March Madness, the greatest American sporting event. Campuses gather around TV’s and computers. Corporate America’s productivity grinds to a halt. The state of Kentucky all but shuts down for the cathartic end to the commonwealth’s favorite season.

Other than rooting for your favorite team, the biggest part of the festivities is the Cinderella stories. The small schools, seeded in the lower half of a bracket, making improbable runs through the biggest brands in basketball.

‪#‎DunkCity‬ and Florida Gulf Coast’s recent run as well as Mercer’s upset of perennial power Duke, come quickly to mind. The issue is that the tournament is becoming harder and harder for the teams not endowed with unlimited resources. It isn’t basketball. It is system. Before conference tournaments even begin, there is a large deck stacked against most teams outside the 5 wealthiest FBS conferences.

It is well known that college basketball is the toughest sport to win on the road. Road teams only win .340 of the time, according to a 2009 Wall Street Journal article. The more home games you play, the more successful you will be. The teams that can afford to, buy more home games, inflating their win percentage.

Compare the schedules of CUSA and that of the ACC. The average CUSA schedule was 15.5 home games and 13.4 road games, this versus 16.8 home games and 10.5 road games. This essentially allows the conference to buy NCAA at-large bids.

The NCAA’s chief statistic for determining who gets to dance and who doesn’t, is the Rating Percentage Index (RPI). This number is a formula based on your winning percentage, multiplied by your opponent’s winning percentage, multiplied by the winning percentage of your opponent’s opponents. This formula therefore accounts not just wins and losses, but also a measurable strength of schedule.

The larger conference are now “gaming” the RPI, by playing more home games. More home games mean more wins, since these conference play each other so many times, by raising the overall win percentage of the league, they inflate the RPI of everyone in the league. Teams receive valuable tournament credits (annual payments that last for six years) just for qualifying, then for each subsequent round they advance. This means that more teams in, and deep runs from better seeded positions, leads to more money. That money buys more home games, and further entrenches the elite conferences.

So now it is March, and despite the odds not ever being in your favor, you had a good year. Say Monmouth (27-7, RPI of 52) or St. Bonaventure (22-8 RPI of 30). Selection Sunday comes, and you still don’t get in. A shocker for a highly rated Bonnies squad in a very good A10. Also sad for the best bench in basketball, Monmouth.

Monmouth went 5-5 against the top 100 RPI teams, 8 of them away from home no less. The committee knocked them out for their losses to teams outside the top 200 RPI. Considered “bad losses”. All three of these bad losses came away from home, two of them conference games that Monmouth was forced to play. Compare that to Syracuse (19-13, RPI of 72) who went 6-1 vs 200+ RPI teams. Only two of Syracuse’s 200+ RPI games were played on the road. Compare that to Monmouth’s 11. Monmouth had a winning record against top 100 teams, something Syracuse did not.

Here is the sticker though, that was already calculated in the RPI. By playing worse opponents, who played worse opponents, Monmouth was already disadvantaged. Their wins and stellar play away from home still rated them higher than Pitt, Butler, Michigan, Tulsa, Temple, Vandy, and Syracuse (who all made the tournament).

The NCAA has got to put a stop to the legalized buying of tournament appearances. These conferences already put their money into all of the facilities and perks possible to entice better recruits, but the buying of games, gaming of the RPI system, and the flippant disregard by the selection committee are too far.

__________________________________________________

An important consideration that has come up after I started circulating this piece. The issue is not with the money conferences buying home games. It is better for revenue, it is better for competition, and there are no rules against it.

The issue is with the bottom conferences, and a lot of low major teams cellar dwelling in mid major conferences. They cannot afford hoops. They cannot pay the bills playing at home, so they take the paychecks for whoring out on the road.


Please ask before reposting on other sites.

I agree that the current version of RPI is awful. They shouldn't use it at all. They used to have a different formula for RPI but changed it in the early-mid 2000s. That formula wasn't perfect either, but it was a heckuva lot better than the current one.

