(01-31-2019 10:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The NCAA tournament is fine as it is, but was even better at 64.

Good grief.

It was better at 48.

(01-31-2019 01:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  The size of the NCAA field really isn't the main point. It's merely a byproduct of the size of the top division in (or apart from) the NCAA. And as lucrative as the tournament is, that won't be what drives the bus when it comes to deciding who will be in that top division and whether or not it will still be part of the NCAA. Football will dictate that.

In my view of how that will ultimately evolve, I expect it won't just be schools now in a P5 conference. And I don't believe there will be a complete reset for conferences when it happens. I think conferences in the top level will look much the same as they do now. Could it be as many as 150 schools? Maybe. But I think it would at least start out at no more than the 101 schools I posited.

At that size, I don't think a national basketball tournament would warrant a field of 64 teams. 32 would be roughly one third of all those teams. If you are going to have 64, you might as well just include everybody. I wouldn't want to do that. If the top division were to grow to 150 schools, 64 teams wouldn't be as bad. But very few of the 50 additional schools would get into that field - you would just have more teams from what is now the P5. I don't see the point of, or need for, that kind of evolution.

IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that.

I don't disagree with all of it. I think a football separation is more likely to happen and is more warranted but I don't see the need to have the shift effect all DIV 1 sports. They could create another subdivision for football as the have now.

I'll admit there are probably some or plenty of Div 1 schools that aren't investing and don't have the support to warrant being Div 1. Those are the low majors though. Where and how you cut the line would cut out a lot of schools that have better programs and support than many that would be included.

I don't really care though about the MEAC or SWAC getting a shot at the NCAA tourney. I don't think leaving them out would significantly improve the tourney, if anything it leaves the door open for the historic upsets like UMBC over UVA last year, which are fun (unless you're a Wahoo) for most sports fans. It gets get people talking and increases the interest in the tourney. Most likely the #1 seed will roll over whoever the bottom seed is regardless of conference. The only reason I see for doing it is to further consolidate money at the top, which is not a goal I think sports fans do or should have. Watch the NBA if you want the best of the best.

I do know there would be little desire to go back to a 32 team field because Turner is making a lot of money of those first two days and it's just been growing.

Football is a little bloated but not much. Its basketball that needs a separation.

(01-31-2019 07:22 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Or "tax it" by taking away the NCAA Tournament money from funding the NCAA and instead fund it by charging membership dues (so much in dues for D-II schools, a little more for D-I, etc.). This way instead of getting more subsidy at a higher level you get no subsidy and higher dues... but you also get the OPPORTUNITY to EARN more (because NCAA units would be more like 80% of the revenue instead of the current 20% - check my math at "Tracking NCAA Money - 1/29/19").

The NCAA bankrolls over 70 million a year from the tournament. Most of that goes into one of their two endowments which now total right at or a little over 1 Billion in revenues that have been rat-holed away from the D1 membership. There is no reason for the NCAA to sit on a Billion. None. They are a corrupt and ineffectual bureaucracy that is only serving itself. When certain schools in certain sports never get punished for misdeeds it is because those schools earn them revenue.

Make it a dues paying system instead of a squirrel away the revenue system and at least that part of it changes. If they don't care that their top draws are not in the tournament on a given year because they are no longer calculating ad revenues and how much they'll be able to skim the whole thing changes.

Now let me also add that the system of paying tourney creds helps them to skim the interest on the payout money they hold over the years the credits are paid out.

It's a damned racket from the get go with the way things are being handled and the top members are gutless for allowing it to be worked this way and those getting a handout they didn't earn will continue to vote the dole, just like in the real world.

The NCAA is not an independent entity. All decisions about allocation of funds and the rules come from a coalition of university presidents and the system is designed to weight that control to the P5 representatives.

The endowment exists because the power schools wish it to exist. They also made use of it to settle a lawsuit that primarily impacted them.

Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand - the P5 has the power and control of the NCAA as it is. They are the ones directing what is going on.

Not really. And they don't want to have total control. Otherwise they would dump the bureaucracy and form their own group.

And the tournament would be more popular if a bunch of schools weren't in it. Butler and VCU aren't the schools who would get dumped.

(01-31-2019 07:16 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 07:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 03:06 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 02:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:41 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  First, you never answered my question of "why?". Why is this needed? What improvement are you expecting?

Secondly, collectively they are superior but individually that's not necessarily the case. If you don't think the A10 (or even CUSA or the MAC) is competitive in Div 1 basketball then you're not paying attention. The fact that Kentucky will beat us 98 times out of 100 doesn't make the rest of the SEC somehow superior (although they are much better this year).

