I saw that thread about Big Ten basketball scheduling and it reminded me of an idea I had a while back. Now that we've got the P5 Discussion board, I feel safe in offering it to everybody

I know not everyone will agree with me, but I figured it would be interesting to discuss nonetheless. Also of note, I fully understand the Mid-majors will hate this idea, but it will probably never happen anyway.

So here goes...

1. Problems with current college basketball system:

-I think we all know the NCAA Tournament is a great event, but that most of the money ends up in the NCAA's pockets. I know the NCAA has to be funded somehow, but I think maybe a membership tax would be more appropriate rather than that monstrous bureaucracy controlling money-making events. I guess that's another thread though.

-All in all, college basketball does not generate as much money as college football. To some degree, that could never be rectified, but any difference in the level of value should be purely market-based. As it is, the NCAA is artificially capping the value of college basketball, inadvertently of course.

-The regular season has become virtually meaningless for all except the most ardent college basketball fans. Not that the games aren't fun, but the stakes aren't very high generally.

-Compelling non-conference games aren't played very often either. Outside of a few preseason tournaments, non-conference rivalries, and made for TV events like the Big Ten/ACC challenge; there isn't a lot in the way of important games that draw eyeballs. This is true despite the fact that about 1/3 of the schedule is dedicated to non-conference games. So many games...so few that matter.

-Non-conference scheduling is not only a huge gamble, but is hopelessly disorganized.

2. Solutions on a grand scale!

What I'm going to propose is influenced heavily by my observation of European soccer leagues. Let's go ahead and get that out of the way. If you're not familiar with how the top leagues in Europe function or how UEFA brings clubs together from countries all over the continent in one big tournament then some of this will see a little foreign. Literally!

First, let's assume that we're going to end up with a P4 sooner than later. Let's assume each major league has 16 teams. Some of the G5 leagues or Mid-Major leagues might have fewer, but I imagine some of them will go to 16 eventually.

What you find standard in European soccer leagues is that each league allows for each club to play all the others twice...once home and once away. What if we did that in college basketball?

Instead of worrying about 18 or 20 game schedules and whether or not we're playing all of our rivals frequently enough, why not just extend the regular season to 30 games for 16 teams? Everyone plays everyone else twice...once home and once away. Not only are you guaranteeing that you schedule all your rivals frequently, but there's no longer such a thing as imbalance within the schedule.

What about the non-conference games?

Set aside a few games for out of conference rivalries, preseason tournaments, and made for TV events. Other than that? Scrap it. For one, that will save everyone in travel costs because they won't have to fly all over the country playing non-conference games that hardly anyone is going to watch. Now obviously, you'd have to extend the season a fair bit to make it all work...especially when you include postseason games. Think of this however, the NBA plays 82 regular season games plus a boatload of playoff games. I'm not advocating college basketball try to duplicate that because it's an insane number, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the college kids could play half as many games as the pros. They do much more than that in football.

The point is this, the conference games are the ones the fans really care about anyway. Right now, it's not necessarily that there are too few of them. It's that they don't have the adequate importance competitively.

As it stands, conference regular seasons are basically used to seed teams for conference tournaments. The conference tourneys, while fun, actually help devalue the regular season. Basketball needs to learn one very important lesson from football...scarcity. Scarcity brings value if the scarce commodity is in demand.

I would not only play 30 conference games, but I would cap the conference tournaments to maybe 4 teams from each league. Basically, each conference gets their own version of a final four and it's a much more significant TV event. While the leagues might not make as much off the conference tournaments because of their pared down size, there will be many other offsetting benefits. First of all, the regular season will be much more valuable to TV networks and with each team playing 30 the number of league games will far outweigh any value a conference tourney could have ever produced in the current environment. Second, you won't have teams playing less than their best in conference tourneys because there will only be 2 games max and so there's no way the event can wear down a team looking to make a Big Dance run. Finally, the conference championship will be truly special again because the regular season will determine a limited number of participants rather than being an elongated display of seeding.

