(01-30-2023 07:14 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Bill: if you don’t win the NCAA, nobody cares.

In a general sense, and related to the casual fan, I agree, ETV.

I'm simply looking at this objectively and using multiple criterion. There are some programs that — though not nationally relevant in the truest sense — offer a level of credibility and appeal (to prospective coaches and players, to reasonably serious fans and to college basketball media). Tulsa, SMU and Charlotte are simply examples of such men's hoops programs. In contrast, and for example, Tennessee State (for which I have cheered since the 1970s) is not.

(01-30-2023 07:16 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  ^ Again, decades ago. SMU while they were part of the SWC, Tulsa in the Valley and WAC and Charlotte in C-USA. SMU had a brief uprising last decade but other than that has been irrelevant.

You might as well list San Francisco, DePaul and Holy Cross as relevant programs.

I get your point in general, C2. But if you are trying to build a program to become more relevant than currently, would you want to do so via a program that has had some respectable coaching/winning history, fan support, resources, etc. (and, thus, some cache) OR via a no-name program with none of that?

In short, SMU has far greater potential to land a quality coach and "get hot" over a, say, five-year period than most other programs not in the P6. There is value and "relevancy" with building from a solid foundation than not.

(01-30-2023 10:59 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Over the years, the middle class in college basketball has been shrinking, right? The number of leagues getting multiple bids has been shrinking or has it?

Since 1997 (number of leagues with multiple bids): I picked that year because the previous years Wikipedia didn't break down.

97: 9
98: 11
99: 11
00: 12
01: 10
02: 11
03: 12
04: 11
05: 12
06: 12
07: 12
08: 10
09: 9
10: 11
11: 10
12: 12
13: 10
14: 10
15: 11
16: 9
17: 9
18: 9
19: 11
21: 11
22: 10

I went into this exercise expecting a consolidation of bids. There has been some of that (no year with 12 multi-bid conferences in a decade), but it wasn't as stark as I thought it would be.

I do think there are three reasons for this trend:
1. Consolidation of basketball brands into fewer leagues
2. More conference games among major leagues
3. Reluctance to play mid-majors out of conference

Is there someplace to easily access a breakdown of how many teams each multi-bid conference got in? My guess is that realignment has cause a consolidation of the number of bids going to the P6. The number of multi-bid conferences has remained steady, but has the overall number of bids coming from the non-P6 conferences gone down? So a true multi bid conference is now a three bid and a three bid is now a two bid?

(01-30-2023 05:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 05:11 PM)lion1983 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I do think we are on the brink of finally seeing the bid consolidation many have been prediciting.

Looking at Bracket Matrix this year, the multi bid conferences numbers are looking total 8
Big 10, SEC, Big 12, PAC 12, ACC, MWC, American*, WCC*

CUSA could make it 9 if FAU gets knocked off in their tournament

I could see the American becoming a single bid conference starting next year as they are only looking at 2 this year and 1 of those is Houston, who is leaving.
If Gonzaga ever left the WCC they would be a single bid conference.

The biggest thing to keep an eye out on will be the Atlantic 10 and the American. Historically the Atlantic 10 has been a multi bid conference, so if that is ending that would be big.

I think you can also trace the American's multibid status to CUSA 1.0's multibid status. With the Big 12 absorbing so many of those schools it wouldn't be surprised to see 7 or even 6 multibid conferences become the new floor.

A down A10 + American conference post Big 12 expansion + A Gonzaga less WCC = 6 to 7 multibid conferences, depending on the MWC

People have been saying the end is near since the beginning of time too...

and one day they will be right.

But in this case, (not biblical) probably not today....

JMO, if the committee decided that outside the P5and Big East, everyone else is only getting 1 in, they would lose out on so much money.

I would not be afraid to say that the majority of people watch just to see if SFU, UMBC, fAMU, Chicago St, and so on can make a run. I know I don't watch the tournament because I'm following UK, KU, Arizona, UCLA, any P5 or Big East school.
The only people watching them are their fans and gamblers.

(01-30-2023 05:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If I’m the Big East, I’d be looking to add some of the top A-10 schools to try and and create some more separation and keep themselves in basketball’s P club.

If I’m the MWC, I’d be trying again to land Gonzaga.

The problem with the MWC is the Big 12 is a option for Gonzaga. I don't see the MWC can offer the same amount of money and with the possibility they lose anyone to the PAC 12 it hurts the conference more. though I think personally Gonzaga is better off with the PAC 12 imploding and Washington State and Oregon State going to the MWC. Gonzaga would jump at that conference I think.

Overall I think most middle conferences lost position to higher conferences due to realignment. I also think D1 expansion potentially hurt some of the middle conferences bad teams. I think it lowered the quality of recruits they can bring in. It could be easier getting a d1 offer closer to home, better playing time or better option for transferring to a better school down the road.

There are a few things to consider. In 1997 there were 30 conferences getting an automatic bid. That number changed to 31 conferences in 2000. The loss of one bubble team slot to another AQ was so significant that the 2001 NCAA Tournament the next year expanded from 64 teams to 65 teams. The NCAA Tournament subsequently expanded to 68 teams in 2011. Then we added the American in 2014 to go to 32 total conferences getting an auto-bid. Another change during this time was moving from RPI to NET in 2018.

