I'm sorry, but I just don't see a problem here.

1) There are plenty of at large bids available. Its not like there are more conferences being created to take up at large bids.
2) If you have a problem with how your team schedules, that's on your AD and coach
3) FCOA will probably create all the 'separation' that people want.
4) The 'wide scope' of NCAA inclusion helps increase the potential reach for college basketball in general, which helps everyone

The large number of D1 teams doesn't take anything away from anyone, doesn't hurt any other teams unless they let it, and will likely be reduced anyway by FCOA.

What's the problem?

The P5+BE have a total of 75 school, 36 of those schools are in the NCAA Tournament. Another 10 are in the NIT. What is up with people who think every team in a power conference deserves a participation trophy simply because they are in a power conference?

If people convinced themselves that the #1 seeds of the NIT are just too deserving of being in the NCAA to be left out, and are being "blocked out" by the autobids of "below the Mario Mendoza line" conferences ...
... they could be put in by converting the First Four to a First Eight of two sessions each day over two days, four last-eight autobid games and four last-eight at-large.

But it might be more productive to find out what they are drinking, at least if it is possible to recover from it's effects in time for work on Monday.

And if people are convinced that the #2 seeds of the NIT are just too deserving to be left out ... I don't really want to know what they've been drinking, or smoking, I just want to know which road they are on and when, so I can be elsewhere.

(03-24-2016 12:45 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  If people convinced themselves that the #1 seeds of the NIT are just too deserving of being in the NCAA to be left out, and are being "blocked out" by the autobids of "below the Mario Mendoza line" conferences ...
... they could be put in by converting the First Four to a First Eight of two sessions each day over two days, four last-eight autobid games and four last-eight at-large.

But it might be more productive to find out what they are drinking, at least if it is possible to recover from it's effects in time for work on Monday.

And if people are convinced that the #2 seeds of the NIT are just too deserving to be left out ... I don't really want to know what they've been drinking, or smoking, I just want to know which road they are on and when, so I can be elsewhere.

My team (George Washington) has no reason to complain about not making the NCAA tournament. Some years GW's record would have been enough to get in. This year..it just didn't happen. If we wanted to be in the NCAA's, we shouldn't have lost to DePaul and St Louis.

Every year, there are teams that point to another team and say 'we were robbed because we think we're better than team x'. But these teams rarely look at their own missed opportunities. Rarely is a team truly 'robbed' by being left out of the dance. Seeding is a different matter (and teams do get 'robbed' all the time there).

---

As far as expanding the NCAA's up to 96 teams, that's something that people can consider if they wish to do so. But, that would pretty much guarantee 75% of P5 teams would make the dance every year. Half the A-10 would too. The AAC, WCC, and MVC would get a bid or two more each year. Going to 96 might cause the P5 conference tournaments to become largely irrelevant to the casual fan.

Maybe 3 or 4 of the new bids would go to teams from conferences ranked below the top 10. But for most conferences, this would be a disaster as they'd move from 12 or 13 lines to the 14 or 15 lines, where its much less likely for them to win.

(03-24-2016 06:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every year, there are teams that point to another team and say 'we were robbed because we think we're better than team x'. But these teams rarely look at their own missed opportunities. Rarely is a team truly 'robbed' by being left out of the dance. Seeding is a different matter (and teams do get 'robbed' all the time there).

It's not so much about justice, for me, as it is about the health of the system. Based on the system as it exists, it is probably too difficult for a school outside the top 8 conference to earn an at-large bid. For SDSU, Monmouth, St Marys, Valparaiso, the regular season might as well have not happened. That's bad for those leagues and programs.

You can look at any of those school's seasons and say "See, this is why they're not in the tournament." But when the bottom 20+ leagues get one at-large bid combined, which goes to Wichita State, it's fair to say "The regular season doesn't matter if you're not in a top conference."

And that's not good.

(03-24-2016 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 06:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every year, there are teams that point to another team and say 'we were robbed because we think we're better than team x'. But these teams rarely look at their own missed opportunities. Rarely is a team truly 'robbed' by being left out of the dance. Seeding is a different matter (and teams do get 'robbed' all the time there).

It's not so much about justice, for me, as it is about the health of the system. Based on the system as it exists, it is probably too difficult for a school outside the top 8 conference to earn an at-large bid. For SDSU, Monmouth, St Marys, Valparaiso, the regular season might as well have not happened. That's bad for those leagues and programs.

