(01-29-2019 10:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 10:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  As the rich get richer, the poor fall further and further behind. As of today, 22 of the 32 D-I basketball conferences do not have a single team ranked in the Sagarin Top 50. The Massey rankings are very similar. The MAC has one (Buffalo), the Mountain West has one (Nevada) and the WCC has two (Gonzaga and St Mary's). Seven conferences account for 46 of the Top 50.

Some of the rich aren't doing as well as the others. Based on the Sagarin rankings and the current autobid rules, the PAC would only place two teams in the 68 team NCAAT field. Given their weak football performance of late, they have really fallen on hard times.

I wish I could say these ratings are an anomaly, that we will see more parity in the future. But frankly, I just don't feel that in my bones.

I really don't want to see an elite breakaway. 24-32 teams in a super league turn me off, frankly. But if the P5 conferences, along with the AAC, MWC and Big East were in a division by themselves, I believe we would have enough inclusiveness to keep top level college sports as interesting as I would want it to be. Add Gonzaga, BYU and New Mexico State to the MWC, and you would have a great 32 team tournament field - the top one third of that division - without excluding anyone with a realistic chance of competing for the championship.

That's where I see us heading.

This is evidence of a divide.

But it's not evidence of a "growing divide."

There has always been a divide. But if anything, the divide is smaller than it used to be.

I don't agree. There was a smaller gap in the 70s and 80s and its been growing ever since as the biggest conferences have effectively unlimited resources for basketball.

(01-29-2019 12:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:00 PM)ken d 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.

Sure there is. The second two days of the tournament. That's when it really starts.

Tell that to UMBC last year.

It's all a matter of personal preference. One freaky upset in 32 games doesn't interest me as much as 16 games where every team has a reasonable chance of winning. I get the allure for the kids who get to say they got their butt whupped by the stars they've watched on TV all year. And they'll be telling those stories (probably embellished a little) to their grandchildren 30-40 years from now.

I'm just not interested in watching. There are enough of those games in the regular season, and I don't watch them then either.

I'm with you. First round is half mis-matches. The only reason more aren't mis-matches is because the committee consistently underrates teams who aren't from the power conferences and overrates alsorans from major conferences, so #12s invariably upset a #5 (or 2 or 3 #5s).

(01-29-2019 12:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  For the entire decade of the 1980s, there was not a single mid-major who made the Final Four.

In the 1990s, 4 or 5 mid-majors made the Final Four (UNLV, UNLV, Cincinnati, UMass, Utah). Cincinnati was arguably not a mid-major because they had been in a "major" conference for the past 15 years and had 2 national titles.

In the 2000s, 3 or 4 mid-majors made the final 4 (Marquette, Louisville, George Mason, Memphis). Louisville was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

From 2010-2018, 6 or 7 mid-majors have made the final four (Butler, Butler, VCU, UConn, Wichita, Gonzaga, Loyola). UConn was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

Kind of makes my point. In some 40 years, only four schools (UMass, George Mason, VCU and Loyola) that are outside the conferences I proposed for a top tier made it as far as the Final Four (with none winning). I can live with their being in a second tier.

And prior to that:
1965 Princeton 3rd place
1966 UTEP won
1967 Dayton runnerup
1968 Houston 3rd (least known name)
1969 Drake 3rd
1970 Jacksonville runnerup (NMSU and ST. Bonaventure 3rd & 4th)
1971 WKU 3rd
1972 all current P6
1973 Memphis runnerup, Providence 4th
1974 all current P6
1975 all current P6
1976 Rutgers 4th-they were ECAC then
1977 UNLV 3rd, UNCC 4th
1978 all current P6
1979 Indiana ST. runnerup, DePaul 3rd, Penn 4th

(01-29-2019 01:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  For the entire decade of the 1980s, there was not a single mid-major who made the Final Four.

In the 1990s, 4 or 5 mid-majors made the Final Four (UNLV, UNLV, Cincinnati, UMass, Utah). Cincinnati was arguably not a mid-major because they had been in a "major" conference for the past 15 years and had 2 national titles.

