(02-05-2010 12:26 AM)DICK Wrote: [ -> ]There would no longer be the mismatch 1 vs 16 or 2 vs 15 games. The teams that are now 15's and 16's would become 23's and 24's, but they would get matched up against 9's and 10's and they would occassionally win some of those games. Also, the worry that the top 32 teams would have a bye and then an easy win does not hold water with me. Too often a team with a bye comes out and struggles and a team which has already won a tournament game has already adapted to the tournament intensity and has momentum and wins. Think about Akron winning the MAC tournament last year. When I was coaching high school basketball, about half of the coachs wanted nothing to do with a bye because of that. Many coachs would deliberately not choose a bye but would rather play a weaker team in the first round.
I'm not sure how they would set up the bracket if it was 96.
For each appearance in an NCAA tourney game, a conference receives 1 unit. This includes play-in games. The play-in schools have been able to pick up an addition NCAA unit by winning that game.
It would be to the mid-majors advantage if they made the interior 64 schools play each other (leaving 1-4 and 21-24 out in both brackets). That would help the MAC pick up a second team and a win a game against similar competition for a total of 3 or 4 units. Each unit is worth about a million dollars so there is a lot of money involved.
The interior 64 (schools ranked 17-80) would include a lot of names for TV interest vs. the last 64 (schools ranked 33-96) that would include a lot of mid-majors. Its all about a conference getting teams in and playing in as many total games as possible.
I have mixed feelings about expanding the tournament. on one hand the system really works. It's exclusive and you know you've made it if you get in. on the other hand as a BSU fan I got to watch the 01-02 BSU team who beat Kansas and UCLA in the Maui invite and gave ducke all they could handle get relegated to the NIT where they beat SFU, LSU, and st. joes with three road games in a week during finals. I feel that if this team had made the ncaa tourney they could have made some noise. There are always going to be teams trhat feel left out. I think that they need to slightly expand to accomodate this. Perhaps they even need to have a floating system where the number of teams is undetermined. I know it's a logistics nightmare.
I also feel that every auto bid to the tourney should get to play in the field of 64 reguardless of conference. I'm tired of seeing two auto bids play in the play in game. It should be the last two teams in. At the very least this needs to change before they look at exanding.
(02-05-2010 12:26 AM)DICK Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest reason that MAC basketball has fallen off is that in the early 2000's there were several years where we had bubble teams that seemed deserving but were not given an at-large bid. That really seperated us from the A-10 and the Missouri Valley and even the Horizon got several at-large bids.
It may have more to do with BCS conferences becoming more serious about Men's basketball.
Back in the mid 90's, top to bottom the A-10 was just as good as the Big East. WVU, Pitt did not take basketball very seriously. Ohio used to play WVU 1 for 1 in hoops back in the day.
There was the Big 8, but the SWC sucked at hoops and was not considered a serious player on the scene. Now Texas, TT, and Baylor are serious players.
The Horizon League is rated #14 in the RPI. If you take Butler out of the equation, the average RPI for the Horizon is #17. I expect that Butler with its Indy market will be moving onto the A-10 or MVC in a few years. Over the long term, the Horizon is not going to be a threat to the MAC.
I like the idea of placing both the regular season champions and the conference tourney winners in the NCAAs. That would give the MAC a second school in the dance almost every year.
(02-02-2010 03:52 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]It would also be the stupidest move in sports history.
1985 called, it wants its meme back..
(02-05-2010 01:23 PM)cardinalcrazie Wrote: [ -> ]I also feel that every auto bid to the tourney should get to play in the field of 64 reguardless of conference. I'm tired of seeing two auto bids play in the play in game. It should be the last two teams in. At the very least this needs to change before they look at exanding.
The reason they had the two auto-bids fighting it out is to protect the number of at-large bids at 34. Obviously the BCS perfers it that way rather than have a 17-10 team left at home.
In football, the 6 autobid conferences pick up full BCS shares of money while the remaining 5 split 1/2 of a share, which is doubled to a full share if a school makes it.
What the BCS should do is give the MWC+Boise a full share and the split a FULL share between the remaining 4 conferences and give an autobid to the top school in the non-AQ.
Dick makes the best argument yet for a 96 team field.
Currently there are 126 units distributed per tournament (no units for the championship game). Expansion would take it to 220. So you'd need another 18.8 million to keep the distribution the same each year, which is nothing, and that's without giving a bonus unit to teams getting a bye.
I'm not convinced the unit system is going to stay as dominant. The current distribution plan has:
Academic Enhancement: $19.8 million (equal amount to each school)
Basketball Fund: $143 million (basketball units)
Conference Grants: $7 million (equal amount to each league)
Grants-in-aid: $95.5 million (1 point for each full time equivalency between 1-50, 2 pts for the next 50, 51-100, 10pts for the next 50 101-150, and 20pts each for each grant starting at 151 and above)
Sport Sponsorship: $47.7 million (about $26,000 for each sport sponsored starting with the 14th sport).
Special Assistance: $12 million (extra money to help players, usually clothing and medical)
Student-Athlete opportunity fund: $31 million (usually to help finish a degree)
I suspect that if they cut a new deal and new money is coming in, you will see a change in how this all works.
Basketball units, probably get capped at around $200,000 where it is now or even gets reduced to say $175,000 or $150,000.
Some boost to special assistance and student-athlete opportunity but I think the bulk of new money will go to the grant-in-aid formula.