You can look at any of those school's seasons and say "See, this is why they're not in the tournament." But when the bottom 20+ leagues get one at-large bid combined, which goes to Wichita State, it's fair to say "The regular season doesn't matter if you're not in a top conference."

And that's not good.

Or the regular season matters more because every missed opportunity is one that could keep you completely out of the tournament. It's just a matter of perspective.

Also, if you think you might be in the atlarge running, you might want to focus on the OOC schedule (exempting Monmouth who just got unlucky that big name opponents were crap this year)

(03-24-2016 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 06:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every year, there are teams that point to another team and say 'we were robbed because we think we're better than team x'. But these teams rarely look at their own missed opportunities. Rarely is a team truly 'robbed' by being left out of the dance. Seeding is a different matter (and teams do get 'robbed' all the time there).

It's not so much about justice, for me, as it is about the health of the system. Based on the system as it exists, it is probably too difficult for a school outside the top 8 conference to earn an at-large bid. For SDSU, Monmouth, St Marys, Valparaiso, the regular season might as well have not happened. That's bad for those leagues and programs.

You can look at any of those school's seasons and say "See, this is why they're not in the tournament." But when the bottom 20+ leagues get one at-large bid combined, which goes to Wichita State, it's fair to say "The regular season doesn't matter if you're not in a top conference."

And that's not good.

This is my sentiment as well. Akron was the best team in the MAC the entire season and won the MAC by 2 full games, 3 games better than tournament representative Buffalo who they beat TWICE in the regular season. Buffalo hits a last second 3 to beat Akron in a game where both teams were playing their 3rd game in 3 days and were not anywhere close to 100%.

I'm fine with the conference tournament granting the auto-bid as I feel it makes the tournament more exciting. If we insist on keeping conferences that never win come tournament time, what I propose is the tournament expands to 72 teams. Those extra 4 spots would be reserved specifically for the top 4 teams that won their regular season conference, but lost in the tournament and failed to make the initial field of 68. This year those teams would have likely been Monmouth, St. Bonaventure, Valpo, and SDSU. Akron would still miss the tournament, but at least they would have had a legitimate chance just like every other mid-major.

To fit the 4 extra games in, I'd say make all 16 seeds play-in games and place those 4 mid-major at large teams against one another in play-in games.

(03-23-2016 11:08 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The P5+BE have a total of 75 school, 36 of those schools are in the NCAA Tournament. Another 10 are in the NIT. What is up with people who think every team in a power conference deserves a participation trophy simply because they are in a power conference?

What people are you talking about? If you looked at the OP...the MAC was above the Mendoza Line.

(03-24-2016 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 06:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every year, there are teams that point to another team and say 'we were robbed because we think we're better than team x'. But these teams rarely look at their own missed opportunities. Rarely is a team truly 'robbed' by being left out of the dance. Seeding is a different matter (and teams do get 'robbed' all the time there).

It's not so much about justice, for me, as it is about the health of the system. Based on the system as it exists, it is probably too difficult for a school outside the top 8 conference to earn an at-large bid. For SDSU, Monmouth, St Marys, Valparaiso, the regular season might as well have not happened. That's bad for those leagues and programs.

You can look at any of those school's seasons and say "See, this is why they're not in the tournament." But when the bottom 20+ leagues get one at-large bid combined, which goes to Wichita State, it's fair to say "The regular season doesn't matter if you're not in a top conference."

And that's not good.

But expanding (even to 96), probably won't help matters much.

Requiring at least a .500 conference record for an at large might help more. But Teams CAN get at large bids from lower conferences. They simply have to schedule good teams. Most refuse to do so. You can go on the road to play top teams too. Or go to a in season tournament or two. If you've got a top 150 RPI teams will schedule you - they're looking for 'quality wins' too.

----

Who was really shafted? I'd argue no one really was.


This year, there just weren't a lot of 25+ win teams that were looking for an at large from the bottom 20 conferences. Exactly 3 teams had more than 25 D1 wins.

Monmouth - Beat 1 at large quality NCAA team (Notre Dame). 27-7 record
Akron - No wins over at large quality NCAA teams. 25-8 record
UAB - Beat 1 team with an at large quality NCAA record (SF Austin). 25-7 D1 record

UC Irvine, Valpo, and SDSU had 25 wins due to non-D1 games. Valpo played FOUR of them. None of them had an OOC win that was much of a game changer.