In the 2000s, 3 or 4 mid-majors made the final 4 (Marquette, Louisville, George Mason, Memphis). Louisville was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

From 2010-2018, 6 or 7 mid-majors have made the final four (Butler, Butler, VCU, UConn, Wichita, Gonzaga, Loyola). UConn was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

Kind of makes my point. In some 40 years, only four schools (UMass, George Mason, VCU and Loyola) that are outside the conferences I proposed for a top tier made it as far as the Final Four (with none winning). I can live with their being in a second tier.

They're in those leagues NOW. They weren't when they made these achievements.

Butler was in the Horizon the two years they made the title game.

Yes, they are. I'm not proposing that we re-create conferences as they existed in the past. And I'm not suggesting that every school in the 8 top conferences is equally capable of winning. But they are conferences consisting of self-selected peer institutions who want to compete against each other, that collectively are clearly superior to most D-I conferences in most sports. That's as close as we are likely to get to a reasonable division of the 350 or so D-I schools.

Maybe the 101 schools I grouped together isn't the perfect number. But it's way better than the 350+ we have now.

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.

(01-29-2019 12:40 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  For the entire decade of the 1980s, there was not a single mid-major who made the Final Four.

In the 1990s, 4 or 5 mid-majors made the Final Four (UNLV, UNLV, Cincinnati, UMass, Utah). Cincinnati was arguably not a mid-major because they had been in a "major" conference for the past 15 years and had 2 national titles.

In the 2000s, 3 or 4 mid-majors made the final 4 (Marquette, Louisville, George Mason, Memphis). Louisville was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

From 2010-2018, 6 or 7 mid-majors have made the final four (Butler, Butler, VCU, UConn, Wichita, Gonzaga, Loyola). UConn was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

UNLV, UMass, and Utah were not mid-majors. UMass was in a conference with Penn State, West Virginia, and Temple up until PSU left and WVU went to the Big East. Utah in the WAC was a major program, and UNLV was a juggernaut.

Marquette, Louisville, and Memphis were not mid-majors. Neither was UConn.

Those are all major programs. If you want to make a distinction between power and major and mid-major conferences that’s one thing, but when looking at individual programs during certain eras it becomes a bit ridiculous.

This is called recency bias.

Utah, Marquette, & Butler were in mid-major conferences at the time and were considered mid-major programs. They've been promoted since then largely BECAUSE of their Final Four appearances.

You're right that Louisville, Cincinnati, and UConn don't exactly fit because they were previously in major conferences and had decades of tournament success.

The EAA/A-10 was a mid-major in the 70s & 80s. During the 80s they only had Sweet 16 teams once (Temple and Rhode Island in 1988). 3 of their 18 NCAA bids in the 80s (1.8 per year) were from schools who had already signed up to join the Big East (Villanova in 1980, Pitt in 81 & 82). At the time Pitt left, only 2 schools (WVU and Rutgers) played D-1A football. I find it funny that you use Penn State to justify them being a "major" conference. From 1956 until they announced their move to the Big 10, Penn State made 1 NCAA tournament.

(01-29-2019 01:41 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  For the entire decade of the 1980s, there was not a single mid-major who made the Final Four.

In the 1990s, 4 or 5 mid-majors made the Final Four (UNLV, UNLV, Cincinnati, UMass, Utah). Cincinnati was arguably not a mid-major because they had been in a "major" conference for the past 15 years and had 2 national titles.

In the 2000s, 3 or 4 mid-majors made the final 4 (Marquette, Louisville, George Mason, Memphis). Louisville was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

From 2010-2018, 6 or 7 mid-majors have made the final four (Butler, Butler, VCU, UConn, Wichita, Gonzaga, Loyola). UConn was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

Kind of makes my point. In some 40 years, only four schools (UMass, George Mason, VCU and Loyola) that are outside the conferences I proposed for a top tier made it as far as the Final Four (with none winning). I can live with their being in a second tier.

