Or maybe just take the ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Pac 10, and Big 12 and make it their own league sponsored by Nike or Under Armor and let them play for a 25 million dollar winner take all. It would be more transparent than the current veiled attempt to make things "look" fair.
This is all sort of tongue in in cheek, but until we change how the NCAA operates we're just going to have more of the same.
There is a very simple solution to the unfairness of it all but unfortunately it will never happen because of the money involved. The NCAA can jump in its time machine and go back to anytime before the mid 1970s. Why? Because back then only the conference champ went to the NCAA tournament. A bracket of 32 conference champions, seeded accordingly. How the conference chooses it champion is up to each conference. Back then, many leagues still did not even have a conference tournament and the regular season leader was champ. Fine. If the league wanted to have a tournament but with the understanding that if a bottom feeder won then that was the only representation that the league got in the NCAA tournament, then fine. Since nowadays every conference has a tournament then every team in America has a chance to win and go to the NCAA tournament. So it is still fair to everybody; the weeding out just occurs at the conference level (like it does now for one-bid conferences). And yes I fully understand the big boy complaint that the champs of all the lesser conferences are still worse than the #2 ACC team, thus unfair to the ACC. But I say that the #2 ACC team has its chance to win the ACC tourney and if it fails to do so, then tough.
If the above process actually happened, what we would see is all the mega-size conferences breaking up into smaller conferences so as to maximize the number of teams going to the NCAAT. There would probably wind up being 48 conferences, maybe eventually even 64 6-team conferences.
RE: Lose our soul - LeadBolt - 03-09-2018 02:39 PM
How about limiting the number of teams from each conference that can get a bid? If there was say a 4 bid limit per conference there would be more spots open for mid majors without penalizing the 2nd, 3rd or 4th ACC schools (those with double byes in their current format, whom they already favor.
RE: Lose our soul - TribePride91 - 03-09-2018 02:45 PM
The one thing I will add is that the CAA tournament and the smaller conference tourneys have a pressure that the big tourneys do not have. Look at the ACC semis tonight(all 4 of those teams are already in). But, in our league, even Charleston and Northeastern who had excellent seasons had no guarantee of a bid(even to the NIT for Northeastern) without a championship. As a result, the semi between W&M and Charleston and the final the next night had significant drama. It is like sudden death hockey. Or the great battle of the 70's between NC State and Maryland. Then, the ACC was a one bid league and Maryland lost an epic clash with NC State and ended up in the NIT. But, there is way too much money to ever see that again now.
RE: Lose our soul - TribePride91 - 03-09-2018 02:47 PM
(03-09-2018 02:39 PM)LeadBolt Wrote: How about limiting the number of teams from each conference that can get a bid? If there was say a 4 bid limit per conference there would be more spots open for mid majors without penalizing the 2nd, 3rd or 4th ACC schools (those with double byes in their current format, whom they already favor.
The big conferences run the tourney. They might agree to "limit" their bids to 32 of the 36 available. Their argument is that a third of the teams are still from smaller conferences.
RE: Lose our soul - Rocco - 03-09-2018 02:53 PM
(03-09-2018 02:39 PM)LeadBolt Wrote: How about limiting the number of teams from each conference that can get a bid? If there was say a 4 bid limit per conference there would be more spots open for mid majors without penalizing the 2nd, 3rd or 4th ACC schools (those with double byes in their current format, whom they already favor.
No one really cares about the mid-majors. People say they do, but they want to watch Kentucky.
RE: Lose our soul - TribePride91 - 03-09-2018 02:57 PM
Many of the fans of Virginia and other big schools would rather a few more Cinderellas get into the tourney. A) they think they are going to beat Cinderella and advance B) they often despise seeing a team for the 3rd or 4th time in a year go on a run and beat them(see Syracuse a few years ago). But, the schools love the large tourney share that they get from that 10th ACC school too much to allow it to change. They will say Middle Tenn or Northeastern could not go 7-11 in the ACC and shouldn't be in. But, it definitely is the best part of the first 4 days of the NCAA tournament for me. VCU and George Mason making it to the final four led to a significant change in the criteria for selection, a reduction in reasonable games for mid majors, an elimination of the BracketBusters weekend in Feb for mid major programs, and the beginning of pairing mids against each other in the first round of the tournament. The next step is to make more of the auto qualifiers play an additional game just to get to Thursday or Friday. To see it change would take an actual outcry from the media and some of the haves. I do at least give UVA credit for playing one in state rival(other than VT) each year. Sometimes, that game has even been on the road. I saw on the UNCW board that UNC once played UNCW in Myrtle Beach. But, I cannot give the Tar Heels credit for much of anything these days.