---

My team (GW) had a far better resume than all of those teams (using OOC alone) and I freely admit we weren't shafted (we blew it - we're where we belong - the NIT). So did St Bonaventure.

Had Little Rock or SFA lost in their tourney finals, then there'd be a case for those teams. But for the most part, the leading teams from the lower conferences won their tournaments. One reason for that is that the lower 20 conferences have assymmetric conference tournament seedings that attempt to do everything possible to ensure the best team wins the conference tournament.

Its a boring tournament year. But I don't think any team outside of it can really claim they were obviously shafted by being left out. I like underdogs in the tournament too. But this year...the numbers just weren't there to justify more bids.

Whether the lack of at large teams from the bottom 20 is good for the tournament is another question entirely.

(03-24-2016 08:39 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But expanding (even to 96), probably won't help matters much.

Agreed. I'm talking about tweaking the selection formula.

Quote:Who was really shafted? I'd argue no one really was.

There are legitimate reasons to knock down any of the midmajor schools that didn't make the NCAAs. But when you knock down ALL of them, it looks like the cited reason isn't the real reason.

Quote:Whether the lack of at large teams from the bottom 20 is good for the tournament is another question entirely.

It's okay for the tournament--Michigan instead of Monmouth in the First Four has obvious advantages. But it's bad for the sport as a whole.

(03-24-2016 08:39 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its a boring tournament year. But I don't think any team outside of it can really claim they were obviously shafted by being left out. I like underdogs in the tournament too. But this year...the numbers just weren't there to justify more bids.

Whether the lack of at large teams from the bottom 20 is good for the tournament is another question entirely.

Boring? Did I dream about last weekend having some of the craziest action ever?

(03-24-2016 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 06:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every year, there are teams that point to another team and say 'we were robbed because we think we're better than team x'. But these teams rarely look at their own missed opportunities. Rarely is a team truly 'robbed' by being left out of the dance. Seeding is a different matter (and teams do get 'robbed' all the time there).

It's not so much about justice, for me, as it is about the health of the system. Based on the system as it exists, it is probably too difficult for a school outside the top 8 conference to earn an at-large bid. For SDSU, Monmouth, St Marys, Valparaiso, the regular season might as well have not happened. That's bad for those leagues and programs.

You can look at any of those school's seasons and say "See, this is why they're not in the tournament." But when the bottom 20+ leagues get one at-large bid combined, which goes to Wichita State, it's fair to say "The regular season doesn't matter if you're not in a top conference."

And that's not good.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that those 20 conferences have it entirely within their own power to fix that. All they have to do is eliminate their conference tournament, and select their champion the old fashioned way - by regular season results within the conference.

(03-24-2016 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 06:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every year, there are teams that point to another team and say 'we were robbed because we think we're better than team x'. But these teams rarely look at their own missed opportunities. Rarely is a team truly 'robbed' by being left out of the dance. Seeding is a different matter (and teams do get 'robbed' all the time there).

It's not so much about justice, for me, as it is about the health of the system. Based on the system as it exists, it is probably too difficult for a school outside the top 8 conference to earn an at-large bid. For SDSU, Monmouth, St Marys, Valparaiso, the regular season might as well have not happened. That's bad for those leagues and programs.

You can look at any of those school's seasons and say "See, this is why they're not in the tournament." But when the bottom 20+ leagues get one at-large bid combined, which goes to Wichita State, it's fair to say "The regular season doesn't matter if you're not in a top conference."

And that's not good.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that those 20 conferences have it entirely within their own power to fix that. All they have to do is eliminate their conference tournament, and select their champion the old fashioned way - by regular season results within the conference.

So you're saying conferences that feature schools that have their athletic department heavily subsidized should cancel one of the few big moneymakers they have? Also, by having fewer games that would further hinder those conference chances of receiving at-large bids.

(03-24-2016 10:54 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 06:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every year, there are teams that point to another team and say 'we were robbed because we think we're better than team x'. But these teams rarely look at their own missed opportunities. Rarely is a team truly 'robbed' by being left out of the dance. Seeding is a different matter (and teams do get 'robbed' all the time there).