And lastly, you want to do this for ALL Div 1 sports?!?!? Not just basketball? The parity is even greater in non-revenue sports.

I believe what I said was that I thought this was the direction we are heading. It's not a question of "why" I personally prefer it to what we have now.

That being said, I prefer that sports teams play against peers. I don't believe that MLB teams should include International League or Pacific Coast League teams in their post season tournaments. They aren't peers just because they are all professional baseball teams.

There are 32 D-I conferences in basketball. They are not all peers. They just aren't. The only reason many - most - of those schools are in D-I is because the NCAA gives them "free money" to be there, not because they "belong" in any real sense.

From time to time, International League baseball teams win a game against their parent club. Just like from time to time, schools like UMBC or Wofford or Chaminade capture lightning in a bottle and upset a superior team. That doesn't mean they should all be in the same league, playing at the same level.

You may believe that C-USA is a peer of the Big Ten. I don't. You may see parity in other sports besides basketball. I don't. I see a few powerful conferences dominating college sports, whether that's football, basketball, baseball, golf, tennis, swimming, or track and field. Examples of Cinderellas can be found in all those sports. They are notable for their rarity. They aren't examples of parity, at least not in my eyes.

Let's be honest. Minnesota isn't a "peer" to Ohio State and Michigan athletically either. All your solution would do is substitute mid-level teams from premier conferences with the best from lower conferences. That's not going to give you better competition. We could cut down the field to eight if all we wanted to do was find the best team in the land. Boring.

In other sports there are plenty of schools from lower conferences that are some of the best in the country. Rice baseball, Akron soccer. ODU has more field hockey national titles than any other school in the country.

And I disagree that this is the direction we're heading in anything other than possibly football. March madness ratings would tank under your suggestion. It be like killing the NCAA Golden Goose.

Ratings would go up with fewer mismatches.

And there are probably 10-15 conferences that aren't competitive nationally in any sport.

NAU and their three straight Men's X-Country Championships would disagree (Big Sky bottom 10 conference this year).

Denver from the Summit conference (also bottom 10) wins NC most years in one sport or another.

They aren't a bottom 10 normally and its a conference with a number of state (small states) flagships.

Denver doesn't win championships in Summit sponsored sports. What do they win, skiing?

Look at the last 100 schools or so added. That's where the fluff is. Big Sky has been in Division I as long as I remember.

(01-31-2019 02:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  The size of the NCAA field really isn't the main point. It's merely a byproduct of the size of the top division in (or apart from) the NCAA. And as lucrative as the tournament is, that won't be what drives the bus when it comes to deciding who will be in that top division and whether or not it will still be part of the NCAA. Football will dictate that.

In my view of how that will ultimately evolve, I expect it won't just be schools now in a P5 conference. And I don't believe there will be a complete reset for conferences when it happens. I think conferences in the top level will look much the same as they do now. Could it be as many as 150 schools? Maybe. But I think it would at least start out at no more than the 101 schools I posited.

At that size, I don't think a national basketball tournament would warrant a field of 64 teams. 32 would be roughly one third of all those teams. If you are going to have 64, you might as well just include everybody. I wouldn't want to do that. If the top division were to grow to 150 schools, 64 teams wouldn't be as bad. But very few of the 50 additional schools would get into that field - you would just have more teams from what is now the P5. I don't see the point of, or need for, that kind of evolution.

IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that.

I don't disagree with all of it. I think a football separation is more likely to happen and is more warranted but I don't see the need to have the shift effect all DIV 1 sports. They could create another subdivision for football as the have now.

I'll admit there are probably some or plenty of Div 1 schools that aren't investing and don't have the support to warrant being Div 1. Those are the low majors though. Where and how you cut the line would cut out a lot of schools that have better programs and support than many that would be included.

I don't really care though about the MEAC or SWAC getting a shot at the NCAA tourney.

Plus, the MEAC and SWAC have been "D1" for a long time in hoops, they aren't johnny-come-lately's.

Those are the schools - the ones that have jumped to D1 recently - that should be first on any chop-block.

I read somewhere the MEAC and SWAC don't have to meet D1 standards. And it shows with their lack of competitiveness. Prairie View leads the SWAC at 7-0. They are 9-11 overall. Alabama ST. is 6-1 and 8-10 overall. Nobody in the conference has a winning overall record. Norfolk ST. is 7-0 in MEAC and 12-10 overall. NC AT&T is 6-0 and 11-9 overall. Nobody else has a winning overall record.
Rider is 7-1 in MAAC and 12-8 overall. They are one of two teams in the conference with a winning overall record.