RE: Lose our soul - FUATT - 03-10-2018 02:35 AM
A couple of things that could help the mid-majors chances -
1. Limit at-large bids to teams with winning conference records. If you can't do that or win your conference tournament you shouldn't be in the NCAA tournament anyway. Half of your games are home. If you can't even defend your home court why be rewarded with a bid?
2. Provide more incentive for playing non conference games on the road. For example, a point system that gives 3 points for a road win and 1 point for a home court win. If Syracuse wants to play seven mid-majors at home, fine. They win all seven and get 7 points. If a Notre Dame decides to play three at home and four on the road and wins the home games but splits the road games they lose two but still get 9 points. Big win-win for the mid-majors. Win and get a prestigious win. Lose and you still get increased fan interest and attendance. And P5 fans often aren't happy with a lot of mid-major games at home anyway.
You can include bonus points for playing higher rated teams both home and away too.
RE: Lose our soul - mrjoolius - 03-10-2018 06:00 AM
All great ideas from a mid major prospective. Problem is, from a money making and powers that be prospective, the mid majors don't even have a seat at the table. You'd have to have ncaa leadership truly care about balancing the field, while at the same time not worrying about some of the profits from prominent members. I can't see it happening.
RE: Lose our soul - NC Tribe - 03-10-2018 09:52 AM
(03-09-2018 09:50 AM)billymac Wrote: Sad, but true.
I am always amazed that it took them as long as it did, to figure out that if they matched the Mid-Majors up against each other, in the first round, they could eliminate half of us right away...and put away those embarrassing upsets when a "lower" team actually has a level playing field and knocks one of the "mighty" off their perch.
My prediction: URI will get a decent seed...and be matched up against another Mid-Major.
Earlier Prediction: URI will NOT win the A-10 Tourney.
Agree, because Davidson will win the A-10 tourney. Go Cats!
RE: Lose our soul - NC Tribe - 03-10-2018 10:04 AM
Let's be serious. The P5 conferences have gone the mega conference route. The ACC has 15 teams for hoops, there will never be a limit on the number of teams from one conference going to the Big Dance.
The harsh reality is that the Tribe has only had two teams in the last 36 seasons that really deserved serious consideration for an at large bid, 1983 and 2010. We really haven't gotten shafted, except with having to go on the road in the NIT the three times we made that tournament.
We play non Division 1 regular season opponents, so our administration isn't even taking the possibility of an at large bid seriously.
For us it is all about testing ourselves while still building confidence in the non conference portion of the schedule, winning enough in the conference portion to get a decent seed for the CAA tourney, and then winning our conference tournament.
Anything short of an almost perfect record will exclude us from an at large bid. That is just a fact of life in our league with its current membership.
RE: Lose our soul - LeadBolt - 03-10-2018 10:22 AM
(03-10-2018 10:04 AM)NC Tribe Wrote: Let's be serious. The P5 conferences have gone the mega conference route. The ACC has 15 teams for hoops, there will never be a limit on the number of teams from one conference going to the Big Dance.
The harsh reality is that the Tribe has only had two teams in the last 36 seasons that really deserved serious consideration for an at large bid, 1983 and 2010. We really haven't gotten shafted, except with having to go on the road in the NIT the three times we made that tournament.
We play non Division 1 regular season opponents, so our administration isn't even taking the possibility of an at large bid seriously.
For us it is all about testing ourselves while still building confidence in the non conference portion of the schedule, winning enough in the conference portion to get a decent seed for the CAA tourney, and then winning our conference tournament.
Anything short of an almost perfect record will exclude us from an at large bid. That is just a fact of life in our league with its current membership.
You are correct that this is the harsh reality.
I suppose that we should drop the idealistic hope that we should collectively pursue some sort of action strategy with other non-P5 institutions through the NCAA to try and alter current reality to be less harsh the to the other than P5 institutions which make up the majority of D1 members.
We are not likely to get a Brown vs Board of Education type ruling in our favor.