It's not so much about justice, for me, as it is about the health of the system. Based on the system as it exists, it is probably too difficult for a school outside the top 8 conference to earn an at-large bid. For SDSU, Monmouth, St Marys, Valparaiso, the regular season might as well have not happened. That's bad for those leagues and programs.

You can look at any of those school's seasons and say "See, this is why they're not in the tournament." But when the bottom 20+ leagues get one at-large bid combined, which goes to Wichita State, it's fair to say "The regular season doesn't matter if you're not in a top conference."

And that's not good.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that those 20 conferences have it entirely within their own power to fix that. All they have to do is eliminate their conference tournament, and select their champion the old fashioned way - by regular season results within the conference.

So you're saying conferences that feature schools that have their athletic department heavily subsidized should cancel one of the few big moneymakers they have? Also, by having fewer games that would further hinder those conference chances of receiving at-large bids.

I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.

(03-24-2016 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:54 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 06:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every year, there are teams that point to another team and say 'we were robbed because we think we're better than team x'. But these teams rarely look at their own missed opportunities. Rarely is a team truly 'robbed' by being left out of the dance. Seeding is a different matter (and teams do get 'robbed' all the time there).

It's not so much about justice, for me, as it is about the health of the system. Based on the system as it exists, it is probably too difficult for a school outside the top 8 conference to earn an at-large bid. For SDSU, Monmouth, St Marys, Valparaiso, the regular season might as well have not happened. That's bad for those leagues and programs.

You can look at any of those school's seasons and say "See, this is why they're not in the tournament." But when the bottom 20+ leagues get one at-large bid combined, which goes to Wichita State, it's fair to say "The regular season doesn't matter if you're not in a top conference."

And that's not good.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that those 20 conferences have it entirely within their own power to fix that. All they have to do is eliminate their conference tournament, and select their champion the old fashioned way - by regular season results within the conference.

So you're saying conferences that feature schools that have their athletic department heavily subsidized should cancel one of the few big moneymakers they have? Also, by having fewer games that would further hinder those conference chances of receiving at-large bids.

I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.

Then what point are you trying to get a crossed? Smaller conferences are faced with the decision of giving their regular season meaning at the cost of sacrificing desperately needed money or diluting their regular season so that they can receive desperately needed funds to support their athletics and receive national recognition.

Of the bottom 20 or so leagues, the Ivy League is the one that can in all likelihood most afford financially to forego the conference tournament. They have for a very long time, but the temptation finally got to them as they realized the money they were missing out on and knowing their only hope of ever getting 2 teams in is if 1 puts together a historic season, but loses in the championship game.

I proposed earlier that the tournament expand to 72 teams and the 4 additional spots be awarded to the 4 best teams that won their regular season, but didn't make the initial field of 68. This would bring some regular season meaning back these typical single bid conferences while not diluting March Madness. In fact, it would make the 1st round of the tournament better as teams like Monmouth and Valpo would slot in as an 11th or 12th seed pushing all the seeds back to strengthen the 13, 14, and 15 seeds. Who knows perhaps instead of Middle Tennessee upsetting MSU, they would have been a 16 seed upsetting Virginia. Talk about excitement.

(03-24-2016 11:32 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:54 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  It's not so much about justice, for me, as it is about the health of the system. Based on the system as it exists, it is probably too difficult for a school outside the top 8 conference to earn an at-large bid. For SDSU, Monmouth, St Marys, Valparaiso, the regular season might as well have not happened. That's bad for those leagues and programs.

You can look at any of those school's seasons and say "See, this is why they're not in the tournament." But when the bottom 20+ leagues get one at-large bid combined, which goes to Wichita State, it's fair to say "The regular season doesn't matter if you're not in a top conference."

And that's not good.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that those 20 conferences have it entirely within their own power to fix that. All they have to do is eliminate their conference tournament, and select their champion the old fashioned way - by regular season results within the conference.

So you're saying conferences that feature schools that have their athletic department heavily subsidized should cancel one of the few big moneymakers they have? Also, by having fewer games that would further hinder those conference chances of receiving at-large bids.

I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.

Then what point are you trying to get a crossed? Smaller conferences are faced with the decision of giving their regular season meaning at the cost of sacrificing desperately needed money or diluting their regular season so that they can receive desperately needed funds to support their athletics and receive national recognition.

