(12-08-2011 07:04 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 04:59 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Frank that's such bull$H!t. In a home field advantage 8-team playoff they can play at their home field in round #1, which 95% of the time will go to an SEC, B10, P12 type of school and they're still making money hand over fist due to ticket sales.

As a matter of fact they'll make even more than in this archaic bowl systsem. Play round one at home fields and save the last 2 rounds for the 3 most historic bowls. Orange, Sugar and Rose. If B10 and/or P12 are in the final 4 they get to play in the Rose........problem solved.

Top eight in the final poll makes the playoff. Eight teams play in the four big New Years Day Bowls. #1 plays #8, #2 plays #7, etc. Top seed can rotate around the bowls over the four year cycle. All Bowl games completely relevant. Four Bowl winners playoff over two weeks. NCAA bids out the playoff sites. If the Bowl committes want to lock in a conference like the Rose Bowl, fine, but a member of the conference must be in the top eight. If the B1G and Pac 12 can't get a team in the top eight they dont need to be in the Rose Bowl anyway.

So...round one is at neutral bowl sites and round 2 and Championship games are at some other "rotating" neutral sites? There's no way that will work. Fans aren't going to travel that much. That's why I've got round one with a home field advantage PLUS that actually gives the top schools a chance to pocket their own money since they'll get raped on the final 4 ticket purchasing requirement.

You need 8 conferences with at least 9 teams. You play 8 conference games. 4 home, 4 away. You can schedule anyone else you want. Those games don't count for, or against you. Conference winners go to an 8-team, 3-week playoff. The rest of the schools can go to bowls if they want.

This would have excluded Alabama this year. If you can't win your conference you don't get in.

1 or 2 teams may get in that are not in the top 8. Is that any different than some of the first round BB Tourny match ups?

(12-08-2011 07:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:06 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 05:18 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  When UConn starts sharing revenue and opportunities with the Sun Belt, then you might have enough moral authority to criticize the B10.

When a team from the Sun Belt is good enough, I have no problem sharing the revenue with them.

Butler and VCU were in the Final Four last year. Butler was also there the year before, and another team from VCU's conference, George Mason, was there recently. They are more than "good enough". Chances are, if you gave those "little guys" more opportunities in the tournament, and better seeding, more of them would go deep in the tournament more often. So how about giving their conferences as much money as the Big East gets and the same number of places in the tournament?

LOL. BE teams earned their places in the tournament. When 8 teams from the Sunbelt played good games and have good resumes, they should all go in. I don't have a problem with that.

(12-08-2011 07:47 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:06 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 05:18 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  When UConn starts sharing revenue and opportunities with the Sun Belt, then you might have enough moral authority to criticize the B10.

When a team from the Sun Belt is good enough, I have no problem sharing the revenue with them.

Butler and VCU were in the Final Four last year. Butler was also there the year before, and another team from VCU's conference, George Mason, was there recently. They are more than "good enough". Chances are, if you gave those "little guys" more opportunities in the tournament, and better seeding, more of them would go deep in the tournament more often. So how about giving their conferences as much money as the Big East gets and the same number of places in the tournament?

LOL. BE teams earned their places in the tournament. When 8 teams from the Sunbelt played good games and have good resumes, they should all go in. I don't have a problem with that.

We're not talking about the Sun Belt. Butler, VCU, and Mason are not in the Sun Belt. We're talking about conferences that have proven their teams belong, and deserve to get more teams in the tournament, and would if the NCAA's committee put a lid on the number of teams per conference and ended its reliance on bogus RPI ratings that reward teams who lose to a lot of good teams even if they beat almost none of them.

But if you think an unlimited number of teams from one "big name" conference is ok, then it's ok for football, too, right? So, in your view, the SEC ought to have four teams in BCS bowl games because they have four teams in the top ten, and conferences that don't put teams in the BCS top ten are SOL. Right?

(12-08-2011 11:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:47 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:06 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 05:18 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  When UConn starts sharing revenue and opportunities with the Sun Belt, then you might have enough moral authority to criticize the B10.

When a team from the Sun Belt is good enough, I have no problem sharing the revenue with them.