Is that crazy enough for you? No? Good! It's about to get crazier!

Ultimately, the Power leagues are going to have to take over the Big Dance from the NCAA. Necessarily, this will result is some limitation of access to Mid-majors. But all is not lost!

One of the more creative features of UEFA(the European soccer federation) is that they use a coefficient to determine the participants in their tournament? "Huh" you say? It's a little unAmerican, but think of it in these terms...

What if the conference regular season determined your participation in the Big Dance rather than your overall RPI and SOS as determined by a committee? In major soccer leagues, the only time you play a club from another league is if you're meeting in your continent's major tournament. Forget the international aspect for a moment and hone in on the fact that your finish in your league is the sole determinant in whether or not you play in the larger tournament. Let's apply this to college basketball...

Let's say that all 4 Power leagues were guaranteed 4 entrants into the Big Dance...no less and no more. Let's say those 4 entrants were determined by how you finished during the conference regular season. Let's say the top 4 teams not only make the conference tournament, but the top 4 also make the national tournament. Yeah, but that seems a little unfair right? How could you possibly guarantee that conference standings will directly determine who the best 4 teams are in any league? But remember, we already solved that problem! Every league is now playing round robin...once home and once away. At this point, the only reasonable way to determine the best 4 teams in a league is to go by the conference standings.

So not only have we increased the value of the regular season by expanding the conference schedule and seeing to it that conference champions are more reasonably selected, but we've managed to magnify the importance of the regular season even more by tying results into whether or not you make the Big Dance. Rather than allowing a committee to subjectively determine who has the best SOS and RPI, we've eliminated the middle man and brought all the stakes down onto where they should be...the court. It's all about wins and losses baby!

See how this all comes together? :jaw drop:

Now the hard part is determining whether or not each D1 conference still gets to participate. There are 32 leagues and so there's no way to guarantee each conference gets 4 teams in without massively expanding the size of the Big Dance. No need to do that and ultimately it would devalue the event if it was too big.

Here's my solution...

Much like there is a subdivision within college football, there should be one within college basketball. Let's be honest here, while some of these upsets are fun to watch, a large number of these lower rung teams have no business in the tournament.

Cap the national tournament at 48 teams...

Power leagues get 4 each. In basketball, however, that constitutes more than the P5.

SEC, ACC, B1G, PAC, Big East, Atlantic 10, AAC, MWC

I'm assuming the Big 12 has been absorbed by this time.

So far we've got 32 entrants.

The next tier get 2 entrants each...

MVC, OVC, Horizon, West Coast, Big West, MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt

That's 16 additional entrants and 48 overall. You seed the teams from there and the top teams will get a 1st round bye.

Now you've got your subdivision within D1. The vast majority of quality basketball programs will be included and I'm betting there will be some expansion from some of the above leagues so that they all end up with about 16 each.

I don't think a good argument can be made that the bottom 15 leagues will deserve equal access to the Big Dance. Much like FCS, they can have their own national tournament to determine their own champion within their ranks.

Ultimately, if the conferences take more control over the NCAA Tournament then they can create a behemoth that is much more marketable and will help college basketball ascend to a better place competitively and financially.

Why take the NCAA's over when you can just create a new private tournament? That's what the NIT used to be.

I agree with the basic premise - having 68 teams in the NCAA Tournament devalues the regular season.

I don't think I agree with the proposed solution, though.

Besides, there's a much simpler solution modelled on college football...
1. Split each conference into 2 divisions. Division winners go to the conference championship. Want a 4-team tournament? Take division runner ups too.
2. Don't lengthen the season - shorten it! Play each team in your division twice, but cross-division teams once.

Division races make the season more interesting.

3. Stick with 1 guaranteed spot per conference, but reduce the number of at-large bids. Also, you could relegate conferences to the NIT if they go so many years without winning a game. They could earn a n NCAA bid by winning in the NIT.

