(02-02-2019 11:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Hate to break it to you but BOTH drive the tourney.

From a table in wik ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament_all-time_team_records
(I know the table isn't perfect as it has 4 more wins than losses, but its close enough)
ACC 625 387 61.8%
Big Ten 461 298 60.7%
SEC 373 278 57.3%
Pac-12 339 255 57.1%
Big 12 337 261 56.4%
Big East 289 246 54.0%
AAC 243 201 54.7%
A-10 128 160 44.4%
WCC 98 124 44.1%
MWC 74 127 36.8%
C-USA 65 115 36.1%
MVC 52 56 48.1%
Ivy 43 85 33.6%
MAC 31 77 28.7%
DII,III,NAIA 23 42 35.4%
Patriot 21 57 26.9%
WAC 20 39 33.9%
MAAC 17 51 25.0%
Big Sky 17 57 23.0%
Big West 13 28 31.7%
Horizon 13 36 26.5%
OVC 11 55 16.7%
Southland 10 28 26.3%
CAA 10 39 20.4%
SoCon 10 46 17.9%
A-Sun 9 11 45.0%
Sun Belt 9 46 16.4%
MEAC 6 37 14.0%
SWAC 6 38 13.6%
America East 4 14 22.2%
Big South 4 25 13.8%
NEC 4 30 11.8%
Summit 3 15 16.7%

(02-03-2019 12:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  From a table in wik ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament_all-time_team_records
(I know the table isn't perfect as it has 4 more wins than losses, but its close enough)
ACC 625 387 61.8%
Big Ten 461 298 60.7%
SEC 373 278 57.3%
Pac-12 339 255 57.1%
Big 12 337 261 56.4%
Big East 289 246 54.0%
AAC 243 201 54.7%
A-10 128 160 44.4%
WCC 98 124 44.1%
MWC 74 127 36.8%
C-USA 65 115 36.1%
MVC 52 56 48.1%
Ivy 43 85 33.6%
MAC 31 77 28.7%
DII,III,NAIA 23 42 35.4%
Patriot 21 57 26.9%
WAC 20 39 33.9%
MAAC 17 51 25.0%
Big Sky 17 57 23.0%
Big West 13 28 31.7%
Horizon 13 36 26.5%
OVC 11 55 16.7%
Southland 10 28 26.3%
CAA 10 39 20.4%
SoCon 10 46 17.9%
A-Sun 9 11 45.0%
Sun Belt 9 46 16.4%
MEAC 6 37 14.0%
SWAC 6 38 13.6%
America East 4 14 22.2%
Big South 4 25 13.8%
NEC 4 30 11.8%
Summit 3 15 16.7%

so what. March Madness is an event, and a lot of that is the chance that there could always be a major upset by one of those schools.

Most folks would rather see that than to see the 9th place Big 12 team in the tournament. Whether you like it or not.

There are 8(!) teams in the A-10 alone that have more wins than 6 of these conferences. There are 5 teams in the A-10 that have more wins than 11 of these conferences. And a good number of those wins for those conferences are the play-in games.

Former division I members as a group have more wins than 18 of these conferences. Those wins are from just 5 schools.

Kentucky has more losses in the NCAA tourney than 15 of these conferences. 9 don't even have as many total games as Kentucky has losses. (of course only the B10, B12, P12, ACC, BE, SEC and AAC have more wins than Kentucky does alone).

7 conferences have winning records
8 conferences have won between 1/3 and 1/2 of their games
9 conferences have won between 1/5 and 1/3 of their games
8 conferences have won less than 20%. And I suspect if you took out play-in games, some of these would be really abysmal winning %s.

(02-03-2019 12:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 11:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

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

(02-01-2019 01:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

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

Hate to break it to you but BOTH drive the tourney.

Its the Butlers that are the underdogs people pay attention to. Not the ones who lose by 30 and 40. It wouldn't lose a single rating point if you dropped it from 68 to 60 teams by dropping the bottom 8 conferences. You could probably drop the bottom 12 conferences and nobody would notice.

