How many people would be upset if there were 28 conferences with autobids and 36 at-large and went back to 64 or 24 autobids with 40 at-large?

What if the NCAA offered a "bounty" for up to 80 schools to reclassify?

Right now a conference that has been autobid for the past six years makes $1.6 million per year and rising from now on. Since most leagues have 10 teams that's roughly $167,000 per team with other distributions to the schools totalling maybe $250,000.

I suspect the NCAA could devise a financial carrot some schools wouldn't turn down in exchange for reclassifying and being ineligible to reclassify Division I for a set time period,

Exhibit A for all y’all that want to take the Madness out of March

(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.

This.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(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.

No one cares that you don't like what everyone else likes because you're team is a blue blood.

(01-29-2019 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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:  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).

Surprise surprise the UK and UNC fans want to take the magic out of march madness so the spotlight never leaves them even for a moment. Cool story guys, good luck actually changing anything.

(01-30-2019 07:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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:  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).

Surprise surprise the UK and UNC fans want to take the magic out of march madness so the spotlight never leaves them even for a moment. Cool story guys, good luck actually changing anything.

There's no magic in routs. Kentucky as #1 seed
1993 96-52
1995 113-67
1996 110-72
1997 92-54
2003 95-64
2004 96-76
2010 100-71
2012 81-66
2015 79-56
Kentucky as #2 seed
1992 88-69
1998 82-67
2001 72-68
2005 77-64
2017 79-70
Kentucky as #3 seed
1994 83-70
1999 82-60
Kentucky as #4 seed
2002 83-68
2011 59-57
2015 85-57

As a lower seed, when UK was facing 12 and up, its been better games, every one within 10 points. In 19 games as 4 and up, only 3 were within 10 (2 (as a #4), 4 and 9) or for that matter within 13 points.

2000 #5 85-80
2006 *8 69-64
2007 #8 67-58
2008 #11 66-74
2014 #8 56-49
2018 #5 78-73

(01-30-2019 07:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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:  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).

Surprise surprise the UK and UNC fans want to take the magic out of march madness so the spotlight never leaves them even for a moment. Cool story guys, good luck actually changing anything.

Nope. I love it the way it is, although I wish there weren’t play-in games. 64 was perfect.

(01-30-2019 07:46 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(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:  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.

No one cares that you don't like what everyone else likes because you're team is a blue blood.

And what would that team be, may I ask?

(01-29-2019 04:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  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.

Where can I sign up to this arrangement? Some of me does wish some of those 250 schools could stay, but ALL of me wishes the NCAA would cease to exist.

(01-30-2019 10:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 04:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  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.

Where can I sign up to this arrangement? Some of me does wish some of those 250 schools could stay, but ALL of me wishes the NCAA would cease to exist.

I don't know how they do it now, but back when everyone in Arkansas except the Hogs, AState and Little Rock where in the NAIA and most in the Arkansas Intercollegiate Conference the NAIA had district tournaments. The AIC didn't have a conference tournament, they had a tournament with their teams plus a few other random schools in the area. Win your district, go to Kansas City for the 32 team tournament.

If I were a power 5 AD I'd lobby to create a P5 owned and run tournament and each conference is guaranteed seven teams in.

That leaves 29 slots to fill. I'd throw the rest of the schools that want to be Division I into 16 districts and the 16 district champs get in and pick 13 at-large teams.

Hey non-power teams you don't want to be in a conference with the school 50 miles down the road? Fine but you are zoned for the same district as them instead of with your conference mate 700 miles away so if you draw them in the District tournament them's the breaks.

We will cover your travel to the district tournament but you want the big payday win that sucker or be remarkable enough to get an at-large

Crushes the value of your basketball TV package because outside the best non-power leagues, your tournament is the value and you aren't going to have it any more. You aren't getting the brand value of your conference tournament.

Win and the money is wonderful but if you can't get out of district, tough break.

(01-30-2019 09:35 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 07:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

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

Surprise surprise the UK and UNC fans want to take the magic out of march madness so the spotlight never leaves them even for a moment. Cool story guys, good luck actually changing anything.

Nope. I love it the way it is, although I wish there weren’t play-in games. 64 was perfect.

Yeah it’s not even bluebloods who complain. It’s fans of schools like NC State or Georgia Tech who’ve seen too many mid-majors pass them by and see rulebook’ing them as the only way out since it’s not happening on the court.

(01-31-2019 01:07 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Yeah it’s not even bluebloods who complain. It’s fans of schools like NC State or Georgia Tech who’ve seen too many mid-majors pass them by and see rulebook’ing them as the only way out since it’s not happening on the court.

Georgia Tech hasn't been good enough to complain about being a tournament snub in a decade. What are you even talking about?

(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.

(01-30-2019 09:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 07:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

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

Surprise surprise the UK and UNC fans want to take the magic out of march madness so the spotlight never leaves them even for a moment. Cool story guys, good luck actually changing anything.

There's no magic in routs. Kentucky as #1 seed
1993 96-52
1995 113-67
1996 110-72
1997 92-54
2003 95-64
2004 96-76
2010 100-71
2012 81-66
2015 79-56
Kentucky as #2 seed
1992 88-69
1998 82-67
2001 72-68
2005 77-64
2017 79-70
Kentucky as #3 seed
1994 83-70
1999 82-60
Kentucky as #4 seed
2002 83-68
2011 59-57
2015 85-57

As a lower seed, when UK was facing 12 and up, its been better games, every one within 10 points. In 19 games as 4 and up, only 3 were within 10 (2 (as a #4), 4 and 9) or for that matter within 13 points.

2000 #5 85-80
2006 *8 69-64
2007 #8 67-58
2008 #11 66-74
2014 #8 56-49
2018 #5 78-73

Just took a look at the most recent year that KY was the #1 seed (2015), they also routed the teams they played in the second and third rounds. #8 Cincinnati (64-51) & #5 West Virginia (78-39 oof!). It wasn't until the elite eight that they had a close game against #3 Notre Dame but they were lucky to get past Northeastern in the first round winning by a score of 69-65. In the same region we saw #2 Kansas fall to #7 Wichita State in the round of 32. There's your magic.

Limiting the field would just limit who would get routed by KY in the first rounds that year. Hampton or NC State, probably wouldn't have mattered much

(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.

(01-30-2019 09:35 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 07:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

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

Surprise surprise the UK and UNC fans want to take the magic out of march madness so the spotlight never leaves them even for a moment. Cool story guys, good luck actually changing anything.

Nope. I love it the way it is, although I wish there weren’t play-in games. 64 was perfect.

Yea 64 works really well. All the conferences get a chance at the big upset. It doesn't happen a lot, but when it does the whole college basketball world is talking about it. And I don't know why they added the play-in games, 64 is plenty when you have auto-bids for each conference.

The NCAA tournament is fine as it is, but was even better at 64.

Good grief.

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.

(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.

He's both right, and irrelevant. Right, because it's almost a sure thing that usually, the #9 ACC or B1G team whose bubble bursts and doesn't make the dance is in fact better than the majority of minor-conference champs who get in because they have an auto-bid.

Irrelevant, though, because even fans of such schools don't see that as a big injustice. E.g., 99% of the time, when a 18-14 bubble team from the B1G doesn't get in, their fans complain about some other 18-14 team from another A5 conference that they think they deserved to get in over, not about the SWAC or MEAC champion being in.

Basically, everyone understands that the A5 conferences get plenty of teams in so no grounds to complain about auto-bids for the minor conferences.

(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").