The NCAA makes a lot off the tournament, but so do the conferences.....NCAA credits - paid to the conferences and schools - are extremely valuable. Cut out the bureaucracy, don't destroy the tournament. The Cinderella Factor is real and it is huge for the success and value of the NCAA tournament.

Also, does anyone really cry about travel expenses?

To make the regular season more relevant, I'd give an autobid to the *regular season* champion. I wouldn't mind autobids for conference tournament winners too, if you expand the play-in round to incorporate tournament winners. I would see it as an improvement to give the regular season champions for certain conferences a ticket straight to the field of 64. Then, perhaps expand the play-in round to 12 teams to incorporate non-champ tournament winners that would not otherwise grab an at large bid - some of which might be reserved for the major conferences (like 9 through 12 seed play-in games). Or, use the play-in expansion to weed out more of the smallest schools before the field of 64 (ie, 13 or 14 seed play-in is between a small conference champ and a major conference at large).

- On another note, I would like a pre-Elite 8 loser's bracket from the NCAA tournament to incorporate into the NIT somehow.
And, have consolation games as part of the Final Four - (ie, 3rd place game and 5th place game, etc.)

(08-08-2017 03:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Cap the national tournament at 48 teams...

If you want to compare this to UEFA Champions League... Champions League has a lot more than 48 teams. It has 78 and starts in July with several play-in rounds that give teams from lesser leagues and smaller countries the chance to play their way into the later stages, even into the group stage. The 12 strongest leagues each get one or more teams automatically in the group stage; every league from 13th on down puts its champ in one of the play-in rounds that eventually lead to the group stage.

That's a model you could use for a college basketball tournament. Let the champs of the D-I conferences rated 13th through 34th play their way through (with those nearer 34th having more play-in rounds and those nearer 13th getting byes in the first two play-in rounds, as in Champions League).

Conferences 1-6 each get 4 teams in the final bracket plus 2 each (5th and 6th) entered in the final play-in round. Conferences 7-8 each get 2 teams in the final bracket plus a 3rd entered in the final play-in round. Conferences 9-12 each get their champ in the final bracket.

That gives you 32 teams automatically entered in the final bracket, plus 14 that will be narrowed to 7 with a play-in-game. Add 9 teams from the play-in rounds for conferences 13-34, and you have a 48-team field. Or, add 8 more auto-qualifiers plus 8 more teams qualifying through play-in rounds, and then have a 64-team final bracket.

But, the top conferences and star coaches will never go for this. They want more tournament bids, not fewer. Those guys wanted a 96-team NCAA tournament until CBS and Turner said they didn't want to pay much more for that then they already pay.

There is nothing like the first weekend of March Madness .... and that's precisely because everyone holds their breath and crosses their fingers for upsets and the ability to predict upsets.

Simple as that. After that, it quickly boils down to a defacto MBB power conf tournament to determine the national champion (with a couple exceptions).

No idea, why on earth, you'd want to screw around with that ....

(08-08-2017 11:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  There is nothing like the first weekend of March Madness .... and that's precisely because everyone holds their breath and crosses their fingers for upsets and the ability to predict upsets.

Simple as that. After that, it quickly boils down to a defacto MBB power conf tournament to determine the national champion (with a couple exceptions).

No idea, why on earth, you'd want to screw around with that ....

...yet it was better when there were only 64 teams.

(08-08-2017 11:33 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 03:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Cap the national tournament at 48 teams...

If you want to compare this to UEFA Champions League... Champions League has a lot more than 48 teams. It has 78 and starts in July with several play-in rounds that give teams from lesser leagues and smaller countries the chance to play their way into the later stages, even into the group stage. The 12 strongest leagues each get one or more teams automatically in the group stage; every league from 13th on down puts its champ in one of the play-in rounds that eventually lead to the group stage.

That's a model you could use for a college basketball tournament. Let the champs of the D-I conferences rated 13th through 34th play their way through (with those nearer 34th having more play-in rounds and those nearer 13th getting byes in the first two play-in rounds, as in Champions League).