But I disagree about the home-away split being either a) new, or b) bad. It's certainly not a new thing - I looked up the 5 years that UC went to the Final 4 in the 50s-60s, and we averaged 13.8 home games and 9 road games over that period.

And I would argue that it's not a bad thing either - if one team brings 10,000 more fans to their home games than the other team, it just makes more sense to have it at the bigger school. Not only is it better for the finances, it's also better for the fans.

Huh? The current version of the RPI penalizes home losses, discounts home wins and road losses, and rewards road wins.

Under the old RPI which counted home and road wins and losses the same, St Bonnie was 37 in the RPI not 30. And Monmouth was 65 not 52.

The problem isn't the RPI. The problem is that the selection criteria are a moving target because there are no rules and each committee is different. This year, Top 50 wins were hugely important.

The problem there, as Pomeroy points out, is that beating #90 on the road is about as hard as beating #50 on a neutral site which is about as hard as beating #20 at home. So just looking at Top 50 wins without factoring in where the game was played hugely benefits major conferences where teams get a lot of Top 50 chances at home.

Before the tournament's expansion to 64 teams, most of these teams you are so worried about wouldn't have even sniffed the tournament. Worrying about the Cinderella chances of team #70 seems to be a bit bizarre to me. I have always thought the concept of a tournament snub was odd. Don't want to risk being left out of the already large field? Win more games, win the key games, win on the road and win when the committee says it counts most. Otherwise, you don't have much to complain about.

First I will say that I am not a real big basketball fan. Usually I will watch more college basketball during March Madness than I watch during the rest of the year.

The title of this thread is somewhat misleading.

The Stroke of Midnight, How the NCAA is killing Cinderella's Dream

Where do each years tournaments Cinderella's teams come from. They do not come from one of the top conferences that usually place several teams in the tournament each and every year. They come from one bid conferences that the only way they make the tournament field is to win there conferences tournament.

At the start of the college basketball season out of the 400 and something NCAA Div 1 teams only about 100 know if they have a good season they will more than likely make the field of 64. Somewhere in the neighborhood of another 100 know that they might have a chance in making the field without winning there conference if they play lights outs basketball due to the conference they are a member of. They are usually members of conferences that will get a second bid every few years. Then you have the rest which is made up teams that know that the only way they will make the field no matter how good they play is to win there conference.

It was this way 30 years ago and will still be this way 30 years from now.

(03-16-2016 07:09 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Huh? The current version of the RPI penalizes home losses, discounts home wins and road losses, and rewards road wins.

Under the old RPI which counted home and road wins and losses the same, St Bonnie was 37 in the RPI not 30. And Monmouth was 65 not 52.

The problem isn't the RPI. The problem is that the selection criteria are a moving target because there are no rules and each committee is different. This year, Top 50 wins were hugely important.

The problem there, as Pomeroy points out, is that beating #90 on the road is about as hard as beating #50 on a neutral site which is about as hard as beating #20 at home. So just looking at Top 50 wins without factoring in where the game was played hugely benefits major conferences where teams get a lot of Top 50 chances at home.

Not any more the NCAA went back to the old formula of your win percentage 25%, opponent win percentage 50%, opponents opponents win percentage 25% with no adjustment for game location because too many (of the right) schools objected.

(03-16-2016 08:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:09 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Huh? The current version of the RPI penalizes home losses, discounts home wins and road losses, and rewards road wins.

Under the old RPI which counted home and road wins and losses the same, St Bonnie was 37 in the RPI not 30. And Monmouth was 65 not 52.

The problem isn't the RPI. The problem is that the selection criteria are a moving target because there are no rules and each committee is different. This year, Top 50 wins were hugely important.

The problem there, as Pomeroy points out, is that beating #90 on the road is about as hard as beating #50 on a neutral site which is about as hard as beating #20 at home. So just looking at Top 50 wins without factoring in where the game was played hugely benefits major conferences where teams get a lot of Top 50 chances at home.