They're in those leagues NOW. They weren't when they made these achievements.

Butler was in the Horizon the two years they made the title game.

Yes, they are. I'm not proposing that we re-create conferences as they existed in the past. And I'm not suggesting that every school in the 8 top conferences is equally capable of winning. But they are conferences consisting of self-selected peer institutions who want to compete against each other, that collectively are clearly superior to most D-I conferences in most sports. That's as close as we are likely to get to a reasonable division of the 350 or so D-I schools.

Maybe the 101 schools I grouped together isn't the perfect number. But it's way better than the 350+ we have now.

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.

(01-29-2019 11:24 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The biggest problem for that type of breakaway in college basketball is due to the contract that the NCAA has with CBS and Turner for the tournament until 2032. March Madness is, arguably, one of the greatest sporting events in the world. Every single game is entertaining and must-see. The fan interest from those smaller schools is also one of the biggest drivers for the fan interest. Unlike football, basketball can see significant parity game-to-game. It's why I have never understood making the CFP like March Madness; the two sports are just radically different.

And get the games off of Tru TV!!

(01-29-2019 02:34 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:24 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The biggest problem for that type of breakaway in college basketball is due to the contract that the NCAA has with CBS and Turner for the tournament until 2032. March Madness is, arguably, one of the greatest sporting events in the world. Every single game is entertaining and must-see. The fan interest from those smaller schools is also one of the biggest drivers for the fan interest. Unlike football, basketball can see significant parity game-to-game. It's why I have never understood making the CFP like March Madness; the two sports are just radically different.

And get the games off of Tru TV!!

I didn't even know what Tru TV was until I realized that some first round tournament games last year were on it. Took me a while to find them. It wasn't worth the effort.

(01-29-2019 02:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:41 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  Kind of makes my point. In some 40 years, only four schools (UMass, George Mason, VCU and Loyola) that are outside the conferences I proposed for a top tier made it as far as the Final Four (with none winning). I can live with their being in a second tier.

They're in those leagues NOW. They weren't when they made these achievements.

Butler was in the Horizon the two years they made the title game.

Yes, they are. I'm not proposing that we re-create conferences as they existed in the past. And I'm not suggesting that every school in the 8 top conferences is equally capable of winning. But they are conferences consisting of self-selected peer institutions who want to compete against each other, that collectively are clearly superior to most D-I conferences in most sports. That's as close as we are likely to get to a reasonable division of the 350 or so D-I schools.

Maybe the 101 schools I grouped together isn't the perfect number. But it's way better than the 350+ we have now.

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.

(01-29-2019 11:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  For the entire decade of the 1980s, there was not a single mid-major who made the Final Four.

In the 1990s, 4 or 5 mid-majors made the Final Four (UNLV, UNLV, Cincinnati, UMass, Utah). Cincinnati was arguably not a mid-major because they had been in a "major" conference for the past 15 years and had 2 national titles.

In the 2000s, 3 or 4 mid-majors made the final 4 (Marquette, Louisville, George Mason, Memphis). Louisville was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

From 2010-2018, 6 or 7 mid-majors have made the final four (Butler, Butler, VCU, UConn, Wichita, Gonzaga, Loyola). UConn was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

So .. let me get this straight ...

Louisville counted as a mid major in the 2000's ... but not in the 1980's .. when they won two national titles, and went to 4 total Final Fours?

And Memphis State wasn't a mid major when they were in the Final Four with 3 Big East teams?

So much wrong with this post it's embarrassing.

(01-29-2019 12:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:00 PM)ken d 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.

Sure there is. The second two days of the tournament. That's when it really starts.

Tell that to UMBC last year.

It's all a matter of personal preference. One freaky upset in 32 games doesn't interest me as much as 16 games where every team has a reasonable chance of winning. I get the allure for the kids who get to say they got their butt whupped by the stars they've watched on TV all year. And they'll be telling those stories (probably embellished a little) to their grandchildren 30-40 years from now.