These conferences do not belong in Division I.

(01-31-2019 09:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:04 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 10:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 10:36 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  There definitely needs to be a separation of the wheat from the chaff. While my ideal cut is not a draconian as yours (I think reducing DI by 50% would suffice) there is no reason why UMass-Lowell is playing at the same level as Kentucky and Kansas.

A few D1 conferences would probably be better served being relegated to a new division.

Would make for a more exciting NCAA tournament too.

bull****. There is nothing better than the first 2 days of the NCAA tournament.

Talking about conferences like the MEAC, NEC, America East, or Socon whose current membership has less then 10 ncaa wins ever. They're just taking away spots from good teams.

Good teams? Give me a break. The spots they're taking are from teams like lets look at last years 1st 4 teams out.... St Mary's(ok pretty good team- but no OOC schedule), USC, Notre Dame(14 losses), and Baylor(18-14). I'd hardly call those good teams. And if you go to the 2 lines from NIT, it's just more mediocre teams.

Go get some cheese for your whine.

Just calling it like it is man. Theres a few conference (not all mid majors, certainly) that just aren't really competitive.

(02-01-2019 01:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:04 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 10:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  A few D1 conferences would probably be better served being relegated to a new division.

Would make for a more exciting NCAA tournament too.

bull****. There is nothing better than the first 2 days of the NCAA tournament.

Talking about conferences like the MEAC, NEC, America East, or Socon whose current membership has less then 10 ncaa wins ever. They're just taking away spots from good teams.

Good teams? Give me a break. The spots they're taking are from teams like lets look at last years 1st 4 teams out.... St Mary's(ok pretty good team- but no OOC schedule), USC, Notre Dame(14 losses), and Baylor(18-14). I'd hardly call those good teams. And if you go to the 2 lines from NIT, it's just more mediocre teams.

Go get some cheese for your whine.

Just calling it like it is man. Theres a few conference (not all mid majors, certainly) that just aren't really competitive.

and I'm calling it like it is. The teams that are missing are not good teams. They just aren't.

(02-01-2019 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 02:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  The size of the NCAA field really isn't the main point. It's merely a byproduct of the size of the top division in (or apart from) the NCAA. And as lucrative as the tournament is, that won't be what drives the bus when it comes to deciding who will be in that top division and whether or not it will still be part of the NCAA. Football will dictate that.

In my view of how that will ultimately evolve, I expect it won't just be schools now in a P5 conference. And I don't believe there will be a complete reset for conferences when it happens. I think conferences in the top level will look much the same as they do now. Could it be as many as 150 schools? Maybe. But I think it would at least start out at no more than the 101 schools I posited.

At that size, I don't think a national basketball tournament would warrant a field of 64 teams. 32 would be roughly one third of all those teams. If you are going to have 64, you might as well just include everybody. I wouldn't want to do that. If the top division were to grow to 150 schools, 64 teams wouldn't be as bad. But very few of the 50 additional schools would get into that field - you would just have more teams from what is now the P5. I don't see the point of, or need for, that kind of evolution.

IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that.

I don't disagree with all of it. I think a football separation is more likely to happen and is more warranted but I don't see the need to have the shift effect all DIV 1 sports. They could create another subdivision for football as the have now.

I'll admit there are probably some or plenty of Div 1 schools that aren't investing and don't have the support to warrant being Div 1. Those are the low majors though. Where and how you cut the line would cut out a lot of schools that have better programs and support than many that would be included.

I don't really care though about the MEAC or SWAC getting a shot at the NCAA tourney.

Plus, the MEAC and SWAC have been "D1" for a long time in hoops, they aren't johnny-come-lately's.

Those are the schools - the ones that have jumped to D1 recently - that should be first on any chop-block.

I read somewhere the MEAC and SWAC don't have to meet D1 standards. And it shows with their lack of competitiveness. Prairie View leads the SWAC at 7-0. They are 9-11 overall. Alabama ST. is 6-1 and 8-10 overall. Nobody in the conference has a winning overall record. Norfolk ST. is 7-0 in MEAC and 12-10 overall. NC AT&T is 6-0 and 11-9 overall. Nobody else has a winning overall record.
Rider is 7-1 in MAAC and 12-8 overall. They are one of two teams in the conference with a winning overall record.

These conferences do not belong in Division I.

I believe SWAC and MEAC are covered by the same grandfather clause that covers the Ivy League. The Ivy doesn't award the minimum aid to be Division I.

(02-01-2019 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  I read somewhere the MEAC and SWAC don't have to meet D1 standards. And it shows with their lack of competitiveness.