Not any more the NCAA went back to the old formula of your win percentage 25%, opponent win percentage 50%, opponents opponents win percentage 25% with no adjustment for game location because too many (of the right) schools objected.

no they didn't.....
and look at the differences...
St Bonnies new RPI 30, old RPI 37
Monmouth new RPI 52, old RPI 65
Valpo 49 to 60
Akron 34 to 51
South Dakota St 28 to 49
Pittsburgh 53 to 39
Butler 56 to 47
Syracuse 72 to 63
Temple 60 to 53
Tulsa 58 to 55
Ohio St 74 to 56

Cinderella still has a chance in the tournament all they have to do is win their games.

yeah for fans of the smaller schools thinking going back to the OLD RPI would help them...

look just at the Big East:
new RPI/old RPI:
Nova 4/3
Xavier 7/6
Seton Hall 19/20
PC 40/34
Butler 56/47
Creighton 100/96
Georgetown 106/98
Marquette 110/97
DePaul 199/192
St John's 246/211

so it would be easy to see where the power schools would protest the newer formula. But they haven't so far.

"you're complaining about a 68-team tournament??"

--signed EVERY COLLEGE FOOTBALL FAN ON THE PLANET

one thing that is wrong about the article. Monmouth did not go 5-5 vs top 100 this year. They were 3-4. And only 1-1 vs top 50. So they didn't have a winning record vs the top 100 either like the article stated...

Tulsa illustrates the problem. Committee chair Castiglione said they got in because of 4 Top 50 wins.

But three of those wins were at home against teams ranked 32-48. So Pomeroy says those are Top 100 quality wins, not Top 50 quality wins, when you factor out home court advantage.

(03-16-2016 08:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Not any more the NCAA went back to the old formula of your win percentage 25%, opponent win percentage 50%, opponents opponents win percentage 25% with no adjustment for game location because too many (of the right) schools objected.

Incorrect. The formula was always 25%, 50%, 25%, but they changed how much home and road wins count, and how much home and road losses count, back in 2005.

Because home teams win 70% of the time, home wins count 0.6. Home losses count 1.4. Road wins count 1.4. Road losses count 0.6

(03-16-2016 10:57 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Tulsa illustrates the problem. Committee chair Castiglione said they got in because of 4 Top 50 wins.

But three of those wins were at home against teams ranked 32-48. So Pomeroy says those are Top 100 quality wins, not Top 50 quality wins, when you factor out home court advantage.

Tulsa has 3 A level wins according to Ken Pom. Wichita St, @ Oklahoma St, and @ SMU.
St Bonnie's had 2 A level wins. @ St Joe's, @ Dayton.

Tulsa had 2 B level wins- UConn and Cincy
St Bonnie's had 2 B level wins- vs St Joe's, @ Buffalo

I think you all have missed the point. The home-away split most certainly causes massive competitive disadvantages. The STL Rams didn't make as much on home games as Dallas, so why can't the boys buy their home game? College sports is the only league where you can buy your wins by buying home games. The amount of teams who have to sell their home games are the ones doing the most harm. They make scheduling harder for competitive teams with mid level revenue. That causes them to be pushed further down the revenue chain, no longer bringing in good games, less revenue.

The issue is that RPI disproportionally rewards home wins versus road wins. The win% of home teams is 3x greater than road teams, yet RPI offers a 2.4x reward. Home wins are .6, neutral 1, away 1.4. If you simply changed it to .5, 1, 1.5 you have now made a highly significant adjustment that will reward teams more accurately.

The NIT is showing some they whine too much

Tuesday, March 15

No. 3 Florida State 84, No. 5 Davidson 74
No. 1 South Carolina 88, No. 8 High Point 66
No. 3 Ohio State 72, No. 6 Akron 63 (OT)
No. 4 Creighton 72, No. 5 Alabama 54
No. 2 Florida 97, No. 7 North Florida 68
No. 1 Valparaiso 84, No. 8 Texas Southern 73
No. 3 Washington 107, No. 6 Long Beach State 102
No. 2 San Diego State, 10 p.m. 79, No. 7 IPFW 55
No. 2 Saint Mary's 58, No. 7 New Mexico State 56

Many cried about St. Mary's...they barely beat NM St. Akron has a gripe. North Florida was exposed at their home to a hot shooting UF team.