I'm just not interested in watching. There are enough of those games in the regular season, and I don't watch them then either.

Based on data since 1985: If you're interested in watching a lot of upsets, you'll probably prefer the first round. If you're interested in the mystique of an upset you'll probably prefer the Final Four.

(01-29-2019 02:13 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:40 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  For the entire decade of the 1980s, there was not a single mid-major who made the Final Four.

In the 1990s, 4 or 5 mid-majors made the Final Four (UNLV, UNLV, Cincinnati, UMass, Utah). Cincinnati was arguably not a mid-major because they had been in a "major" conference for the past 15 years and had 2 national titles.

In the 2000s, 3 or 4 mid-majors made the final 4 (Marquette, Louisville, George Mason, Memphis). Louisville was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

From 2010-2018, 6 or 7 mid-majors have made the final four (Butler, Butler, VCU, UConn, Wichita, Gonzaga, Loyola). UConn was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

UNLV, UMass, and Utah were not mid-majors. UMass was in a conference with Penn State, West Virginia, and Temple up until PSU left and WVU went to the Big East. Utah in the WAC was a major program, and UNLV was a juggernaut.

Marquette, Louisville, and Memphis were not mid-majors. Neither was UConn.

Those are all major programs. If you want to make a distinction between power and major and mid-major conferences that’s one thing, but when looking at individual programs during certain eras it becomes a bit ridiculous.

This is called recency bias.

Utah, Marquette, & Butler were in mid-major conferences at the time and were considered mid-major programs. They've been promoted since then largely BECAUSE of their Final Four appearances.

You're right that Louisville, Cincinnati, and UConn don't exactly fit because they were previously in major conferences and had decades of tournament success.

The EAA/A-10 was a mid-major in the 70s & 80s. During the 80s they only had Sweet 16 teams once (Temple and Rhode Island in 1988). 3 of their 18 NCAA bids in the 80s (1.8 per year) were from schools who had already signed up to join the Big East (Villanova in 1980, Pitt in 81 & 82). At the time Pitt left, only 2 schools (WVU and Rutgers) played D-1A football. I find it funny that you use Penn State to justify them being a "major" conference. From 1956 until they announced their move to the Big 10, Penn State made 1 NCAA tournament.

Marquette won its national championship as an independent. Marquette did not join a conference until 1988 (and that was because Notre Dame and Dayton both decided to be part of the MCC). They almost immediately joined the GMC thereafter (along with Cincinnati, Memphis and Louisville). The 2003 FF run under Wade/Crean absolutely catapulted Marquette into the Big East.

UNLV may have been deemed major like many consider Gonzaga now but they were never in a major conference. The last year they made the Final Four, the Big West was

Nevada-Las Vegas
New Mexico State
Pacific
UC-Santa Barbara
Utah State
Cal State Fullerton
Fresno State
Long Beach State
UC-Irvine
San Jose State

(01-29-2019 03:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 02:13 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:40 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  For the entire decade of the 1980s, there was not a single mid-major who made the Final Four.

In the 1990s, 4 or 5 mid-majors made the Final Four (UNLV, UNLV, Cincinnati, UMass, Utah). Cincinnati was arguably not a mid-major because they had been in a "major" conference for the past 15 years and had 2 national titles.

In the 2000s, 3 or 4 mid-majors made the final 4 (Marquette, Louisville, George Mason, Memphis). Louisville was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

From 2010-2018, 6 or 7 mid-majors have made the final four (Butler, Butler, VCU, UConn, Wichita, Gonzaga, Loyola). UConn was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

UNLV, UMass, and Utah were not mid-majors. UMass was in a conference with Penn State, West Virginia, and Temple up until PSU left and WVU went to the Big East. Utah in the WAC was a major program, and UNLV was a juggernaut.

Marquette, Louisville, and Memphis were not mid-majors. Neither was UConn.

