used NCAA tournament results from 1985 to calculate total units earned for each conference.
I could not find confirmation if play-in game winner was awarded a unit prior to 2008 so I made my scoring simple and awarded units based on 2021 distribution.

Below are top unit earning conferences from 1985 to 2021, note this season PAC-12 conference ranks tied for 12th most units at 19.

season conference total units
2015-16 ACC 25
2008-09 Big East 24
2011-12 Big East 23
2010-11 Big East 22
2018-19 Big Ten 21
2017-18 ACC 21
2014-15 ACC 21
1984-85 Big East 21
2018-19 ACC 20
2012-13 Big Ten 20
1998-99 Big Ten 20
2020-21 Pac-12 19
2018-19 SEC 19
2017-18 Big 12 19
2012-13 Big East 19
2007-08 Big East 19
2005-06 Big East 19
2003-04 ACC 19
2002-03 Big 12 19
2001-02 Big 12 19
1999-00 Big Ten 19

Calculated the top unit earning schools. No surprise with UNC, Duke, KU and UK as only schools earning over 100 units in this time range. NOTE small surprise that Kentucky average seed was 3.5, 1 higher than Duke, UNC and KU.

school total tournaments total units average units average seed
duke 34 117 3.44 2.18
north-carolina 33 115 3.48 2.88
kansas 35 114 3.26 2.51
kentucky 30 105 3.50 3.57
michigan-state 30 86 2.87 5.03
arizona 32 83 2.59 4.44
syracuse 29 82 2.83 4.66
ucla 27 75 2.78 5.48
louisville 26 71 2.73 5.00
connecticut 21 68 3.24 4.10
florida 23 66 2.87 5.04
michigan 22 65 2.95 4.64
oklahoma 27 63 2.33 5.19
villanova 24 61 2.54 5.46
gonzaga 23 60 2.61 6.30
purdue 27 60 2.22 5.11
wisconsin 23 57 2.48 5.87
indiana 25 57 2.28 5.08
texas 27 56 2.07 6.74
ohio-state 21 54 2.57 4.33
georgetown 22 54 2.45 5.00
maryland 22 54 2.45 5.18
xavier 26 54 2.08 8.27
arkansas 21 51 2.43 6.29
illinois 23 51 2.22 4.87



full data is here :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing

(04-07-2021 05:45 PM)jhasting Wrote:  used NCAA tournament results from 1985 to calculate total units earned for each conference.
I could not find confirmation if play-in game winner was awarded a unit prior to 2008 so I made my scoring simple and awarded units based on 2021 distribution.

It would be irrelevant. Play-in games were auto-bid conference winners until 2011. You'd be comparing one or two units.

Great info

IMO, if you want to measure the accomplishment of a conference in a tournament, you count the number of wins in a tournament. Units shouldn't be because teams could have gotten in that didn't deserve to get in. Win % shouldn't be because conferences are penalized for teams just getting in when they would be better off if they didn't make it. If you go by wins, the teams that get in but lose in the first round don't reward a conference but don't penalize it either. In general IMO 97% of the NCAA teams that make it deserve to make it, a conference that gets 8 or 9 teams should get more chances to win games and if they win more games because of it, so be it. But they better win. The Big Ten got 9 in and the Pac 12 got only 5 but the Pac 12 won more games. I hate it but I have to admit it.

Also learned through this effort that VCU in 2011 & USC in 2021 are the only teams to earn 6 credits in a single tournament.

(04-07-2021 06:46 PM)schmolik Wrote:  IMO, if you want to measure the accomplishment of a conference in a tournament, you count the number of wins in a tournament. Units shouldn't be because teams could have gotten in that didn't deserve to get in. Win % shouldn't be because conferences are penalized for teams just getting in when they would be better off if they didn't make it. If you go by wins, the teams that get in but lose in the first round don't reward a conference but don't penalize it either. In general IMO 97% of the NCAA teams that make it deserve to make it, a conference that gets 8 or 9 teams should get more chances to win games and if they win more games because of it, so be it. But they better win. The Big Ten got 9 in and the Pac 12 got only 5 but the Pac 12 won more games. I hate it but I have to admit it.