Of the bottom 20 or so leagues, the Ivy League is the one that can in all likelihood most afford financially to forego the conference tournament. They have for a very long time, but the temptation finally got to them as they realized the money they were missing out on and knowing their only hope of ever getting 2 teams in is if 1 puts together a historic season, but loses in the championship game.

I proposed earlier that the tournament expand to 72 teams and the 4 additional spots be awarded to the 4 best teams that won their regular season, but didn't make the initial field of 68. This would bring some regular season meaning back these typical single bid conferences while not diluting March Madness. In fact, it would make the 1st round of the tournament better as teams like Monmouth and Valpo would slot in as an 11th or 12th seed pushing all the seeds back to strengthen the 13, 14, and 15 seeds. Who knows perhaps instead of Middle Tennessee upsetting MSU, they would have been a 16 seed upsetting Virginia. Talk about excitement.

I wasn't trying to get any point across. I was merely responding to the suggestion that the regular season doesn't count for the bottom 20 or so conferences. I doubt their conference tournaments generate much profit, if any. You put your finger on their reason for existence. They are hoping to steal a bid to the Big Dance when and if their best team gets upset in the conference tournament.

What I have proposed in the past is that those 20 conferences get 32 bids. Have them play two rounds in the week prior to Selection Sunday, with the 8 remaining winners going into the round of 64 with whatever seed they have earned. Historically, most of them would be seeded around 10-12, and have a reasonable chance to advance further.

But until that happens, they have no reason to gripe about the regular season not counting for them because they chose to give their weaker teams a chance to catch lightening in a bottle.

(03-24-2016 11:32 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:54 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  It's not so much about justice, for me, as it is about the health of the system. Based on the system as it exists, it is probably too difficult for a school outside the top 8 conference to earn an at-large bid. For SDSU, Monmouth, St Marys, Valparaiso, the regular season might as well have not happened. That's bad for those leagues and programs.

You can look at any of those school's seasons and say "See, this is why they're not in the tournament." But when the bottom 20+ leagues get one at-large bid combined, which goes to Wichita State, it's fair to say "The regular season doesn't matter if you're not in a top conference."

And that's not good.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that those 20 conferences have it entirely within their own power to fix that. All they have to do is eliminate their conference tournament, and select their champion the old fashioned way - by regular season results within the conference.

So you're saying conferences that feature schools that have their athletic department heavily subsidized should cancel one of the few big moneymakers they have? Also, by having fewer games that would further hinder those conference chances of receiving at-large bids.

I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.

Then what point are you trying to get a crossed? Smaller conferences are faced with the decision of giving their regular season meaning at the cost of sacrificing desperately needed money or diluting their regular season so that they can receive desperately needed funds to support their athletics and receive national recognition.

Of the bottom 20 or so leagues, the Ivy League is the one that can in all likelihood most afford financially to forego the conference tournament. They have for a very long time, but the temptation finally got to them as they realized the money they were missing out on and knowing their only hope of ever getting 2 teams in is if 1 puts together a historic season, but loses in the championship game.

I proposed earlier that the tournament expand to 72 teams and the 4 additional spots be awarded to the 4 best teams that won their regular season, but didn't make the initial field of 68. This would bring some regular season meaning back these typical single bid conferences while not diluting March Madness. In fact, it would make the 1st round of the tournament better as teams like Monmouth and Valpo would slot in as an 11th or 12th seed pushing all the seeds back to strengthen the 13, 14, and 15 seeds. Who knows perhaps instead of Middle Tennessee upsetting MSU, they would have been a 16 seed upsetting Virginia. Talk about excitement.

I would think the Bottom Tiered Conferences do not make much money if any at their championships.

Also, MSU was considered stronger than UVA...despite the seeding. Also, a bigger brand than UVA in Hoops.

(03-24-2016 11:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:32 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:54 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Let's not lose sight of the fact that those 20 conferences have it entirely within their own power to fix that. All they have to do is eliminate their conference tournament, and select their champion the old fashioned way - by regular season results within the conference.

So you're saying conferences that feature schools that have their athletic department heavily subsidized should cancel one of the few big moneymakers they have? Also, by having fewer games that would further hinder those conference chances of receiving at-large bids.

I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.

Then what point are you trying to get a crossed? Smaller conferences are faced with the decision of giving their regular season meaning at the cost of sacrificing desperately needed money or diluting their regular season so that they can receive desperately needed funds to support their athletics and receive national recognition.