Those are all major programs. If you want to make a distinction between power and major and mid-major conferences that’s one thing, but when looking at individual programs during certain eras it becomes a bit ridiculous.

This is called recency bias.

Utah, Marquette, & Butler were in mid-major conferences at the time and were considered mid-major programs. They've been promoted since then largely BECAUSE of their Final Four appearances.

You're right that Louisville, Cincinnati, and UConn don't exactly fit because they were previously in major conferences and had decades of tournament success.

The EAA/A-10 was a mid-major in the 70s & 80s. During the 80s they only had Sweet 16 teams once (Temple and Rhode Island in 1988). 3 of their 18 NCAA bids in the 80s (1.8 per year) were from schools who had already signed up to join the Big East (Villanova in 1980, Pitt in 81 & 82). At the time Pitt left, only 2 schools (WVU and Rutgers) played D-1A football. I find it funny that you use Penn State to justify them being a "major" conference. From 1956 until they announced their move to the Big 10, Penn State made 1 NCAA tournament.

Marquette won its national championship as an independent. Marquette did not join a conference until 1988 (and that was because Notre Dame and Dayton both decided to be part of the MCC). They almost immediately joined the GMC thereafter (along with Cincinnati, Memphis and Louisville). The 2003 FF run under Wade/Crean absolutely catapulted Marquette into the Big East.

Louisville was never in the Great Midwest Conference.

Sadly. That was a fun league. And I really wanted Louisville in it. We stayed in the Metro though.

Cincy, Memphis, DePaul, Marquette, St. Louis, UAB started the league. Dayton joined one year later.

But 5 years in, it ended, and CUSA was formed taking 6 schools from the GMC (Dayton went to the A10) ... Louisville and Marquette were conference mates at that time.

Yeesh, I heartily disagree with this. The upsets that happen every year, the teams that come out of nowhere every year (Butler and Gonzaga were once included, just like George Mason, Loyola, Penn, etc.), those are all a helluva lot more fun than making sure the 10th place ACC team gets a bid.

In many ways, it guarantees that every team in the country played an NCAA tournament team, so they know how their team stacked up.

And I agree with what others have said. The divide isn't growing - it's always been there.

USFFan

(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:  

(01-29-2019 01:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  They're in those leagues NOW. They weren't when they made these achievements.

Butler was in the Horizon the two years they made the title game.

Yes, they are. I'm not proposing that we re-create conferences as they existed in the past. And I'm not suggesting that every school in the 8 top conferences is equally capable of winning. But they are conferences consisting of self-selected peer institutions who want to compete against each other, that collectively are clearly superior to most D-I conferences in most sports. That's as close as we are likely to get to a reasonable division of the 350 or so D-I schools.

Maybe the 101 schools I grouped together isn't the perfect number. But it's way better than the 350+ we have now.

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.

(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:  

(01-29-2019 01:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  They're in those leagues NOW. They weren't when they made these achievements.

Butler was in the Horizon the two years they made the title game.

Yes, they are. I'm not proposing that we re-create conferences as they existed in the past. And I'm not suggesting that every school in the 8 top conferences is equally capable of winning. But they are conferences consisting of self-selected peer institutions who want to compete against each other, that collectively are clearly superior to most D-I conferences in most sports. That's as close as we are likely to get to a reasonable division of the 350 or so D-I schools.

Maybe the 101 schools I grouped together isn't the perfect number. But it's way better than the 350+ we have now.

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.

It might well kill the NCAA's Golden Goose. But I don't believe it would significantly impact the value of the tournament. It would just cut 250 schools (and the NCAA) out of the picture as beneficiaries of that contract.

I'm not the one paying to broadcast these games. But I highly suspect that those Thursday and Friday afternoon mismatches are aired on networks like TruTV for a reason. They aren't worth very much to the advertisers who are paying for them.