I still have not read where anybody has any actual proof that the selection committee is biased to the top 6 conferences. I don't think Laing Kennedy is voting an 8th ACC team into the field or moving someone up a seed line because of some alliance. The selection committee has members from all levels of Division I basketball.
What is biased is the numbers. When you base selection on Top 50 wins or SOS, the top conference teams will have advantages because they play more games against top teams, but once those men get in that room, I don't buy the notion of bias.
I also think any expansion will happen at venues already scheduled for games. They would not play games at home sites because the point of expansion will be to increase the TV contract. One of the draws of the TV contract is that every team is shown in their home market, and that would be impossible with 32 games being played across a two or three day span.
(02-05-2010 02:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2010 03:52 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]It would also be the stupidest move in sports history.
1985 called, it wants its meme back..
?
Actually, I'd like to advocate an ALL-IN tournament. Right now, there is a lot WRONG with the present format.
1) Attendance has been suffering at many venues due to the long distances fans of many teams have to travel. An "all-in" tourney can remedy this problem by having the large majority of teams play close to home all the way to the Sweet Sixteen.
2) The concept of "only the most deserving teams" making the tourney is a fallacy. BEFORE the season even starts, it's already a moot point almost all of the at-large slots will be taken by a select few conferences. Those conferences load up on OOC wins at home, ensuring a high RPI for most of their teams. The playing field is NOT level from DAY ONE.
I've been doing research on this concept for over a year and plan to present it at a conference next year. One item I'm still needing, however, is a list of coaches/ADs who would support and advocate an all-in tourney.
We do have an all-in tournament, we just leave it to the conferences to negotiate the TV element of the opening 3 or 4 rounds that we call conference tournaments and then we offer a second chance to 34 early round losers and call them at-large bids.
(02-06-2010 10:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]We do have an all-in tournament, we just leave it to the conferences to negotiate the TV element of the opening 3 or 4 rounds that we call conference tournaments and then we offer a second chance to 34 early round losers and call them at-large bids.
But that's the point. The conference tourneys eliminate our teams, but it does not have the equal effect on the Big 6 conf schools whose built-in advantages unrelated to quality of play give them a disproportionate number of the at-large slots.
=>Conference tourney hurts MAC at-large hopes. It gives the MAC's at-large hopeful another loss against "a MAC school" in the committee's mind. In a BCS league, the conference tourney helps. Any losses are perceived to be against good competition so no big deal, but a win against a ranked team in the league tourney suddenly catapults the BCS at-large into the dance.
(02-08-2010 12:12 PM)mollautt Wrote: [ -> ]=>Conference tourney hurts MAC at-large hopes. It gives the MAC's at-large hopeful another loss against "a MAC school" in the committee's mind. In a BCS league, the conference tourney helps. Any losses are perceived to be against good competition so no big deal, but a win against a ranked team in the league tourney suddenly catapults the BCS at-large into the dance.
+1
(02-06-2010 10:18 AM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2010 10:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]We do have an all-in tournament, we just leave it to the conferences to negotiate the TV element of the opening 3 or 4 rounds that we call conference tournaments and then we offer a second chance to 34 early round losers and call them at-large bids.
But that's the point. The conference tourneys eliminate our teams, but it does not have the equal effect on the Big 6 conf schools whose built-in advantages unrelated to quality of play give them a disproportionate number of the at-large slots.
+1
Admittedly I haven't read every post, but there is one thing I'd personally like to see: Do not allow every conference team a shot at the conference tournament. In fact, don't allow most of them to get in. In the MAC, for example, take the MAC East and MAC West winners and two "wild cards", which would provide a MAC Final Four.
Once conference tournaments began, the excitement of the regular season has seemed watered down for 1-bid conferences like the MAC (at least for me). Sure, it's all still fun. But there's still this hint of, "well, regardless of whether we win or lose tomorrow, everyone is 'reset' at 0-0 at the end of February." I know we haven't had an instance where some really low-seeded team reeled off some upsets and 'stole' the NCAA bid. Still, in its current state, the MAC tournament - much like other one bid league tourneys - make the regular season feel too much like a pre-season.
Back to the expanded NCAA field idea... I have a mixed reaction as well. My initial reaction is that 96 teams is too many, and suddenly the glowing exclusivity and "We're dancing!" excitement becomes more muddled. On the other hand, some deserving teams get a shot, even if it's just for a day or two. After all, a 64-team tournament represents 18% of Division I, while a 96-team tournament is 28% of all Division I. Even 28% doesn't seem so large when compared to the bowl season, where roughly half get in. But then again, despite there being more opportunities for smaller schools to go bowling in recent years, it's obvious the "Wow!" factor of being invited to a bowl has greatly diminished compared to 10 years ago.
I want 96 but I know I can't really get everything I want. However, if I really got all my wishes, I would like to see some new rules put in and then they can leave it at 65 or so.
1. All teams must play at least 4 OOC games away from home at an opposing teams site to be eligible for post season. That opposing team must be at their same division level.
2. A team must have at least an even record in conference to be considered for the post season. I would accept an addendum saying your conference tourny record can be added to your conference record to achieve that even record.
3. Regular season conference champs get the automatic bid to the NCAA
4. The conference tourny winner is not guaranteed a spot in the tourny ( but will get an automatic bid to the NIT )
5. If a team wins both its regular season and post season conference tourny, it gets seeded in the top 32 and plays close to home. I'm not sure how well this can be enforced but I want it just the same. I'd actually prefer a home game but TV coverage would be more difficult.