Of the bottom 20 or so leagues, the Ivy League is the one that can in all likelihood most afford financially to forego the conference tournament. They have for a very long time, but the temptation finally got to them as they realized the money they were missing out on and knowing their only hope of ever getting 2 teams in is if 1 puts together a historic season, but loses in the championship game.

I proposed earlier that the tournament expand to 72 teams and the 4 additional spots be awarded to the 4 best teams that won their regular season, but didn't make the initial field of 68. This would bring some regular season meaning back these typical single bid conferences while not diluting March Madness. In fact, it would make the 1st round of the tournament better as teams like Monmouth and Valpo would slot in as an 11th or 12th seed pushing all the seeds back to strengthen the 13, 14, and 15 seeds. Who knows perhaps instead of Middle Tennessee upsetting MSU, they would have been a 16 seed upsetting Virginia. Talk about excitement.

I wasn't trying to get any point across. I was merely responding to the suggestion that the regular season doesn't count for the bottom 20 or so conferences. I doubt their conference tournaments generate much profit, if any. You put your finger on their reason for existence. They are hoping to steal a bid to the Big Dance when and if their best team gets upset in the conference tournament.

What I have proposed in the past is that those 20 conferences get 32 bids. Have them play two rounds in the week prior to Selection Sunday, with the 8 remaining winners going into the round of 64 with whatever seed they have earned. Historically, most of them would be seeded around 10-12, and have a reasonable chance to advance further.

But until that happens, they have no reason to gripe about the regular season not counting for them because they chose to give their weaker teams a chance to catch lightening in a bottle.

That is not a bad idea....

Many conferences have instituted double byes and other mechanisms to provide huge advantages to the highest seeded teams. This was the result of unfortunate upsets that left conferences with 16 seed play-in game bids.

But the end result of that is that...it works most of the time. And now there are fewer lower level at large candidates because those candidates are taking automatic bids in greater numbers.

(03-24-2016 11:51 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:32 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:54 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Let's not lose sight of the fact that those 20 conferences have it entirely within their own power to fix that. All they have to do is eliminate their conference tournament, and select their champion the old fashioned way - by regular season results within the conference.

So you're saying conferences that feature schools that have their athletic department heavily subsidized should cancel one of the few big moneymakers they have? Also, by having fewer games that would further hinder those conference chances of receiving at-large bids.

I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.

Then what point are you trying to get a crossed? Smaller conferences are faced with the decision of giving their regular season meaning at the cost of sacrificing desperately needed money or diluting their regular season so that they can receive desperately needed funds to support their athletics and receive national recognition.

Of the bottom 20 or so leagues, the Ivy League is the one that can in all likelihood most afford financially to forego the conference tournament. They have for a very long time, but the temptation finally got to them as they realized the money they were missing out on and knowing their only hope of ever getting 2 teams in is if 1 puts together a historic season, but loses in the championship game.

I proposed earlier that the tournament expand to 72 teams and the 4 additional spots be awarded to the 4 best teams that won their regular season, but didn't make the initial field of 68. This would bring some regular season meaning back these typical single bid conferences while not diluting March Madness. In fact, it would make the 1st round of the tournament better as teams like Monmouth and Valpo would slot in as an 11th or 12th seed pushing all the seeds back to strengthen the 13, 14, and 15 seeds. Who knows perhaps instead of Middle Tennessee upsetting MSU, they would have been a 16 seed upsetting Virginia. Talk about excitement.

I would think the Bottom Tiered Conferences do not make much money if any at their championships.

Also, MSU was considered stronger than UVA...despite the seeding. Also, a bigger brand than UVA in Hoops.

The MAC hasn't had an at-large team since 1999. They are a borderline bottom 20 league depending on the year. Their championship game typically attracts between 7k-12k depending on whose playing. Tickets typically go for $25-$60 (for all games) a seat not including floor, club, or box seats. It has corporate sponsors and has games aired nationally. I'd say it is a profitable tournament even after paying to rent the Q.

That just makes the case stronger that an opportunity was potentially missed for a 16 to beat a 1. We've seen a 15 beat a 2 multiple times, but 16 vs. 1 games have been snoozers. The last 16 vs. 1 game that came down to 1 possession was 20+ years ago