I also suspect the companies who are advertising on games deeper into the tournament aren't hoping that they'll get VCU vs Purdue for their money instead of Duke and Kentucky. And I don't believe many basketball fans will stop watching the Round of 32 or subsequent games because Hofstra is no longer in the tournament. I don't even think many Hofstra fans will. But even if Hofstra fans do stop watching, the ratings decline would get lost in rounding the numbers.

I just don't think that CBS, ESPN, Fox et al really care much what happens to those Thursday and Friday games. That's not where the money is. I believe that would be somewhat true also if all those Thursday and Friday games were played by schools in the top 8 conferences.

College sports is entertainment. But it's also a business.

They started airing on TruTV when Turner split the games up between CBS/TBS/TNT/TruTV back in 2011 instead of airing 4 regional broadcasts on CBS. If anything, it increased the audience for those games and value to advertisers.

(01-29-2019 02:13 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:40 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  For the entire decade of the 1980s, there was not a single mid-major who made the Final Four.

In the 1990s, 4 or 5 mid-majors made the Final Four (UNLV, UNLV, Cincinnati, UMass, Utah). Cincinnati was arguably not a mid-major because they had been in a "major" conference for the past 15 years and had 2 national titles.

In the 2000s, 3 or 4 mid-majors made the final 4 (Marquette, Louisville, George Mason, Memphis). Louisville was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

From 2010-2018, 6 or 7 mid-majors have made the final four (Butler, Butler, VCU, UConn, Wichita, Gonzaga, Loyola). UConn was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

UNLV, UMass, and Utah were not mid-majors. UMass was in a conference with Penn State, West Virginia, and Temple up until PSU left and WVU went to the Big East. Utah in the WAC was a major program, and UNLV was a juggernaut.

Marquette, Louisville, and Memphis were not mid-majors. Neither was UConn.

Those are all major programs. If you want to make a distinction between power and major and mid-major conferences that’s one thing, but when looking at individual programs during certain eras it becomes a bit ridiculous.

This is called recency bias.

Utah, Marquette, & Butler were in mid-major conferences at the time and were considered mid-major programs. They've been promoted since then largely BECAUSE of their Final Four appearances.

You're right that Louisville, Cincinnati, and UConn don't exactly fit because they were previously in major conferences and had decades of tournament success.

The EAA/A-10 was a mid-major in the 70s & 80s. During the 80s they only had Sweet 16 teams once (Temple and Rhode Island in 1988). 3 of their 18 NCAA bids in the 80s (1.8 per year) were from schools who had already signed up to join the Big East (Villanova in 1980, Pitt in 81 & 82). At the time Pitt left, only 2 schools (WVU and Rutgers) played D-1A football. I find it funny that you use Penn State to justify them being a "major" conference. From 1956 until they announced their move to the Big 10, Penn State made 1 NCAA tournament.

I find it funny you are scrambling to make an argument when the simple fact is nobody called the 80’s/90’s A10, the original C-USA, or the 80’s/90’s WAC/MWC mid-majors. You have a bias influenced by football, apparently. You claim the Metro was power/major, but those other leagues were mid-majors? Must I dig out my old Blue Ribbon Yearbooks?

Butler was a mid-major, I never argued that.

Marquette was a power program for years and years as an independent, along with Notre Dame and DePaul. C-USA was NEVER called a mid-major when Marquette was a member.

You are confusing mid-major with majors.

Only when the BCS was created was there a difference between “power” and “major”. Major programs didn’t all of the sudden become mid-majors on small MAAC budgets.

(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:  

(01-29-2019 01:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  They're in those leagues NOW. They weren't when they made these achievements.

Butler was in the Horizon the two years they made the title game.

Yes, they are. I'm not proposing that we re-create conferences as they existed in the past. And I'm not suggesting that every school in the 8 top conferences is equally capable of winning. But they are conferences consisting of self-selected peer institutions who want to compete against each other, that collectively are clearly superior to most D-I conferences in most sports. That's as close as we are likely to get to a reasonable division of the 350 or so D-I schools.

Maybe the 101 schools I grouped together isn't the perfect number. But it's way better than the 350+ we have now.

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.