Conferences 1-6 each get 4 teams in the final bracket plus 2 each (5th and 6th) entered in the final play-in round. Conferences 7-8 each get 2 teams in the final bracket plus a 3rd entered in the final play-in round. Conferences 9-12 each get their champ in the final bracket.

That gives you 32 teams automatically entered in the final bracket, plus 14 that will be narrowed to 7 with a play-in-game. Add 9 teams from the play-in rounds for conferences 13-34, and you have a 48-team field. Or, add 8 more auto-qualifiers plus 8 more teams qualifying through play-in rounds, and then have a 64-team final bracket.

But, the top conferences and star coaches will never go for this. They want more tournament bids, not fewer. Those guys wanted a 96-team NCAA tournament until CBS and Turner said they didn't want to pay much more for that then they already pay.

I'm fine with some of that. The reason I didn't use the UCL model down to its finest details is because the tournament runs concurrently with the regular season of most of the participating leagues. You couldn't do that in college basketball if for no more reason than your participation is based on the previous season's results. We'd have to streamline everything in order to create a viable post season product that produces a national champion in the same season.

My primary goal was to make the regular season more relevant and entertaining. That and to create more revenue for the schools that actually generate the revenue for the tournament.

We could ramp the thing back up to 64 and create some of the play-in opportunities you are suggesting. I still like allowing for the top leagues to get their top 4 in based on conference standings. The committee choosing who gets in and who doesn't is awfully subjective and the worst thing is that it devalues the regular season.

(08-08-2017 11:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  There is nothing like the first weekend of March Madness .... and that's precisely because everyone holds their breath and crosses their fingers for upsets and the ability to predict upsets.

Simple as that. After that, it quickly boils down to a defacto MBB power conf tournament to determine the national champion (with a couple exceptions).

No idea, why on earth, you'd want to screw around with that ....

Because the rest of the season is inexorably boring. Hardly anyone watches the sport until tournament time.

I'm really not suggesting we get rid of the basic tournament structure anyway. I'm suggesting we alter how teams qualify. There would still be upsets, underdogs, and the occasional Cinderella run.

I'd think the P5 would be more opposed to this format than the other conferences. I am guessing the ACC and the B10 in particular would not be happy about only having 4 teams qualify for the NCAAT. On the flip side the OVC and Horizon would love to get two teams each in the tournament.

(08-08-2017 03:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  -I think we all know the NCAA Tournament is a great event, but that most of the money ends up in the NCAA's pockets. I know the NCAA has to be funded somehow, but I think maybe a membership tax would be more appropriate rather than that monstrous bureaucracy controlling money-making events. I guess that's another thread though.

I don't believe that is true. Yes, The NCAA could be more efficient, but I believe they distribute the vast majority of the money they receive. The NCAA conducts post-season tournaments in dozens of sports in several divisions. Take away the NCAAT money and many Olympic sports would be limited to schools in the $100 million club. At the very least there would be no national championships in those sports. The NCAA also distributes money based on academics and I believe they fund some non-athletic scholarships.

30 conference games? That would probably push the start of the season back to early October.

(08-08-2017 02:06 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 03:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  -I think we all know the NCAA Tournament is a great event, but that most of the money ends up in the NCAA's pockets. I know the NCAA has to be funded somehow, but I think maybe a membership tax would be more appropriate rather than that monstrous bureaucracy controlling money-making events. I guess that's another thread though.

I don't believe that is true. Yes, The NCAA could be more efficient, but I believe they distribute the vast majority of the money they receive. The NCAA conducts post-season tournaments in dozens of sports in several divisions. Take away the NCAAT money and many Olympic sports would be limited to schools in the $100 million club. At the very least there would be no national championships in those sports. The NCAA also distributes money based on academics and I believe they fund some non-athletic scholarships.

30 conference games? That would probably push the start of the season back to early October.

You may be right. I don't know what the splits are.