Butler and VCU were in the Final Four last year. Butler was also there the year before, and another team from VCU's conference, George Mason, was there recently. They are more than "good enough". Chances are, if you gave those "little guys" more opportunities in the tournament, and better seeding, more of them would go deep in the tournament more often. So how about giving their conferences as much money as the Big East gets and the same number of places in the tournament?

LOL. BE teams earned their places in the tournament. When 8 teams from the Sunbelt played good games and have good resumes, they should all go in. I don't have a problem with that.

We're not talking about the Sun Belt. Butler, VCU, and Mason are not in the Sun Belt. We're talking about conferences that have proven their teams belong, and deserve to get more teams in the tournament, and would if the NCAA's committee put a lid on the number of teams per conference and ended its reliance on bogus RPI ratings that reward teams who lose to a lot of good teams even if they beat almost none of them.

But if you think an unlimited number of teams from one "big name" conference is ok, then it's ok for football, too, right? So, in your view, the SEC ought to have four teams in BCS bowl games because they have four teams in the top ten, and conferences that don't put teams in the BCS top ten are SOL. Right?

I believe conference champs should have the auto bid. The rest will be at-large teams. If they are all SEC teams, so be it. Do I believe SEC always have the best teams? Not even close. SEC is on the receiving end of media hype yearly. Since SEC teams rarely if ever play on the road against good teams, no one really know how good they are most of the time. ESPN hypes them daily but it does not mean they are much better than everyone else every year. In basketball, at least you see a lot more inter-conference games.

I also believe you need to take human voting out of the poll completely because coaches and conferences vote with prejudice. If they are going to allow human voting, they should do it in the open where everyone's votes should be open for examination.

(12-09-2011 12:03 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 11:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:47 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:06 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  When a team from the Sun Belt is good enough, I have no problem sharing the revenue with them.

Butler and VCU were in the Final Four last year. Butler was also there the year before, and another team from VCU's conference, George Mason, was there recently. They are more than "good enough". Chances are, if you gave those "little guys" more opportunities in the tournament, and better seeding, more of them would go deep in the tournament more often. So how about giving their conferences as much money as the Big East gets and the same number of places in the tournament?

LOL. BE teams earned their places in the tournament. When 8 teams from the Sunbelt played good games and have good resumes, they should all go in. I don't have a problem with that.

We're not talking about the Sun Belt. Butler, VCU, and Mason are not in the Sun Belt. We're talking about conferences that have proven their teams belong, and deserve to get more teams in the tournament, and would if the NCAA's committee put a lid on the number of teams per conference and ended its reliance on bogus RPI ratings that reward teams who lose to a lot of good teams even if they beat almost none of them.

But if you think an unlimited number of teams from one "big name" conference is ok, then it's ok for football, too, right? So, in your view, the SEC ought to have four teams in BCS bowl games because they have four teams in the top ten, and conferences that don't put teams in the BCS top ten are SOL. Right?

I believe conference champs should have the auto bid. The rest will be at-large teams. If they are all SEC teams, so be it. Do I believe SEC always have the best teams? Not even close. SEC is on the receiving end of media hype yearly. Since SEC teams rarely if ever play on the road against good teams, no one really know how good they are most of the time. ESPN hypes them daily but it does not mean they are much better than everyone else every year. In basketball, at least you see a lot more inter-conference games.

I also believe you need to take human voting out of the poll completely because coaches and conferences vote with prejudice. If they are going to allow human voting, they should do it in the open where everyone's votes should be open for examination.

So the point that I'm making here is that if you want equality in football, you should want the same in basketball. In reality basketball is just a bit closer to being "fair", but not as close as you think.

You want 11 football conference champs to have autobids? Not in the BCS games, obviously, because they only have room for 10 teams total. If you want a playoff like basketball, well, in hoops there are now exactly as many autobids as at-large teams, 34 each. To do that in football, you need at least 22 teams in the tournament. If you only have a 16-team tournament, then you're saying that the MAC champ gets in but the second-place team in the Big Ten (I picked them because they had the lowest-rated second place team this year out of the Pac, B1G, SEC, ACC, and Big 12) doesn't and third-place teams almost never get in. I doubt you would be in favor of a basketball tournament that gave an autobid to the champs of the most marginal conferences and no bid at all to the third-best team in the Big East.