(03-16-2016 11:21 AM)TOPPERSonTOP Wrote:  I think you all have missed the point. The home-away split most certainly causes massive competitive disadvantages. The STL Rams didn't make as much on home games as Dallas, so why can't the boys buy their home game? College sports is the only league where you can buy your wins by buying home games. The amount of teams who have to sell their home games are the ones doing the most harm. They make scheduling harder for competitive teams with mid level revenue. That causes them to be pushed further down the revenue chain, no longer bringing in good games, less revenue.

The issue is that RPI disproportionally rewards home wins versus road wins. The win% of home teams is 3x greater than road teams, yet RPI offers a 2.4x reward. Home wins are .6, neutral 1, away 1.4. If you simply changed it to .5, 1, 1.5 you have now made a highly significant adjustment that will reward teams more accurately.

If Home teams win 70% of the time(which is the stat I think I heard), then it's not 3x greater.... It would be the .6, 1, 1.4 that we currently have. In conference play, only 1 conference had a greater than 70% winning percentage for home teams- the Pac 12 at 71.3%. 14 conferences were under 60% winning percentage for home teams.

(03-16-2016 11:21 AM)TOPPERSonTOP Wrote:  I think you all have missed the point. The home-away split most certainly causes massive competitive disadvantages. The STL Rams didn't make as much on home games as Dallas, so why can't the boys buy their home game? College sports is the only league where you can buy your wins by buying home games. The amount of teams who have to sell their home games are the ones doing the most harm. They make scheduling harder for competitive teams with mid level revenue. That causes them to be pushed further down the revenue chain, no longer bringing in good games, less revenue.

The issue is that RPI disproportionally rewards home wins versus road wins. The win% of home teams is 3x greater than road teams, yet RPI offers a 2.4x reward. Home wins are .6, neutral 1, away 1.4. If you simply changed it to .5, 1, 1.5 you have now made a highly significant adjustment that will reward teams more accurately.

So you are proposing a rule that forces all schools to sign 1 for 1 home and away contracts for scheduling?

Ok well watch as nobody outside the basketball P6 and the midmajor elites like Gonzaga ever gets a OOC game with those teams again....and then the complaint will be that these teams are getting left out because they get no opportunity to improve their SOS

BLUF: Money runs sports

Cuse played and beat St. Bonaventure (79-66) at home in front of 21k. The Bonnies can't draw that (their arena is 6k)...in fact Cuse has reached out and played the Bonnies in Rochester (and IIRC Buffalo) in the past. They will most likely play them in Rochester sometime in the rather near future.

(03-16-2016 11:28 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:21 AM)TOPPERSonTOP Wrote:  I think you all have missed the point. The home-away split most certainly causes massive competitive disadvantages. The STL Rams didn't make as much on home games as Dallas, so why can't the boys buy their home game? College sports is the only league where you can buy your wins by buying home games. The amount of teams who have to sell their home games are the ones doing the most harm. They make scheduling harder for competitive teams with mid level revenue. That causes them to be pushed further down the revenue chain, no longer bringing in good games, less revenue.

The issue is that RPI disproportionally rewards home wins versus road wins. The win% of home teams is 3x greater than road teams, yet RPI offers a 2.4x reward. Home wins are .6, neutral 1, away 1.4. If you simply changed it to .5, 1, 1.5 you have now made a highly significant adjustment that will reward teams more accurately.

So you are proposing a rule that forces all schools to sign 1 for 1 home and away contracts for scheduling?

Ok well watch as nobody outside the basketball P6 and the midmajor elites like Gonzaga ever gets a OOC game with those teams again....and then the complaint will be that these teams are getting left out because they get no opportunity to improve their SOS

No, but Home games must equal away + neutral site.