I don't think the NCAA should control any money-making enterprise though. They're not built to manage such things. The conferences could make a lot more if they controlled the system. The NCAA doesn't touch the football post season, for example, and it's a money making machine.

I don't think moving control of the Tournament to the conferences would lead to cutting of Olympic sports actually. As long as the Mid-major leagues had access to the money created then they might actually be in better shape than they are now. Of course, in fairness, my system cut most of the Mid-majors out, but we wouldn't have to do it that way to make it a more prosperous event.

As far as funding the NCAA, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what the NCAA truly needs to operate, but I think this would be better.

Each NCAA member pays a flat membership fee and the NCAA conversely does not control any post season event.

We could create tiers as well. If you're in D1 then maybe you pay more than the schools in D2 and so on. The conferences are leaving a lot of money on the table by allowing the NCAA to control these events. I don't necessarily know that the NCAA is better off either.

(08-08-2017 01:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The reason I didn't use the UCL model down to its finest details is because the tournament runs concurrently with the regular season of most of the participating leagues. You couldn't do that in college basketball if for no more reason than your participation is based on the previous season's results.

OK, so here's a modification.

UEFA "coefficients" are determined by the last five years of results from Champions League and Europa League.

CBB could use the last 5 years of results from the NCAA tournament to rank the conferences from 1-32, say, a team earned 1 point each time it's in the NCAA tournament and 2 more points for each game won, and the conference's points are the sum of points earned by its members. Thus for 2017 the ACC would have 31 points (9 teams in the field plus 11 games won). And the conferences would be re-ranked every year based on the most recent five years of results.

This would be a 64-team field:

Conferences 1-2: Top 5 teams in each get autobids, next 3 are in a play-in game.
Conferences 3-4: Top 4 in each get autobids, next 4 are in a play-in game.
Conferences 5-6: Top 4 in each get autobids, next 3 are in a play-in game.
Conferences 7-8: Top 2 in each get autobids, next 3 are in a play-in game.
Conferences 9-12: Champ in each gets an autobid, 2nd place team is in a play-in game.
Conferences 13-20: Champ in each gets an autobid.
Conferences 21-32: Champ in each is in a play-in game vs. another 21-32 champ, the six play-in game winners join the field of 64.

The 42 autobid teams are in the field of 64. For conferences 1-12, there are a total of 32 teams in play-in games, those teams are seeded 1-32 and then matched for a play-in game, except that teams from the same conference are not matched in play-in games. The 16 play-in game winners join the field of 64, the 6 play-in game winners from conferences 21-32 also join the field of 64.

One advantage is that only one extra round is required in addition to a 3-week 64-team tournament, in fact all 22 of these play-in games could be played on the same Tuesday/Wednesday currently used for the "First Four" games, with Tuesday winners moving on to play on Thursday and Wednesday winners moving on to play on Friday. Or, if the previous weekend has been cleared of conference tournaments, that weekend could be used for the play-in games.

(08-08-2017 02:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 02:06 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 03:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  -I think we all know the NCAA Tournament is a great event, but that most of the money ends up in the NCAA's pockets. I know the NCAA has to be funded somehow, but I think maybe a membership tax would be more appropriate rather than that monstrous bureaucracy controlling money-making events. I guess that's another thread though.

I don't believe that is true. Yes, The NCAA could be more efficient, but I believe they distribute the vast majority of the money they receive. The NCAA conducts post-season tournaments in dozens of sports in several divisions. Take away the NCAAT money and many Olympic sports would be limited to schools in the $100 million club. At the very least there would be no national championships in those sports. The NCAA also distributes money based on academics and I believe they fund some non-athletic scholarships.

30 conference games? That would probably push the start of the season back to early October.

You may be right. I don't know what the splits are.

I don't think the NCAA should control any money-making enterprise though. They're not built to manage such things. The conferences could make a lot more if they controlled the system. The NCAA doesn't touch the football post season, for example, and it's a money making machine.