"SEC is on the receiving end of media hype yearly." Absolutely, SEC football gets a ton of media hype. So does Big East basketball. To hear the ESPiN guys talk, you'd think that every Big East basketball win is a quality win and every loss is a tough loss to one of the best teams in the country. Which is exactly how they talk about SEC football.

I agree that college football voting, if they're going to ever use it to create a playoff, should be public. Every vote public, every week. But we should get that openness in hoops, too. We should know which NCAA tournament committee members wanted certain at-large teams in and which other teams out. We should know which committee members were so dead wrong last year when they gave Butler an 8-seed and put VCU in the First Four, when we know from the results both teams were much better than the committee thought they were. Heck, with VCU being in the First Four, that probably means at least 3 or 4 committee members, maybe more, didn't want VCU in the tournament at all and were probably pushing for a 12th Big East team or a 9th ACC team or whatever. Let's make all of those votes public and make the committee members accountable for their biases and prejudices.

(12-09-2011 12:03 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 11:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:47 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:06 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  When a team from the Sun Belt is good enough, I have no problem sharing the revenue with them.

Butler and VCU were in the Final Four last year. Butler was also there the year before, and another team from VCU's conference, George Mason, was there recently. They are more than "good enough". Chances are, if you gave those "little guys" more opportunities in the tournament, and better seeding, more of them would go deep in the tournament more often. So how about giving their conferences as much money as the Big East gets and the same number of places in the tournament?

LOL. BE teams earned their places in the tournament. When 8 teams from the Sunbelt played good games and have good resumes, they should all go in. I don't have a problem with that.

We're not talking about the Sun Belt. Butler, VCU, and Mason are not in the Sun Belt. We're talking about conferences that have proven their teams belong, and deserve to get more teams in the tournament, and would if the NCAA's committee put a lid on the number of teams per conference and ended its reliance on bogus RPI ratings that reward teams who lose to a lot of good teams even if they beat almost none of them.

But if you think an unlimited number of teams from one "big name" conference is ok, then it's ok for football, too, right? So, in your view, the SEC ought to have four teams in BCS bowl games because they have four teams in the top ten, and conferences that don't put teams in the BCS top ten are SOL. Right?

I believe conference champs should have the auto bid. The rest will be at-large teams. If they are all SEC teams, so be it. Do I believe SEC always have the best teams? Not even close. SEC is on the receiving end of media hype yearly. Since SEC teams rarely if ever play on the road against good teams, no one really know how good they are most of the time. ESPN hypes them daily but it does not mean they are much better than everyone else every year. In basketball, at least you see a lot more inter-conference games.

I also believe you need to take human voting out of the poll completely because coaches and conferences vote with prejudice. If they are going to allow human voting, they should do it in the open where everyone's votes should be open for examination.

http://www.pollspeak.com/

Every voter on every poll.

(12-09-2011 12:43 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(12-09-2011 12:03 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 11:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:47 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Butler and VCU were in the Final Four last year. Butler was also there the year before, and another team from VCU's conference, George Mason, was there recently. They are more than "good enough". Chances are, if you gave those "little guys" more opportunities in the tournament, and better seeding, more of them would go deep in the tournament more often. So how about giving their conferences as much money as the Big East gets and the same number of places in the tournament?

LOL. BE teams earned their places in the tournament. When 8 teams from the Sunbelt played good games and have good resumes, they should all go in. I don't have a problem with that.

We're not talking about the Sun Belt. Butler, VCU, and Mason are not in the Sun Belt. We're talking about conferences that have proven their teams belong, and deserve to get more teams in the tournament, and would if the NCAA's committee put a lid on the number of teams per conference and ended its reliance on bogus RPI ratings that reward teams who lose to a lot of good teams even if they beat almost none of them.

But if you think an unlimited number of teams from one "big name" conference is ok, then it's ok for football, too, right? So, in your view, the SEC ought to have four teams in BCS bowl games because they have four teams in the top ten, and conferences that don't put teams in the BCS top ten are SOL. Right?

I believe conference champs should have the auto bid. The rest will be at-large teams. If they are all SEC teams, so be it. Do I believe SEC always have the best teams? Not even close. SEC is on the receiving end of media hype yearly. Since SEC teams rarely if ever play on the road against good teams, no one really know how good they are most of the time. ESPN hypes them daily but it does not mean they are much better than everyone else every year. In basketball, at least you see a lot more inter-conference games.

