(11-27-2021 10:33 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  But even less overall $$ is $$ they don’t have share with the peons! THAT matters to them.

Well the big drain is the NCAA and that the NCAA determines how to allocate the money. Its not the money to the other 27 conferences directly from the tournament that is the issue.

.

Whether or not the P5 will stay in the NCAA tournament or split off and set up its own tournament is something none of us can predict. It could go either way.

.

However, there would be tremendous resistance to demoting all the D1 schools to a separate class below the P5 schools. It would be a very unpopular move, and it would fundamentally undermine the NCAA tournament, as we have come to know it.

.

The basic questions are these:

1. Are 68 NCAA bids sufficient for a Division I that now has 358 teams?

2. If 68 bids are sufficient today, how much longer will they be sufficient at the current growth rate (30 new D1 programs per decade)?

3. With the pressure to expand the size of the NCAA tournament field (to make more at-large bids available to high quality non-P5 teams) likely to grow in the coming years, hasn't the time come to at least begin discussing some options for NCAA tournament expansion that could be put into effect by 2030?

..............................................................................................

• In 2030, it is likely that there will be at least 380 D1 basketball programs.
  .
• When there are 380-400 D1 programs, the idea of expanding the play-in round or adding another full round (a field of 96 or 128 teams) will begin to be discussed by more and more fans.
  .
• A 96-team field would allow 28 more teams to participate in the tournament. A 128-team field would allow 60 more teams to participate, and would also eliminate the need for play-in games.
  .
• With a 128-team field, each D1 conference's regular season and conference tournament champion could be guaranteed a bid (no more 1-bid conferences).
  .
• That would leave the tournament with 64 at-large bids - - up from the current number of 40-44 at-large bids, making it possible for a lot more non-P5 teams to earn at-large bids.
  .
• The losers of the first round games would be eligible to play in one of three consolation tournaments - - the NIT, the CBI, and the CIT.
  .
• A 128-team field would be a long-term solution, which would probably last for at least another 50 years.
  .
• Whether the expansion comes in 2025, or 2030, or in 2035, one thing is clear -- there is likely to be some expansion in the size of the NCAA tournament field within the next 10-15 years.
  
  

..............................................................................................

.

(12-01-2021 12:34 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

Whether or not the P5 will stay in the NCAA tournament or split off and set up its own tournament is something none of us can predict. It could go either way.

.

However, there would be tremendous resistance to demoting all the D1 schools to a separate class below the P5 schools. It would be a very unpopular move, and it would fundamentally undermine the NCAA tournament, as we have come to know it.

.

The basic questions are these:

1. Are 68 NCAA bids sufficient for a Division I that now has 358 teams?

2. If 68 bids are sufficient today, how much longer will they be sufficient at the current growth rate (30 new D1 programs per decade)?

3. With the pressure to expand the size of the NCAA tournament field (to make more at-large bids available to high quality non-P5 teams) likely to grow in the coming years, hasn't the time come to at least begin discussing some options for NCAA tournament expansion that could be put into effect by 2030?

..............................................................................................

• In 2030, it is likely that there will be at least 380 D1 basketball programs.
  .
• When there are 380-400 D1 programs, the idea of expanding the play-in round or adding another full round (a field of 96 or 128 teams) will begin to be discussed by more and more fans.
  .
• A 96-team field would allow 28 more teams to participate in the tournament. A 128-team field would allow 60 more teams to participate, and would also eliminate the need for play-in games.
  .
• With a 128-team field, each D1 conference's regular season and conference tournament champion could be guaranteed a bid (no more 1-bid conferences).
  .
• That would leave the tournament with 64 at-large bids - - up from the current number of 40-44 at-large bids, making it possible for a lot more non-P5 teams to earn at-large bids.
  .
• The losers of the first round games would be eligible to play in one of three consolation tournaments - - the NIT, the CBI, and the CIT.
  .
• A 128-team field would be a long-term solution, which would probably last for at least another 50 years.
  .
• Whether the expansion comes in 2025, or 2030, or in 2035, one thing is clear -- there is likely to be some expansion in the size of the NCAA tournament field within the next 10-15 years.
  
  

..............................................................................................

.

Guys - I don’t know where there is any fan pressure to expand the NCAA Tournament at all (unlike football).