(02-03-2019 12:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 11:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

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

(02-01-2019 01:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

Hate to break it to you but BOTH drive the tourney.

Its the Butlers that are the underdogs people pay attention to. Not the ones who lose by 30 and 40. It wouldn't lose a single rating point if you dropped it from 68 to 60 teams by dropping the bottom 8 conferences. You could probably drop the bottom 12 conferences and nobody would notice.

Yes they would.... Sorry that you disagree with that- but sorry pal, that's reality.

(02-03-2019 12:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 11:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

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

Hate to break it to you but BOTH drive the tourney.

Its the Butlers that are the underdogs people pay attention to. Not the ones who lose by 30 and 40. It wouldn't lose a single rating point if you dropped it from 68 to 60 teams by dropping the bottom 8 conferences. You could probably drop the bottom 12 conferences and nobody would notice.

Yes they would.... Sorry that you disagree with that- but sorry pal, that's reality.

Look at the ratings the first weekend. The reality is that nobody cares about those 1st rounds games involving those 14-16 seeds. There's a reason those games are on at 10 am or 12.

(02-03-2019 01:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 11:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

Hate to break it to you but BOTH drive the tourney.

Its the Butlers that are the underdogs people pay attention to. Not the ones who lose by 30 and 40. It wouldn't lose a single rating point if you dropped it from 68 to 60 teams by dropping the bottom 8 conferences. You could probably drop the bottom 12 conferences and nobody would notice.

Yes they would.... Sorry that you disagree with that- but sorry pal, that's reality.

Look at the ratings the first weekend. The reality is that nobody cares about those 1st rounds games involving those 14-16 seeds. There's a reason those games are on at 10 am or 12.

What time was that Virginia/UMBC game? Oops... that's right 9:20pm et. In PRIME TIME..

Of the 12 games with the 14-16 seeds, 6 were in the night sessions. So pretty damn balanced.

(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.

You know who runs the NCAA and makes those decisions right? The schools. If the NCAA dissolved today the schools would create an almost identical organization to the NCAA tomorrow. The rules everyone hates are put in place by the schools. The payment set ups, tournament size/set up, membership criteria and funding of other sports are all decided on by the schools themselves. No one is sneaking in and forcing the schools and especially the power conference schools to do something they don't want.

(02-03-2019 01:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 11:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

Hate to break it to you but BOTH drive the tourney.

Its the Butlers that are the underdogs people pay attention to. Not the ones who lose by 30 and 40. It wouldn't lose a single rating point if you dropped it from 68 to 60 teams by dropping the bottom 8 conferences. You could probably drop the bottom 12 conferences and nobody would notice.

Yes they would.... Sorry that you disagree with that- but sorry pal, that's reality.

Look at the ratings the first weekend. The reality is that nobody cares about those 1st rounds games involving those 14-16 seeds. There's a reason those games are on at 10 am or 12.

Why do you think the ratings are bad? Also the sheer amount of games on means it will naturally get lower ratings than the later rounds with fewer games. People love the first two rounds and lots of people tune in to watch them. The people who actually pay to air the games and pay to advertise on the games don't seem to have a problem with the set up.

(02-01-2019 09:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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:  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.

SWAC is a weird case. They elected Division I when the divisional format was adopted early 70's then dipped out and back in. Their history is messy.

(02-03-2019 02:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 01:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Hate to break it to you but BOTH drive the tourney.

Its the Butlers that are the underdogs people pay attention to. Not the ones who lose by 30 and 40. It wouldn't lose a single rating point if you dropped it from 68 to 60 teams by dropping the bottom 8 conferences. You could probably drop the bottom 12 conferences and nobody would notice.

Yes they would.... Sorry that you disagree with that- but sorry pal, that's reality.

Look at the ratings the first weekend. The reality is that nobody cares about those 1st rounds games involving those 14-16 seeds. There's a reason those games are on at 10 am or 12.