These conferences do not belong in Division I.

That's because they've been "D1" for a long time, longer than the standards have existed. They helped craft the standards so of course they don't apply to them.

These standards are properly for noob "striver" schools, the ones seeking to percolate up from the lower realms, not established incumbents like the SWAC and MEAC schools.

If D1 is going to be trimmed, SWAC and MEAC should be among the conferences deciding what noobs get knocked down.

(02-01-2019 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 02:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  The size of the NCAA field really isn't the main point. It's merely a byproduct of the size of the top division in (or apart from) the NCAA. And as lucrative as the tournament is, that won't be what drives the bus when it comes to deciding who will be in that top division and whether or not it will still be part of the NCAA. Football will dictate that.

In my view of how that will ultimately evolve, I expect it won't just be schools now in a P5 conference. And I don't believe there will be a complete reset for conferences when it happens. I think conferences in the top level will look much the same as they do now. Could it be as many as 150 schools? Maybe. But I think it would at least start out at no more than the 101 schools I posited.

At that size, I don't think a national basketball tournament would warrant a field of 64 teams. 32 would be roughly one third of all those teams. If you are going to have 64, you might as well just include everybody. I wouldn't want to do that. If the top division were to grow to 150 schools, 64 teams wouldn't be as bad. But very few of the 50 additional schools would get into that field - you would just have more teams from what is now the P5. I don't see the point of, or need for, that kind of evolution.

IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that.

I don't disagree with all of it. I think a football separation is more likely to happen and is more warranted but I don't see the need to have the shift effect all DIV 1 sports. They could create another subdivision for football as the have now.

I'll admit there are probably some or plenty of Div 1 schools that aren't investing and don't have the support to warrant being Div 1. Those are the low majors though. Where and how you cut the line would cut out a lot of schools that have better programs and support than many that would be included.

I don't really care though about the MEAC or SWAC getting a shot at the NCAA tourney.

Plus, the MEAC and SWAC have been "D1" for a long time in hoops, they aren't johnny-come-lately's.

Those are the schools - the ones that have jumped to D1 recently - that should be first on any chop-block.

I read somewhere the MEAC and SWAC don't have to meet D1 standards. And it shows with their lack of competitiveness. Prairie View leads the SWAC at 7-0. They are 9-11 overall. Alabama ST. is 6-1 and 8-10 overall. Nobody in the conference has a winning overall record. Norfolk ST. is 7-0 in MEAC and 12-10 overall. NC AT&T is 6-0 and 11-9 overall. Nobody else has a winning overall record.
Rider is 7-1 in MAAC and 12-8 overall. They are one of two teams in the conference with a winning overall record.

These conferences do not belong in Division I.

MAAC has had an at large recently and its share of upsets over time.

(02-01-2019 03:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 02:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  The size of the NCAA field really isn't the main point. It's merely a byproduct of the size of the top division in (or apart from) the NCAA. And as lucrative as the tournament is, that won't be what drives the bus when it comes to deciding who will be in that top division and whether or not it will still be part of the NCAA. Football will dictate that.

In my view of how that will ultimately evolve, I expect it won't just be schools now in a P5 conference. And I don't believe there will be a complete reset for conferences when it happens. I think conferences in the top level will look much the same as they do now. Could it be as many as 150 schools? Maybe. But I think it would at least start out at no more than the 101 schools I posited.

At that size, I don't think a national basketball tournament would warrant a field of 64 teams. 32 would be roughly one third of all those teams. If you are going to have 64, you might as well just include everybody. I wouldn't want to do that. If the top division were to grow to 150 schools, 64 teams wouldn't be as bad. But very few of the 50 additional schools would get into that field - you would just have more teams from what is now the P5. I don't see the point of, or need for, that kind of evolution.

IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that.

I don't disagree with all of it. I think a football separation is more likely to happen and is more warranted but I don't see the need to have the shift effect all DIV 1 sports. They could create another subdivision for football as the have now.

I'll admit there are probably some or plenty of Div 1 schools that aren't investing and don't have the support to warrant being Div 1. Those are the low majors though. Where and how you cut the line would cut out a lot of schools that have better programs and support than many that would be included.

I don't really care though about the MEAC or SWAC getting a shot at the NCAA tourney.

Plus, the MEAC and SWAC have been "D1" for a long time in hoops, they aren't johnny-come-lately's.

Those are the schools - the ones that have jumped to D1 recently - that should be first on any chop-block.