I don't think moving control of the Tournament to the conferences would lead to cutting of Olympic sports actually. As long as the Mid-major leagues had access to the money created then they might actually be in better shape than they are now. Of course, in fairness, my system cut most of the Mid-majors out, but we wouldn't have to do it that way to make it a more prosperous event.

The NCAA basically bankrolls appx 70 million a year into one of their two endowment funds from that tournament. Smoke that over when someone says they aren't skimming.

(08-08-2017 04:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 02:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 02:06 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 03:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  -I think we all know the NCAA Tournament is a great event, but that most of the money ends up in the NCAA's pockets. I know the NCAA has to be funded somehow, but I think maybe a membership tax would be more appropriate rather than that monstrous bureaucracy controlling money-making events. I guess that's another thread though.

I don't believe that is true. Yes, The NCAA could be more efficient, but I believe they distribute the vast majority of the money they receive. The NCAA conducts post-season tournaments in dozens of sports in several divisions. Take away the NCAAT money and many Olympic sports would be limited to schools in the $100 million club. At the very least there would be no national championships in those sports. The NCAA also distributes money based on academics and I believe they fund some non-athletic scholarships.

30 conference games? That would probably push the start of the season back to early October.

You may be right. I don't know what the splits are.

I don't think the NCAA should control any money-making enterprise though. They're not built to manage such things. The conferences could make a lot more if they controlled the system. The NCAA doesn't touch the football post season, for example, and it's a money making machine.

I don't think moving control of the Tournament to the conferences would lead to cutting of Olympic sports actually. As long as the Mid-major leagues had access to the money created then they might actually be in better shape than they are now. Of course, in fairness, my system cut most of the Mid-majors out, but we wouldn't have to do it that way to make it a more prosperous event.

The NCAA basically bankrolls appx 70 million a year into one of their two endowment funds from that tournament. Smoke that over when someone says they aren't skimming.

Right, that amounts to 10% of the gross and probably 20% or more of the net revenue. The NCAA membership didn't vote to allow the bureaucrats to squirrel all that money away in their rainy-day funds, they just take the money on their own and stash it.

Even the portion of March Madness money distributed by the NCAA to the schools enhances the power of the NCAA bureaucrats, because they control that distribution, as opposed to more TV money going directly to the schools without going through the NCAA middlemen.

(08-08-2017 04:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 04:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 02:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 02:06 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 03:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  -I think we all know the NCAA Tournament is a great event, but that most of the money ends up in the NCAA's pockets. I know the NCAA has to be funded somehow, but I think maybe a membership tax would be more appropriate rather than that monstrous bureaucracy controlling money-making events. I guess that's another thread though.

I don't believe that is true. Yes, The NCAA could be more efficient, but I believe they distribute the vast majority of the money they receive. The NCAA conducts post-season tournaments in dozens of sports in several divisions. Take away the NCAAT money and many Olympic sports would be limited to schools in the $100 million club. At the very least there would be no national championships in those sports. The NCAA also distributes money based on academics and I believe they fund some non-athletic scholarships.

30 conference games? That would probably push the start of the season back to early October.

You may be right. I don't know what the splits are.

I don't think the NCAA should control any money-making enterprise though. They're not built to manage such things. The conferences could make a lot more if they controlled the system. The NCAA doesn't touch the football post season, for example, and it's a money making machine.

I don't think moving control of the Tournament to the conferences would lead to cutting of Olympic sports actually. As long as the Mid-major leagues had access to the money created then they might actually be in better shape than they are now. Of course, in fairness, my system cut most of the Mid-majors out, but we wouldn't have to do it that way to make it a more prosperous event.

The NCAA basically bankrolls appx 70 million a year into one of their two endowment funds from that tournament. Smoke that over when someone says they aren't skimming.

Right, that amounts to 10% of the gross and probably 20% or more of the net revenue. The NCAA membership didn't vote to allow the bureaucrats to squirrel all that money away in their rainy-day funds, they just take the money on their own and stash it.