I agree with this. Units should be earned only by winning games, not by merely being in the tournament. Otherwise, conferences that flop, like the B1G did this year, get disproportionately rewarded, because they get a ton of credits by having a lot of teams in even if they don't win anything.

As you say, the reward for a conference having a lot of good teams should be getting more in and thus having more chances to win games. But they should not get rewarded just for getting teams in.

(04-07-2021 08:42 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Also learned through this effort that VCU in 2011 & USC in 2021 are the only teams to earn 6 credits in a single tournament.

So there's no 5-credits-per-team cap for First 4-to-Final 4 teams? That was a question I've wondered but couldn't find the answer to.

Rationale for using units was to determine money earned by conferences over time and this is the process NCAA has elected to follow. Units distribution may be a more fair approach because the data shows many conferences would receive little to no money, ex.) if only wins counted over the last 5 tourn, then 5 conf would receive no money and 7 conferences would each get only 1 share.

Sun Belt,1
Southern,1
AEC,1
Patriot,1
MEAC,1
Big South,1
Ivy,1
Horizon,0
WAC,0
CAA,0
MAAC,0
Big Sky,0



One interesting piece of data in line with the 'only winning should matter' is to look at the unit efficiency, ex.) uconn has only been to 21 tournaments but has earned 68 units, making them top 5 in efficiency but they are also outside of the top ten in total credits won, sort by COL-D to correlate wins.

connecticut 21 68 3.24

(04-07-2021 08:51 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:42 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Also learned through this effort that VCU in 2011 & USC in 2021 are the only teams to earn 6 credits in a single tournament.

So there's no 5-credits-per-team cap for First 4-to-Final 4 teams? That was a question I've wondered but couldn't find the answer to.

My understanding is that First 4 games are treated like other games, so yes, a team that goes from the First 4 to the Final 4 would earn six units for its conference (FWIW, "unit", not "credit" is the official NCAA term).

VCU's run to the 2011 Final 4 did earn six units, and based on the unit value at the time of $255,000, that was worth $9.2 million to the CAA over a six year period.

For this year, the units are worth $337,141. So the payout to the PAC from UCLA's six unit run will be even bigger - the PAC will get paid slightly more than $2 million a year for the next six years, or more than $12 million over that time, for UCLA's run alone.

(04-07-2021 08:42 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Also learned through this effort that VCU in 2011 & USC in 2021 are the only teams to earn 6 credits in a single tournament.

Doesn't the tournament champion every year get 7 credits?

(04-07-2021 09:20 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:42 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Also learned through this effort that VCU in 2011 & USC in 2021 are the only teams to earn 6 credits in a single tournament.

Doesn't the tournament champion every year get 7 credits?

No, units stop being earned once you reach the Final 4.

Ex.) if only wins counted in 2021 then over half of conferences participating would receive no shares, here is the breakdown of a WINS style distribution vs. a UNITS style distribution for 2020-21 tournament with play-in games wins not counted in the WINS style. PAC-12 would benefit greatly but almost all mid major would suffer with only WCC, AAC, MVC, Summit, CUSA, MAC, Southland sharing 25% of revenue and P6 keeping 75%