I read somewhere the MEAC and SWAC don't have to meet D1 standards. And it shows with their lack of competitiveness. Prairie View leads the SWAC at 7-0. They are 9-11 overall. Alabama ST. is 6-1 and 8-10 overall. Nobody in the conference has a winning overall record. Norfolk ST. is 7-0 in MEAC and 12-10 overall. NC AT&T is 6-0 and 11-9 overall. Nobody else has a winning overall record.
Rider is 7-1 in MAAC and 12-8 overall. They are one of two teams in the conference with a winning overall record.

These conferences do not belong in Division I.

I believe SWAC and MEAC are covered by the same grandfather clause that covers the Ivy League. The Ivy doesn't award the minimum aid to be Division I.

I thought had those rules went further back. SWAC didn't move up from Division II until 1980.

(02-01-2019 09:01 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 03:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Everyone wants the club to be smaller and more exclusive. It makes them feel better.

The NCAA is doing what the powers that be want done.

The unfortunate thing is March Madness has become such a hit that basketball is in a decline because the regular season is for the most part pointless.

The tournament is a hit but who the hell watches much basketball outside of a handful of fan bases?

By the time the New Year's Day bowl games concluded roughly 2/3rds of Division I was eliminated from even being in the at-large conversation. By the end of January there will be no more than 60-70 schools with any hope of an at-large.

We no longer hear casualish fans talking about the last team out unless it was their team because by the time you get that deep in the field you are talking about schools with pretty meager resumes.

Mid-January take whatever rating system you want, rate everyone 1-350 or whatever the number is now.
The top whatever get a bye (say 112).
The remainder go into a lottery half the teams get home games, the other half are drawn to travel against one of the others. Purely random.
Over the next month the teams play down to leave 112. Some will have to win twice, some will have to win once depending on where they come out in the lottery.
After those games are concluded the 112 survivors go into a pot and are drawn to advance to play the top 112 at the home site of the 1-112. Play those out over two weeks or so.
That leaves 56 teams.
Convene the selection committee. They are tasked with selecting 8 teams that lost already to get a second chance (ideally a team that lost in the round of 112 in a tight game or OT game, especially on the road gets extra credit).
They pick 8 teams. They seed everyone 1-64 and we tipoff the traditional NCAA tournament.

Conferences can continue to roll along playing regular season games during the tournament in order to crown a champion but there is no need for a conference tournament unless that's how you want to determine who gets the league's trophy (looking at you ACC). Everyone still alive has extra incentive in regular season games because there is the 1-64 seed to deal with and the fight to get one of the 8 second chance slots.

More games of relevant basketball from mid-January to the start of the tournament.

What?! Win your conference tournament! It's the second greatest thing about college basketball behind the Big Dance!

Conference play is an absolute meat-grinder. If you aren't interested, then you're just not a fan of college hoops.

This season has been excellent. Almost anybody in the top 10 could win it this year; I don't think UNC could, and I believe they are overrated, but that's a different topic. Kansas and Marquette: not sure of yet. Then you have extremely dangerous teams from outside the power conferences like Houston, Nevada, and Buffalo.

One last rant...

For god's sakes, will somebody else please win the Big XII!?!?!

Houston is outside of the power structure??? Hmmm ok.

Leave the little guys.

Leave the play-in games. It's awkward, but teams have advanced to the Final Four from the play ins at least two times that I can remember.

It's fine the way it is.

For the record, Denver has won 33 NCAA D-I Overall Championships and has proven you can have a broad-base of excellence in multiple D-I sports, with a $35 million budget and having to fly to 80% of away games in all sports.

Yes, 24 of the titles are in skiing (the most of any school), the most one recent one in 2018 - a perennial top 3 program.

DU has also won 8 NCAA titles in men's ice hockey, which is tied for second most of all time with North Dakota, one behind leader Michigan's nine. DU last won the NCAA title in 2017. Denver is a perennial top 10 program, currently ranked #5.

And DU won the NCAA lacrosse title in 2015, and has been to 5 lacrosse final fours since 2011. The Pioneers are a perennial top 5 program, currently ranked between #2 and #7, depending on which pre-season poll you follow.

DU men's soccer went to the NCAA College Cup (final four) in men's soccer in 2016, and has been a top 10 program for much of the last four years. Denver Women's Soccer went to the NCAA tournament last year and has posted Sweet 16 finishes in recent memory, and women's Volleyball has been to the last 5 NCAA tournaments.

The Pios are also currently top 20 in women's lacrosse, #26 in men's and #48 in women's swimming, and usually also qualify for NCAA tourneys in tennis and golf, too.

The point here is that smaller schools can win consistently at the NCAA D-I level by focusing on niche sports.