Why do you think the ratings are bad? Also the sheer amount of games on means it will naturally get lower ratings than the later rounds with fewer games. People love the first two rounds and lots of people tune in to watch them. The people who actually pay to air the games and pay to advertise on the games don't seem to have a problem with the set up.

wait, me and RutgersGuy are on the same side of a debate? I've seen it all now

Of course the CBB fantastically on here and the fans of b-ball only schools in small conferences love it

But they are blinded by their own passion for the sport

Joe America doesn’t give two craps about Sienna or St Mary’s or Radcliffe. In fact he’d be way more interested in an opening round of Kansas vs Florida State than he would Kansas vs Jacksonville.

He’d love to see a non traditional basketball program but is still someone he’s heard of make a Butler/Gonzaga type run in the tournament

THAT reality is what scares the fans of these smaller schools

(02-04-2019 11:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Of course the CBB fantastically on here and the fans of b-ball only schools in small conferences love it

But they are blinded by their own passion for the sport

Joe America doesn’t give two craps about Sienna or St Mary’s or Radcliffe. In fact he’d be way more interested in an opening round of Kansas vs Florida State than he would Kansas vs Jacksonville.

He’d love to see a non traditional basketball program but is still someone he’s heard of make a Butler/Gonzaga type run in the tournament

THAT reality is what scares the fans of these smaller schools

Except that Florida State is no where near what would be a 14-16 seed.

And I don't think folks are exactly clamoring for a team like Pittsburgh to get in over those smaller schools.

(02-04-2019 11:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Of course the CBB fantastically on here and the fans of b-ball only schools in small conferences love it

But they are blinded by their own passion for the sport

Joe America doesn’t give two craps about Sienna or St Mary’s or Radcliffe. In fact he’d be way more interested in an opening round of Kansas vs Florida State than he would Kansas vs Jacksonville.

He’d love to see a non traditional basketball program but is still someone he’s heard of make a Butler/Gonzaga type run in the tournament

THAT reality is what scares the fans of these smaller schools

You say this yet every time a lesser known school makes a good run or just a single upset Joe America eats it up. FGCU (Dunk City), UMBC over UVA, Loyola-Chicago and Sister Jean.

And you think they’d eat it up any less if Nebraska made the miracle run instead?

Of course not

Nebraska basketball is even more of an underdog story

The small schools are terrified because the tournament is their last life line to major college athletics

(02-04-2019 12:10 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  And you think they’d eat it up any less if Nebraska made the miracle run instead?

Of course not

Nebraska basketball is even more of an underdog story

The small schools are terrified because the tournament is their last life line to major college athletics

and it's not going away any time soon.... Whether P5 fans like it or not.

(02-04-2019 11:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  wait, me and RutgersGuy are on the same side of a debate? I've seen it all now

Spoke too soon:

(02-04-2019 12:10 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  And you think they’d eat it up any less if Nebraska made the miracle run instead?

(02-04-2019 12:10 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  And you think they’d eat it up any less if Nebraska made the miracle run instead?

Of course not

Nebraska basketball is even more of an underdog story

The small schools are terrified because the tournament is their last life line to major college athletics

What?!?!? You're really trying to cast a state flagship, land grant school in the role of David? Because you've just stopped allowing all the real David's, who actually have funding disadvantages, from participating in the tournament. And you expect the average viewer to buy that huh?


People love an underdog not an underachiever.

(02-04-2019 12:10 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  And you think they’d eat it up any less if Nebraska made the miracle run instead?

Of course not

Nebraska basketball is even more of an underdog story

The small schools are terrified because the tournament is their last life line to major college athletics

Quit bogarting the joint dude.

We've seen some P5 schools with little history of success make a run before and it doesn't capture the country's attention like the George Mason's, UMBC's of the world. Just last year Texas Tech made it to the Elite 8, and I don't recall much fervor about that with the exception of Tech alums. The year before that it was South Carolina (although in fairness I do recall some Frank Martin love).

You are being naïve or intentionally obtuse if you think America will just learn to love the Nebraska's and Rutger's of the world in lieu of the true underdog