tourn CONF WINS WINS Share of money UNITS UNITS share of money
2020-21 Pac-12 13 20.63% 19 14.39%
2020-21 Big 12 11 17.46% 17 12.88%
2020-21 Big Ten 8 12.70% 17 12.88%
2020-21 SEC 7 11.11% 12 9.09%
2020-21 WCC 5 7.94% 6 4.55%
2020-21 AAC 4 6.35% 6 4.55%
2020-21 ACC 4 6.35% 11 8.33%
2020-21 Big East 4 6.35% 8 6.06%
2020-21 MVC 2 3.17% 5 3.79%
2020-21 Summit 2 3.17% 3 2.27%
2020-21 CUSA 1 1.59% 2 1.52%
2020-21 MAC 1 1.59% 2 1.52%
2020-21 Southland 1 1.59% 2 1.52%
2020-21 A-10 0 0.00% 2 1.52%
2020-21 A-Sun 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 AEC 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 Big Sky 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 Big South 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 Big West 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 CAA 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 Horizon 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 MAAC 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 MEAC 0 0.00% 2 1.52%
2020-21 MWC 0 0.00% 2 1.52%
2020-21 NEC 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 OVC 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 Patriot 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 Southern 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 Sun Belt 0 0.00% 1 0.76%
2020-21 SWAC 0 0.00% 2 1.52%
2020-21 WAC 0 0.00% 1 0.76%

(04-07-2021 09:28 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Ex.) if only wins counted in 2021 then over half of conferences participating would receive no shares ....

Aha, getting no money at all is a problem. So give each conference one unit for its automatic bid. Then all other units only for wins. That way the little guys always get something.

(04-08-2021 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:28 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Ex.) if only wins counted in 2021 then over half of conferences participating would receive no shares ....

Aha, getting no money at all is a problem. So give each conference one unit for its automatic bid. Then all other units only for wins. That way the little guys always get something.

Winning games should have a lot more value than mere participation. For that matter, IMO participation via automatic qualifier should have less value than selection via an agreed merit-based criteria. It doesn’t take much effort to form a conference and schedule games...winning games is more challenging (either in the regular season or during the tournament). Money should not be disbursed as a participation reward.

(04-08-2021 10:52 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:28 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Ex.) if only wins counted in 2021 then over half of conferences participating would receive no shares ....

Aha, getting no money at all is a problem. So give each conference one unit for its automatic bid. Then all other units only for wins. That way the little guys always get something.

Winning games should have a lot more value than mere participation. For that matter, IMO participation via automatic qualifier should have less value than selection via an agreed merit-based criteria. It doesn’t take much effort to form a conference and schedule games...winning games is more challenging (either in the regular season or during the tournament). Money should not be disbursed as a participation reward.

I agree in principle, but the conferences run this thing via the NCAA, and no conference wants a purely "commission based" system, because nobody wants to be left totally out of the money.

So .... everyone gets a "base" of one unit, call it a base salary for participation if you like, then the rest based on merit. That's IMO a big improvement over now, where you can collect seven units like the ACC just did merely for participation.

(04-08-2021 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:52 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:28 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Ex.) if only wins counted in 2021 then over half of conferences participating would receive no shares ....

Aha, getting no money at all is a problem. So give each conference one unit for its automatic bid. Then all other units only for wins. That way the little guys always get something.

Winning games should have a lot more value than mere participation. For that matter, IMO participation via automatic qualifier should have less value than selection via an agreed merit-based criteria. It doesn’t take much effort to form a conference and schedule games...winning games is more challenging (either in the regular season or during the tournament). Money should not be disbursed as a participation reward.

I agree in principle, but the conferences run this thing via the NCAA, and no conference wants a purely "commission based" system, because nobody wants to be left totally out of the money.

So .... everyone gets a "base" of one unit, call it a base salary for participation if you like, then the rest based on merit. That's IMO a big improvement over now, where you can collect seven units like the ACC just did merely for participation.

currently 68 units for participation and 64 units for wins are distributes to the conferences.
This distribution (including wins) is also likely why the 4 play-in games are not all 16(lowest) seeds as play-in games were prior to 1985. If all current play-in games were between 16 seeds then the smaller conferences would automatically get 2 more WIN units, by making two of the play-in games between last 4 teams in increases the chance that P6 or mid-majors can earn 2 more WIN units.

If you see the games as "jobs" and "working" and schools being paid by the hour, then the unit distribution makes sense except that teams aren't getting paid for making the championship game. We think of playing the game as a privilege and not a job.