(02-02-2019 11:23 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:01 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 03:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Everyone wants the club to be smaller and more exclusive. It makes them feel better.

The NCAA is doing what the powers that be want done.

The unfortunate thing is March Madness has become such a hit that basketball is in a decline because the regular season is for the most part pointless.

The tournament is a hit but who the hell watches much basketball outside of a handful of fan bases?

By the time the New Year's Day bowl games concluded roughly 2/3rds of Division I was eliminated from even being in the at-large conversation. By the end of January there will be no more than 60-70 schools with any hope of an at-large.

We no longer hear casualish fans talking about the last team out unless it was their team because by the time you get that deep in the field you are talking about schools with pretty meager resumes.

Mid-January take whatever rating system you want, rate everyone 1-350 or whatever the number is now.
The top whatever get a bye (say 112).
The remainder go into a lottery half the teams get home games, the other half are drawn to travel against one of the others. Purely random.
Over the next month the teams play down to leave 112. Some will have to win twice, some will have to win once depending on where they come out in the lottery.
After those games are concluded the 112 survivors go into a pot and are drawn to advance to play the top 112 at the home site of the 1-112. Play those out over two weeks or so.
That leaves 56 teams.
Convene the selection committee. They are tasked with selecting 8 teams that lost already to get a second chance (ideally a team that lost in the round of 112 in a tight game or OT game, especially on the road gets extra credit).
They pick 8 teams. They seed everyone 1-64 and we tipoff the traditional NCAA tournament.

Conferences can continue to roll along playing regular season games during the tournament in order to crown a champion but there is no need for a conference tournament unless that's how you want to determine who gets the league's trophy (looking at you ACC). Everyone still alive has extra incentive in regular season games because there is the 1-64 seed to deal with and the fight to get one of the 8 second chance slots.

More games of relevant basketball from mid-January to the start of the tournament.

What?! Win your conference tournament! It's the second greatest thing about college basketball behind the Big Dance!

Conference play is an absolute meat-grinder. If you aren't interested, then you're just not a fan of college hoops.

This season has been excellent. Almost anybody in the top 10 could win it this year; I don't think UNC could, and I believe they are overrated, but that's a different topic. Kansas and Marquette: not sure of yet. Then you have extremely dangerous teams from outside the power conferences like Houston, Nevada, and Buffalo.

One last rant...

For god's sakes, will somebody else please win the Big XII!?!?!

Houston is outside of the power structure??? Hmmm ok.

I mean aren’t they the only team ranked in the conference?

Power
Major
Mid-Major
Small

That’s how I look at it. Power conferences have 7 ranked teams.

(02-01-2019 12:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  The size of the NCAA field really isn't the main point. It's merely a byproduct of the size of the top division in (or apart from) the NCAA. And as lucrative as the tournament is, that won't be what drives the bus when it comes to deciding who will be in that top division and whether or not it will still be part of the NCAA. Football will dictate that.

In my view of how that will ultimately evolve, I expect it won't just be schools now in a P5 conference. And I don't believe there will be a complete reset for conferences when it happens. I think conferences in the top level will look much the same as they do now. Could it be as many as 150 schools? Maybe. But I think it would at least start out at no more than the 101 schools I posited.

At that size, I don't think a national basketball tournament would warrant a field of 64 teams. 32 would be roughly one third of all those teams. If you are going to have 64, you might as well just include everybody. I wouldn't want to do that. If the top division were to grow to 150 schools, 64 teams wouldn't be as bad. But very few of the 50 additional schools would get into that field - you would just have more teams from what is now the P5. I don't see the point of, or need for, that kind of evolution.

IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that.

I don't disagree with all of it. I think a football separation is more likely to happen and is more warranted but I don't see the need to have the shift effect all DIV 1 sports. They could create another subdivision for football as the have now.

I'll admit there are probably some or plenty of Div 1 schools that aren't investing and don't have the support to warrant being Div 1. Those are the low majors though. Where and how you cut the line would cut out a lot of schools that have better programs and support than many that would be included.

I don't really care though about the MEAC or SWAC getting a shot at the NCAA tourney. I don't think leaving them out would significantly improve the tourney, if anything it leaves the door open for the historic upsets like UMBC over UVA last year, which are fun (unless you're a Wahoo) for most sports fans. It gets get people talking and increases the interest in the tourney. Most likely the #1 seed will roll over whoever the bottom seed is regardless of conference. The only reason I see for doing it is to further consolidate money at the top, which is not a goal I think sports fans do or should have. Watch the NBA if you want the best of the best.

I do know there would be little desire to go back to a 32 team field because Turner is making a lot of money of those first two days and it's just been growing.