Even the portion of March Madness money distributed by the NCAA to the schools enhances the power of the NCAA bureaucrats, because they control that distribution, as opposed to more TV money going directly to the schools without going through the NCAA middlemen.

Those two accounts should be nearing, or just over 1 billion now. They are designed to keep the NCAA running in perpetuity, but I'm certain that they will find a way to keep needing that fund even when the interest from it covers their overhead.

(08-08-2017 02:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 02:06 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 03:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  -I think we all know the NCAA Tournament is a great event, but that most of the money ends up in the NCAA's pockets. I know the NCAA has to be funded somehow, but I think maybe a membership tax would be more appropriate rather than that monstrous bureaucracy controlling money-making events. I guess that's another thread though.

I don't believe that is true. Yes, The NCAA could be more efficient, but I believe they distribute the vast majority of the money they receive. The NCAA conducts post-season tournaments in dozens of sports in several divisions. Take away the NCAAT money and many Olympic sports would be limited to schools in the $100 million club. At the very least there would be no national championships in those sports. The NCAA also distributes money based on academics and I believe they fund some non-athletic scholarships.

30 conference games? That would probably push the start of the season back to early October.

You may be right. I don't know what the splits are.

I don't think the NCAA should control any money-making enterprise though. They're not built to manage such things. The conferences could make a lot more if they controlled the system. The NCAA doesn't touch the football post season, for example, and it's a money making machine.

I don't think moving control of the Tournament to the conferences would lead to cutting of Olympic sports actually. As long as the Mid-major leagues had access to the money created then they might actually be in better shape than they are now. Of course, in fairness, my system cut most of the Mid-majors out, but we wouldn't have to do it that way to make it a more prosperous event.

Thats because it's college football. Only an idiot couldn't make money off of it.

I also love hearing an Alabama fan say that college basketball regular season is boring. I will take an educated guess that you don't follow that sport all that close do you?

Aside from the pre-season tournaments, late in conference play and the conference tournaments, the regular season is boring.

(08-08-2017 04:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The reason I didn't use the UCL model down to its finest details is because the tournament runs concurrently with the regular season of most of the participating leagues. You couldn't do that in college basketball if for no more reason than your participation is based on the previous season's results.

OK, so here's a modification.

UEFA "coefficients" are determined by the last five years of results from Champions League and Europa League.

CBB could use the last 5 years of results from the NCAA tournament to rank the conferences from 1-32, say, a team earned 1 point each time it's in the NCAA tournament and 2 more points for each game won, and the conference's points are the sum of points earned by its members. Thus for 2017 the ACC would have 31 points (9 teams in the field plus 11 games won). And the conferences would be re-ranked every year based on the most recent five years of results.

This would be a 64-team field:

Conferences 1-2: Top 5 teams in each get autobids, next 3 are in a play-in game.
Conferences 3-4: Top 4 in each get autobids, next 4 are in a play-in game.
Conferences 5-6: Top 4 in each get autobids, next 3 are in a play-in game.
Conferences 7-8: Top 2 in each get autobids, next 3 are in a play-in game.
Conferences 9-12: Champ in each gets an autobid, 2nd place team is in a play-in game.
Conferences 13-20: Champ in each gets an autobid.
Conferences 21-32: Champ in each is in a play-in game vs. another 21-32 champ, the six play-in game winners join the field of 64.

The 42 autobid teams are in the field of 64. For conferences 1-12, there are a total of 32 teams in play-in games, those teams are seeded 1-32 and then matched for a play-in game, except that teams from the same conference are not matched in play-in games. The 16 play-in game winners join the field of 64, the 6 play-in game winners from conferences 21-32 also join the field of 64.

One advantage is that only one extra round is required in addition to a 3-week 64-team tournament, in fact all 22 of these play-in games could be played on the same Tuesday/Wednesday currently used for the "First Four" games, with Tuesday winners moving on to play on Thursday and Wednesday winners moving on to play on Friday. Or, if the previous weekend has been cleared of conference tournaments, that weekend could be used for the play-in games.

I like it.