I also believe you need to take human voting out of the poll completely because coaches and conferences vote with prejudice. If they are going to allow human voting, they should do it in the open where everyone's votes should be open for examination.

http://www.pollspeak.com/

Every voter on every poll.

That's the AP poll. It is meaningless to the BCS because BCS does not use it. They need to make Coaches' poll and Harris Poll public weekly. They don't.

Frankly, I would just let computers rank the teams. Computers are not perfect, but at least they don't vote with bias agenda in mind every week.

(12-09-2011 01:04 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  Frankly, I would just let computers rank the teams. Computers are not perfect, but at least they don't vote with bias agenda in mind every week.

The computer ratings are biased. The bias comes in what factors the "programmer" thinks are more important and which factors he or she thinks are less important.

If you want to create a computer rating that gives a team a lot of points for losing often to good teams and almost no points for winning 90% of its games against so-called lesser teams, then your computer would be biased in favor of SEC football, that's how you get 4 or 5 SEC teams in the computers' top ten (and the computer ratings do the same kind of favor for Big East basketball).

You could alternatively create a system that strongly rewards a high winning percentage, and gives bonus points for winning road games, and gives limited bonuses for strength of schedule but only if the team wins a high percentage of those "tough" games. That would help teams like Boise State in football and Gonzaga in basketball.

Either way, those computer ratings are biased; it's just a different kind of bias.

(12-09-2011 01:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-09-2011 01:04 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  Frankly, I would just let computers rank the teams. Computers are not perfect, but at least they don't vote with bias agenda in mind every week.

The computer ratings are biased. The bias comes in what factors the "programmer" thinks are more important and which factors he or she thinks are less important.

If you want to create a computer rating that gives a team a lot of points for losing often to good teams and almost no points for winning 90% of its games against so-called lesser teams, then your computer would be biased in favor of SEC football, that's how you get 4 or 5 SEC teams in the computers' top ten (and the computer ratings do the same kind of favor for Big East basketball).

You could alternatively create a system that strongly rewards a high winning percentage, and gives bonus points for winning road games, and gives limited bonuses for strength of schedule but only if the team wins a high percentage of those "tough" games. That would help teams like Boise State in football and Gonzaga in basketball.

Either way, those computer ratings are biased; it's just a different kind of bias.

I agree with you. Computer polls are bias because their programmers are bias. However, if you have 6-10 different models, they might average it out. Computers at least will apply the same bias for all the teams.

For example, road wins should count A LOT more in college football than home games. Since SEC teams never leave their home stadium or home state, they should be punished for that in the computers. Computers should reward teams that win big on the road against good competition.

(12-08-2011 05:18 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 05:04 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 04:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 02:59 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  The only thing I don't understand is why this is taking so long. Even the BCS bowls. Is there some reason why the Rose Bowl isn't the property of the PAC and the Big Ten? I mean until a few years ago, no other conferences ever even had a participant in it. And why isn't the Sugar Bowl the property of the SEC? All of these bowls are classic examples of middlemen entities that add no value.

Here's the thing: the Big Ten and other power conferences also see the NCAA itself as the middleman. They think they're the ones that bring in the money for the NCAA Tournament (as the Davids can't become Davids in the first place without beating the Goliaths) yet they see that income completely redistributed. They do NOT want that to happen to college football.

The NCAA has stated that it wouldn't get involved with a plus-one. However, anything further than that (8-team playoff or more) would require the NCAA to run it, which the power conferences won't ever let happen. This is why at least a plus-one is a viable option compared to a larger playoff. They'd rather take a $20 million BCS payout in a system that they control versus $25 million in a playoff format that the NCAA controls.

Perhaps the government need to force these guys either come to the table or starting paying huge taxes on their annual profits. These are public institutions funded by state government and they are acting like bunch of outlaw street thugs. If you don't have a NCAA neutral type of organization overlooking the system, the f**k the system and blow it all up. They need to adopt the same system that runs the NCAA basketball. B1G, SEC and PAC-12 can go f**k themselves.

When UConn starts sharing revenue and opportunities with the Sun Belt, then you might have enough moral authority to criticize the B10.