(04-08-2021 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:52 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:28 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Ex.) if only wins counted in 2021 then over half of conferences participating would receive no shares ....

Aha, getting no money at all is a problem. So give each conference one unit for its automatic bid. Then all other units only for wins. That way the little guys always get something.

Winning games should have a lot more value than mere participation. For that matter, IMO participation via automatic qualifier should have less value than selection via an agreed merit-based criteria. It doesn’t take much effort to form a conference and schedule games...winning games is more challenging (either in the regular season or during the tournament). Money should not be disbursed as a participation reward.

I agree in principle, but the conferences run this thing via the NCAA, and no conference wants a purely "commission based" system, because nobody wants to be left totally out of the money.

So .... everyone gets a "base" of one unit, call it a base salary for participation if you like, then the rest based on merit. That's IMO a big improvement over now, where you can collect seven units like the ACC just did merely for participation.

This year was the first time in over 40 years that the ACC will get paid more for tournament participation than achievement. Specifically, the 4-7 ACC record resulted in the worst winning percentage since 1979...yet Florida State and Syracuse still made the Sweet 16 and ensured that the ACC was not a free rider.

Even with this year’s historically bad performance, the ACC won 6% (4 / 67) of games while receiving 8% (11 / 132) of units. The financial-to-performance mismatch isn’t resulting from the ACC’s once-in-40+-years performance aberration. IMO, the current NCAA revenue distribution format over-values participation versus performance. A better model is the European Champions League format where more than 40 associations (conferences) join to create a compelling entertainment event. Upsets can still happen in the early rounds and winning has a greater impact on financial distribution.

(04-08-2021 11:21 AM)jhasting Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:52 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:28 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Ex.) if only wins counted in 2021 then over half of conferences participating would receive no shares ....

Aha, getting no money at all is a problem. So give each conference one unit for its automatic bid. Then all other units only for wins. That way the little guys always get something.

Winning games should have a lot more value than mere participation. For that matter, IMO participation via automatic qualifier should have less value than selection via an agreed merit-based criteria. It doesn’t take much effort to form a conference and schedule games...winning games is more challenging (either in the regular season or during the tournament). Money should not be disbursed as a participation reward.

I agree in principle, but the conferences run this thing via the NCAA, and no conference wants a purely "commission based" system, because nobody wants to be left totally out of the money.

So .... everyone gets a "base" of one unit, call it a base salary for participation if you like, then the rest based on merit. That's IMO a big improvement over now, where you can collect seven units like the ACC just did merely for participation.

currently 68 units for participation and 64 units for wins are distributes to the conferences.
This distribution (including wins) is also likely why the 4 play-in games are not all 16(lowest) seeds as play-in games were prior to 1985. If all current play-in games were between 16 seeds then the smaller conferences would automatically get 2 more WIN units, by making two of the play-in games between last 4 teams in increases the chance that P6 or mid-majors can earn 2 more WIN units.

Win units should increase as a team advances through the tournament.

First four and round of 64 = 1 win unit
Round of 32 = 2 win units
Round of 16 = 3 (or 4) win units
Etc.

(04-08-2021 12:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:21 AM)jhasting Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:52 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aha, getting no money at all is a problem. So give each conference one unit for its automatic bid. Then all other units only for wins. That way the little guys always get something.

Winning games should have a lot more value than mere participation. For that matter, IMO participation via automatic qualifier should have less value than selection via an agreed merit-based criteria. It doesn’t take much effort to form a conference and schedule games...winning games is more challenging (either in the regular season or during the tournament). Money should not be disbursed as a participation reward.

I agree in principle, but the conferences run this thing via the NCAA, and no conference wants a purely "commission based" system, because nobody wants to be left totally out of the money.