Football is a little bloated but not much. Its basketball that needs a separation.

Football is bloated with b!tch tits right now

(02-02-2019 11:23 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:01 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 03:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Everyone wants the club to be smaller and more exclusive. It makes them feel better.

The NCAA is doing what the powers that be want done.

The unfortunate thing is March Madness has become such a hit that basketball is in a decline because the regular season is for the most part pointless.

The tournament is a hit but who the hell watches much basketball outside of a handful of fan bases?

By the time the New Year's Day bowl games concluded roughly 2/3rds of Division I was eliminated from even being in the at-large conversation. By the end of January there will be no more than 60-70 schools with any hope of an at-large.

We no longer hear casualish fans talking about the last team out unless it was their team because by the time you get that deep in the field you are talking about schools with pretty meager resumes.

Mid-January take whatever rating system you want, rate everyone 1-350 or whatever the number is now.
The top whatever get a bye (say 112).
The remainder go into a lottery half the teams get home games, the other half are drawn to travel against one of the others. Purely random.
Over the next month the teams play down to leave 112. Some will have to win twice, some will have to win once depending on where they come out in the lottery.
After those games are concluded the 112 survivors go into a pot and are drawn to advance to play the top 112 at the home site of the 1-112. Play those out over two weeks or so.
That leaves 56 teams.
Convene the selection committee. They are tasked with selecting 8 teams that lost already to get a second chance (ideally a team that lost in the round of 112 in a tight game or OT game, especially on the road gets extra credit).
They pick 8 teams. They seed everyone 1-64 and we tipoff the traditional NCAA tournament.

Conferences can continue to roll along playing regular season games during the tournament in order to crown a champion but there is no need for a conference tournament unless that's how you want to determine who gets the league's trophy (looking at you ACC). Everyone still alive has extra incentive in regular season games because there is the 1-64 seed to deal with and the fight to get one of the 8 second chance slots.

More games of relevant basketball from mid-January to the start of the tournament.

What?! Win your conference tournament! It's the second greatest thing about college basketball behind the Big Dance!

Conference play is an absolute meat-grinder. If you aren't interested, then you're just not a fan of college hoops.

This season has been excellent. Almost anybody in the top 10 could win it this year; I don't think UNC could, and I believe they are overrated, but that's a different topic. Kansas and Marquette: not sure of yet. Then you have extremely dangerous teams from outside the power conferences like Houston, Nevada, and Buffalo.

One last rant...

For god's sakes, will somebody else please win the Big XII!?!?!

Houston is outside of the power structure??? Hmmm ok.

Well, yeah. You watch espn lately?

(02-01-2019 01:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 07:22 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Or "tax it" by taking away the NCAA Tournament money from funding the NCAA and instead fund it by charging membership dues (so much in dues for D-II schools, a little more for D-I, etc.). This way instead of getting more subsidy at a higher level you get no subsidy and higher dues... but you also get the OPPORTUNITY to EARN more (because NCAA units would be more like 80% of the revenue instead of the current 20% - check my math at "Tracking NCAA Money - 1/29/19").

The NCAA bankrolls over 70 million a year from the tournament. Most of that goes into one of their two endowments which now total right at or a little over 1 Billion in revenues that have been rat-holed away from the D1 membership. There is no reason for the NCAA to sit on a Billion. None. They are a corrupt and ineffectual bureaucracy that is only serving itself. When certain schools in certain sports never get punished for misdeeds it is because those schools earn them revenue.

Make it a dues paying system instead of a squirrel away the revenue system and at least that part of it changes. If they don't care that their top draws are not in the tournament on a given year because they are no longer calculating ad revenues and how much they'll be able to skim the whole thing changes.

Now let me also add that the system of paying tourney creds helps them to skim the interest on the payout money they hold over the years the credits are paid out.

It's a damned racket from the get go with the way things are being handled and the top members are gutless for allowing it to be worked this way and those getting a handout they didn't earn will continue to vote the dole, just like in the real world.

The NCAA is not an independent entity. All decisions about allocation of funds and the rules come from a coalition of university presidents and the system is designed to weight that control to the P5 representatives.

The endowment exists because the power schools wish it to exist. They also made use of it to settle a lawsuit that primarily impacted them.

Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand - the P5 has the power and control of the NCAA as it is. They are the ones directing what is going on.

Not really. And they don't want to have total control. Otherwise they would dump the bureaucracy and form their own group.

And the tournament would be more popular if a bunch of schools weren't in it. Butler and VCU aren't the schools who would get dumped.