That doesn't bother me at all. I don't feel the concept of laissez-faire should apply to sports, but that's just me...

Of course, the dollar bill will always get in the way.

(12-09-2011 01:20 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-09-2011 01:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-09-2011 01:04 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  Frankly, I would just let computers rank the teams. Computers are not perfect, but at least they don't vote with bias agenda in mind every week.

The computer ratings are biased. The bias comes in what factors the "programmer" thinks are more important and which factors he or she thinks are less important.

If you want to create a computer rating that gives a team a lot of points for losing often to good teams and almost no points for winning 90% of its games against so-called lesser teams, then your computer would be biased in favor of SEC football, that's how you get 4 or 5 SEC teams in the computers' top ten (and the computer ratings do the same kind of favor for Big East basketball).

You could alternatively create a system that strongly rewards a high winning percentage, and gives bonus points for winning road games, and gives limited bonuses for strength of schedule but only if the team wins a high percentage of those "tough" games. That would help teams like Boise State in football and Gonzaga in basketball.

Either way, those computer ratings are biased; it's just a different kind of bias.

I agree with you. Computer polls are bias because their programmers are bias. However, if you have 6-10 different models, they might average it out. Computers at least will apply the same bias for all the teams.

For example, road wins should count A LOT more in college football than home games. Since SEC teams never leave their home stadium or home state, they should be punished for that in the computers. Computers should reward teams that win big on the road against good competition.

No argument there, although the team that would get the biggest reward this year for leaving home and winning big games is LSU. They beat two BCS bowl teams on the road and one at a neutral site. And Bama won at Penn State this year. Though SEC teams have often scheduled very soft in non-conference, this year all of the ranked SEC teams played at least one ranked non-conference opponent (while also playing at least one cupcake, like pretty much every top team does).

Ok State, K-State, Wisconsin, and Va Tech would have been penalized by a computer rating that rewarded quality non-conference opponents and quality road wins.

Waaahhhh.

VT-UM or KSU- UM? I'm sorry, but does it really matter? The Champs bowl with FSU-ND will be a he** of a lot more interesting.

(12-08-2011 07:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:06 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 05:18 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  When UConn starts sharing revenue and opportunities with the Sun Belt, then you might have enough moral authority to criticize the B10.

When a team from the Sun Belt is good enough, I have no problem sharing the revenue with them.

Butler and VCU were in the Final Four last year. Butler was also there the year before, and another team from VCU's conference, George Mason, was there recently. They are more than "good enough". Chances are, if you gave those "little guys" more opportunities in the tournament, and better seeding, more of them would go deep in the tournament more often. So how about giving their conferences as much money as the Big East gets and the same number of places in the tournament?

Shaking my head at this part of the thread since I'm not following the logic. As FTT already pointed out, the big boy conferences are already sharing a great deal of the wealth in college basketball with the smaller conferences (not to mention being the cash cow that pays for the NCAA organization).

So, in essence, the UConns of college basketball are already sharing bb monies with the "David" Sun Belt like teams way more than the LSUs are sharing the monies in terms of football.

If college basketball had a set-up similar to college football where RPI and two human polls determined a 10 team playoff where only the top 4 finishers were guaranteed a spot - Memphis in 2007-08 and San Diego State last year would have made it. Meaning the Butlers, the VCUs, and the George Masons would never even have had the opportunity to prove their ability on the court.

These are the most pertinent points to make in terms of the differences between college football and college basketball.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-08-2011 07:04 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  If the B1G and Pac 12 can't get a team in the top eight they dont need to be in the Rose Bowl anyway.

The Rose Bowl is run by a non-profit organization in Pasadena with very strong ties to the B1G and PAC. The bowl will never abandon the B1G/PAC and the B1G/PAC will never abandon the bowl.

The NCAA can't force the Rose Bowl to invite someone it doesn't want to. And it can't stop the B1G/PAC from staging a game there if they want to.

Any system that wants to include the PAC/B1G has to convince them to sign on voluntarily, like the current BCS. The attitude of "screw them, this is how we're doing it" won't work.

They've already killed the magic of the bowls by stretching it out a week. It was so much better with a New Year's day bowl-a-thon. I could handle a plus one beyond that, but as it is, the system and schedule has destroyed my interest. If they keep the bowls, they need to compress the schedule again.