Even though the tournament expanded to 68 in 2011, the additional bids weren't going to more conferences. Assuming the data in the OP is correct, in the 8 years prior to expanding, 12 different conferences had multiple bids 4 times. So 50% of the time in those 8 years before expansion 12 different conferences would have 2 or more bids. In the 11 years since, 12 different conferences getting multiple bids has only happened once, or 9% of the time.

Here is another way to look at it:

• Between 1997 and 2000 there were 64 teams in the tournament. In that time there were 135 total at large bids and 43 conferences receiving multiple bids. That means 31.9% of conferences received multiple bids.
• Between 2001 and 2010 there were 65 teams in the tournament. In that time there were 340 total at large bids and 110 conferences receiving multiple bids. That means 32.4% of conferences received multiple bids.
• Between 2011 and 2022 there were 68 teams in the tournament. In that time there were 400 total at large bids and 112 conferences receiving multiple bids. That means 27.9% of conferences received multiple bids. Please note the Ivy League did not participate in the 2020-2021 season so that opened an additional at large bid in the 2021 tournament.

Maybe it’s just that top tier conferences are growing in size. The ACC has grown from 7 to 15 teams over the past several decades. Every conference is expanding in order to be more attractive to media companies. It takes a few years for new programs to acclimate after changing conferences, but the top eight conferences today probably have as many members as the top 10 or 11 conferences from 25 years ago.

(01-30-2023 11:06 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Maybe it’s just that top tier conferences are growing in size. The ACC has grown from 7 to 15 teams over the past several decades. Every conference is expanding in order to be more attractive to media companies. It takes a few years for new programs to acclimate after changing conferences, but the top eight conferences today probably have as many members as the top 10 or 11 conferences from 25 years ago.

That’s a good point to consider.

(01-30-2023 06:28 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 06:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 05:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If I’m the Big East, I’d be looking to add some of the top A-10 schools to try and and create some more separation and keep themselves in basketball’s P club.

What? No need, unless you're somehow arguing to kick Georgetown out of the Big East to join the CAA or Big South.

Yea, the Big East is a power league easily as is. No need to add Dayton, Saint Louis, or VCU to cement anything.

Plus, VCU is a large public school. It doest fit the Big East model at all. They made a exception for UConn obviously but they likely wont do it again. Also, if VCU ever wants to add football someday, they are better off with the CAA affiliation.

(01-30-2023 10:59 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Over the years, the middle class in college basketball has been shrinking, right? The number of leagues getting multiple bids has been shrinking or has it?

Since 1997 (number of leagues with multiple bids): I picked that year because the previous years Wikipedia didn't break down.

97: 9
98: 11
99: 11
00: 12
01: 10
02: 11
03: 12
04: 11
05: 12
06: 12
07: 12
08: 10
09: 9
10: 11
11: 10
12: 12
13: 10
14: 10
15: 11
16: 9
17: 9
18: 9
19: 11
21: 11
22: 10

I went into this exercise expecting a consolidation of bids. There has been some of that (no year with 12 multi-bid conferences in a decade), but it wasn't as stark as I thought it would be.

I do think there are three reasons for this trend:
1. Consolidation of basketball brands into fewer leagues
2. More conference games among major leagues
3. Reluctance to play mid-majors out of conference

There might be a more dramatic decrease if you look at later rounds (e.g. how many conferences had teams in the second round or Sweet 16).

If someone were to ask me, I would say yes, this trend is happening. I’m not sure the at large bids is a great way to measure it though. I’m not sure what a good way is however.

Yes, top programs are now poaching players from mid and low majors more than ever. And while mid majors do get good players who leave top programs, it’s under very different circumstances typically and hard to compare.

Yes, the top programs are more affected by players going pro after a season or two and that does hurt some major powers, and help some mid majors, with the (few) players who play together multiple seasons have an edge that way.

With things already tilted to the high majors, then having the edge in tourney bids, not to mention in the selection process itself, NIL designed to benefit schools with the richest donors and supporters, I think the top conferences are simply trying to create their own division.

I think enough bulk of a variety of mid majors is having enough collective success year in and year out, they are trying harder to find more ways to pound them back down. I think they feel that enough mid majors have moved up into bigger conferences that don’t want any more members of their “club” and are trying to hold the door shut.

(01-31-2023 07:13 PM)Todor Wrote:  If someone were to ask me, I would say yes, this trend is happening. I’m not sure the at large bids is a great way to measure it though. I’m not sure what a good way is however.

Yes, top programs are now poaching players from mid and low majors more than ever. And while mid majors do get good players who leave top programs, it’s under very different circumstances typically and hard to compare.

Yes, the top programs are more affected by players going pro after a season or two and that does hurt some major powers, and help some mid majors, with the (few) players who play together multiple seasons have an edge that way.

With things already tilted to the high majors, then having the edge in tourney bids, not to mention in the selection process itself, NIL designed to be fit schools with the richest donors and supporters, I think the top conferences are simply trying to create their own division.

I think enough bulk of a variety of mid majors is having enough collective success year in and year out, they are trying harder to find more ways to pound them back down. I think they feel that enough mid majors have moved up into bigger conferences that don’t want any more members of their “club” and are trying to hold the door shut.

Oooooh. Those are fightin' words to the P5 fans here. Be careful or they will come up with a way to kick non-P5 or P5 "dislikers" OFF this board.

[Oooooh. Those are fightin' words to the P5 fans here. Be careful or they will come up with a way to kick non-P5 or P5 "dislikers" OFF this board.]

Like any of them would be here reading about any of us anyway.