So .... everyone gets a "base" of one unit, call it a base salary for participation if you like, then the rest based on merit. That's IMO a big improvement over now, where you can collect seven units like the ACC just did merely for participation.

currently 68 units for participation and 64 units for wins are distributes to the conferences.
This distribution (including wins) is also likely why the 4 play-in games are not all 16(lowest) seeds as play-in games were prior to 1985. If all current play-in games were between 16 seeds then the smaller conferences would automatically get 2 more WIN units, by making two of the play-in games between last 4 teams in increases the chance that P6 or mid-majors can earn 2 more WIN units.

Win units should increase as a team advances through the tournament.

First four and round of 64 = 1 win unit
Round of 32 = 2 win units
Round of 16 = 3 or 4 win units
Etc.

if incrementing units awarded : 1 unit for win play-in or 1st rnd, 2 units for 2nd rnd, 3 units for S16, 4units for E8, 5 units for F4, and 6 units for winning NC. 68 units for participation and 124 units for winning. Result is P6 keeping 65% of money vs 59% using current NCAA distribution.
incrementing unit show BIG12, WCC, and PAC-12 get 2-4% increase in money as expected but every mid major and small conference (other than WCC and AAC) are reduced. Only ACC & B1G are reduced more than 1%


INCR UNITS INCR % CURRENT DIFF
2020-21 A-10 2 1.04% 1.52% -0.47% virginia-commonwealth(1) st-bonaventure(1)
2020-21 A-Sun 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% liberty(1)
2020-21 AAC 12 6.25% 4.55% 1.70% houston(11) wichita-state(1)
2020-21 ACC 13 6.77% 8.33% -1.56% florida-state(4) syracuse(4) georgia-tech(1) virginia(1) virginia-tech(1) north-carolina(1) clemson(1)
2020-21 AEC 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% hatford(1)
2020-21 Big 12 34 17.71% 12.88% 4.83% baylor(22) west-virginia(2) kansas(2) oklahoma-state(2) oklahoma(2) texas-tech(2) texas(1) missouri(1)
2020-21 Big East 10 5.21% 6.06% -0.85% villanova(4) creighton(4) georgetown(1) connecticut(1)
2020-21 Big Sky 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% eastern-washington(1)
2020-21 Big South 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% winthrop(1)
2020-21 Big Ten 20 10.42% 12.88% -2.46% michigan(7) iowa(2) wisconsin(2) rutgers(2) illinois(2) maryland(2) ohio-state(1) purdue(1) michigan-state(1)
2020-21 Big West 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% california-santa-barbara(1)
2020-21 CAA 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% drexel(1)
2020-21 CUSA 2 1.04% 1.52% -0.47% north-texas(2)
2020-21 Horizon 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% cleveland-state(1)
2020-21 MAAC 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% iona(1)
2020-21 MAC 2 1.04% 1.52% -0.47% ohio(2)
2020-21 MEAC 2 1.04% 1.52% -0.47% norfolk-state(2)
2020-21 MVC 6 3.13% 3.79% -0.66% loyola-il(4) drake(2)
2020-21 MWC 2 1.04% 1.52% -0.47% utah-state(1) san-diego-state(1)
2020-21 NEC 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% mount-st-marys(1)
2020-21 OVC 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% morehead-state(1)
2020-21 Pac-12 32 16.67% 14.39% 2.27% oregon-state(7) southern-california(7) oregon(4) colorado(2) ucla(12)
2020-21 Patriot 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% colgate(1)
2020-21 SEC 16 8.33% 9.09% -0.76% arkansas(7) alabama(4) florida(2) louisiana-state(2) tennessee(1)
2020-21 SWAC 2 1.04% 1.52% -0.47% texas-southern(2)
2020-21 Southern 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% north-carolina-greensboro(1)
2020-21 Southland 2 1.04% 1.52% -0.47% abilene-christian(2)
2020-21 Summit 4 2.08% 2.27% -0.19% oral-roberts(4)
2020-21 Sun Belt 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% appalachian-state(1)
2020-21 WAC 1 0.52% 0.76% -0.24% grand-canyon(1)
2020-21 WCC 17 8.85% 4.55% 4.31% gonzaga(16) brigham-young(1)