They should have a 24 team playoff - every conf. champion gets a bid (gives you plenty of at large bids) and the top 8 have a first round bye.

create some exhibition bowls after this if people are interested.

A playoff will generate a LOT more interest than the crappy bowl system that exists.

(12-09-2011 01:27 PM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  They've already killed the magic of the bowls by stretching it out a week. It was so much better with a New Year's day bowl-a-thon. I could handle a plus one beyond that, but as it is, the system and schedule has destroyed my interest. If they keep the bowls, they need to compress the schedule again.

They should have a 24 team playoff - every conf. champion gets a bid (gives you plenty of at large bids) and the top 8 have a first round bye.

create some exhibition bowls after this if people are interested.

A playoff will generate a LOT more interest than the crappy bowl system that exists.

I agree. They need to kill the bowl system period. NCAA does not need the bowl system. Bowls are run by bunch of grey hairs who have different agenda than fans. A 16, 24 or even 32 teams playoff would generate far more interest than bowls. Schools that complain about too many games post season can stay home and not participate in the playoff. They don't have an issue with basketball so why does it matter for football?

16 is perfect. Just use the same format that the FCS division. BCS poll just determines seeding and rounds 1 and 2 are at home fields. Final 4 and NCG are at Rose, Orange and Sugar Bowls. After the corruption discovered in the Fiesta they shouldn't even be allowed to participate.

(12-09-2011 11:29 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Shaking my head at this part of the thread since I'm not following the logic. As FTT already pointed out, the big boy conferences are already sharing a great deal of the wealth in college basketball with the smaller conferences (not to mention being the cash cow that pays for the NCAA organization).

So, in essence, the UConns of college basketball are already sharing bb monies with the "David" Sun Belt like teams way more than the LSUs are sharing the monies in terms of football.

The facts don't support that theory. The money that the "Goliaths" share out of the NCAA tournament money is chump change for each "minor" conference, just like the payments that the BCS makes to each of the non-AQ conferences. Look at the facts. The Big East is just as much of a glutton in basketball as the SEC is in football.


(SOURCE)

(12-09-2011 11:29 AM)omniorange Wrote:  If college basketball had a set-up similar to college football where RPI and two human polls determined a 10 team playoff where only the top 4 finishers were guaranteed a spot

FBS football doesn't have a 10-team playoff. FBS football has a two-team playoff surrounded by some exhibition games that are just that, exhibition games.

Money and access are two different issues. In hoops, the little guys have a limited amount of access that is better than the long shot the non-AQ teams have of ever making the BCS title game -- though the "Davids" in hoops are hobbled by seedings lower than they deserve and the committee requires them to have better resumes than teams with major-conference labels.

The distribution of money, though, is still very stingy in basketball. The only real difference is that in hoops there are more "minor" conferences getting the token payouts than there are in FBS football -- 34 conferences total in D-I hoops, 11 in FBS football. And the Davids definitely add to the ratings for March Madness. You are kidding yourself if you think the tournament would have the same buzz if the Davids were excluded and the first round was nothing but a bunch of games like the 9th place team in the BE playing the 7th place team in the Pac.

How are tournament payouts determined, anyway? Like, in 2011 the ACC and Pac-10 had less bids than the SEC but they're ahead of the SEC in payouts. And there's that huge dropoff from the BCS leagues to the A10 even though the A10 had 3 teams in to the ACC's 4...I just assumed, naively, that payoffs were based on merit, but that does not exactly seem to be the case.

...and then I read the article Wedge linked to:

"The Big East leads the way, taking in $26.1 million this year, based on 109 games played during the six-year period ending in 2010. Next up are the Big 12 (79 games), ACC (78), and Big Ten (77). The Pac-10 (67) and the SEC (65) round out the top six. After that group, there is a clear drop-off before the next group of conferences, beginning with the Atlantic 10 (25)."

Oh, so it's based on some cumulative numerology that doesn't reflect change yearly and probably does a lot to keep the haves in their places. Googling around--if this link here is accurate:

http://boards.caazone.com/showthread.php...ce-Payouts

...it's based on number of rounds conferences (via their teams) participate in over a six year period. So I guess the Horizon and the CAA should both be getting raises.