There is no basis in reality for your statement. The opposite is true. March Madness is an EVENT, bolstered by the chances of the little guy upsetting a power.

Anyone wanting to limit the number of schools, number of games, etc doesn't understand what drives the tournament popularity.

(02-01-2019 03:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 02:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  The size of the NCAA field really isn't the main point. It's merely a byproduct of the size of the top division in (or apart from) the NCAA. And as lucrative as the tournament is, that won't be what drives the bus when it comes to deciding who will be in that top division and whether or not it will still be part of the NCAA. Football will dictate that.

In my view of how that will ultimately evolve, I expect it won't just be schools now in a P5 conference. And I don't believe there will be a complete reset for conferences when it happens. I think conferences in the top level will look much the same as they do now. Could it be as many as 150 schools? Maybe. But I think it would at least start out at no more than the 101 schools I posited.

At that size, I don't think a national basketball tournament would warrant a field of 64 teams. 32 would be roughly one third of all those teams. If you are going to have 64, you might as well just include everybody. I wouldn't want to do that. If the top division were to grow to 150 schools, 64 teams wouldn't be as bad. But very few of the 50 additional schools would get into that field - you would just have more teams from what is now the P5. I don't see the point of, or need for, that kind of evolution.

IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that.

I don't disagree with all of it. I think a football separation is more likely to happen and is more warranted but I don't see the need to have the shift effect all DIV 1 sports. They could create another subdivision for football as the have now.

I'll admit there are probably some or plenty of Div 1 schools that aren't investing and don't have the support to warrant being Div 1. Those are the low majors though. Where and how you cut the line would cut out a lot of schools that have better programs and support than many that would be included.

I don't really care though about the MEAC or SWAC getting a shot at the NCAA tourney.

Plus, the MEAC and SWAC have been "D1" for a long time in hoops, they aren't johnny-come-lately's.

Those are the schools - the ones that have jumped to D1 recently - that should be first on any chop-block.

I read somewhere the MEAC and SWAC don't have to meet D1 standards. And it shows with their lack of competitiveness. Prairie View leads the SWAC at 7-0. They are 9-11 overall. Alabama ST. is 6-1 and 8-10 overall. Nobody in the conference has a winning overall record. Norfolk ST. is 7-0 in MEAC and 12-10 overall. NC AT&T is 6-0 and 11-9 overall. Nobody else has a winning overall record.
Rider is 7-1 in MAAC and 12-8 overall. They are one of two teams in the conference with a winning overall record.

These conferences do not belong in Division I.

I believe SWAC and MEAC are covered by the same grandfather clause that covers the Ivy League. The Ivy doesn't award the minimum aid to be Division I.

Can you point to these "Grandfather Clause"?

SWAC, MEAC, Ivy meet DI standards

(02-02-2019 11:13 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 01:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 07:22 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The NCAA bankrolls over 70 million a year from the tournament. Most of that goes into one of their two endowments which now total right at or a little over 1 Billion in revenues that have been rat-holed away from the D1 membership. There is no reason for the NCAA to sit on a Billion. None. They are a corrupt and ineffectual bureaucracy that is only serving itself. When certain schools in certain sports never get punished for misdeeds it is because those schools earn them revenue.

Make it a dues paying system instead of a squirrel away the revenue system and at least that part of it changes. If they don't care that their top draws are not in the tournament on a given year because they are no longer calculating ad revenues and how much they'll be able to skim the whole thing changes.

Now let me also add that the system of paying tourney creds helps them to skim the interest on the payout money they hold over the years the credits are paid out.

It's a damned racket from the get go with the way things are being handled and the top members are gutless for allowing it to be worked this way and those getting a handout they didn't earn will continue to vote the dole, just like in the real world.

The NCAA is not an independent entity. All decisions about allocation of funds and the rules come from a coalition of university presidents and the system is designed to weight that control to the P5 representatives.

The endowment exists because the power schools wish it to exist. They also made use of it to settle a lawsuit that primarily impacted them.

Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand - the P5 has the power and control of the NCAA as it is. They are the ones directing what is going on.

Not really. And they don't want to have total control. Otherwise they would dump the bureaucracy and form their own group.

And the tournament would be more popular if a bunch of schools weren't in it. Butler and VCU aren't the schools who would get dumped.

There is no basis in reality for your statement. The opposite is true. March Madness is an EVENT, bolstered by the chances of the little guy upsetting a power.

Anyone wanting to limit the number of schools, number of games, etc doesn't understand what drives the tournament popularity.

Its a bunch of you smaller school fans who don't understand what drives it. Its not the schools that lose by 30 and 40 points.