That’s a message board fiction. We discuss things like this here because we’re the types of people that discuss the minutiae of the college sports business, but this is one area where the overall public isn’t even thinking about it. The general public absolutely, positively, does NOT care about adding more tournament slots simply because there are more Division I teams. They’re not even aware that these small D-I programs exist in the first place. The public enjoys a good upset in the NCAA Tournament, but absolutely no one should mistake that for the public outright wanting more non-power schools in the event. The Goliath power schools are the ones that bring the audiences and money. This is setting up a straw man here.

Anyway, I’ll be honest that I’m instinctively annoyed about suggestions for large structural changes to the NCAA Tournament. That’s the one thing in American sports that shouldn’t be messed with. In contrast, I can talk about college football playoff changes early and often (and I’ve done so for the better part of two decades at this point).

I made a small change. My rules are that performance credits go to the conference, and not the individual schools. If a school leaves a conference, they leave the credits behind.

An exception is if there is not continuity in conference membership. Continuity from (2011)-2012 means to (2021)-2022 requires at least half of the 2022 members to have been in the conference continuously since 2012 AND at least half of the 2012 members to have been continuously in the conference until 2022. So if a conference loses a large share of its membership or there is large influx of new members or a combination, they are not considered continuous. In that case, the conference credits from 2012 would be distributed among the individual schools from 2012 (all credits would be distributed equally among the schools without regard to which schools won them).

This rule applies to (Old) Big East for 2012 and 2013. CUSA for 2012 and 2013. Southland for 2012, Summit for 2012, WAC for 2012 and 2013, and Great West for 2012 and 2013.

The effect of this adjustment is primarily that some of the (Old) Big East credits are distributed based on current alignment (for 2012) 8/16 to (New) Big East, ACC 4/16, AAC 2/16, B1G 1/16, B12 1/16. For 2013, 8/15 to (New Big Wast), ACC 4/15, AAC 2/15, B1G 1/15.

While these credits were at one time considerable they have decayed over time due to the 1-2-3-...-8-9-10 weighted averaged.

Nonetheless it was enough to tweak the AAC up to 2+ berths and reduce the SEC to 5 even (the SEC is actually entitled to about 5-1/4 berths so they lose the play-in due to rounding.

(11-30-2021 10:24 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(11-30-2021 10:20 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(11-24-2021 09:08 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(11-24-2021 05:06 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  I had once mused about determining the number of berths for each conference based on past performance. Conferences with two or more berths would determine their own qualifiers which might take into account both regular season and tournament play.

Those would roughly 1-1/2 berths would qualify one and choose a second team with a play-in against another similar conference.

Those with 1 or fewer would play in regional tournaments, instead of conference tournaments.

You could have the #1 team from Conference A, #2 from Conference B and so on.

I've never heard that concept put forth. Very interesting.

So here it is. Berths for top conferences (based on actual performance over 10 previous season). Qualifying teams based on predictions of teamrankings.com.

ACC (6+): Duke, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Louisville, Virginia, North Carolina, (Clemson).
B1G (6+) Purdue, Iowa, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Indiana, (Illinois)
B12 (5+) Baylor, Texas, Kansas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, (Oklahoma)
SEC (5): Florida, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky
BE (4): UConn, Villanova, Seton Hall, Xavier
P12 (4): Arizona, UCLA, USC, Washington
A10 (2+): St.Bonaventure, Rhode Island, (Saint Louis)
AAC (2+): Houston, Memphis, (Cincinnati)
WCC (2): Gonzaga, BYU
MVC (1+): Loyola (IL), (Drake)
MTW (1+): Utah State, (San Diego State)
CUSA (1+): UAB, Western Kentucky
MAC (1+): Buffalo, (Ohio)
OVC (1+): Belmont, (Murray State)

Each conference, prior to the season, will define the procedure used to select its teams. The ACC might qualify the regular season and tournament champions, and use a combination of regular season and tournament wins.

The +teams will be placed in play-in games, but these would be played prior to the bracket being set. I've seeded the Top 5 based on national rankings, and then arranged matchups based on regions:

Illinois (32) v. Ohio (85)

Oklahoma (34) v. Saint Louis (62)
San Diego State (52) v. Drake (56)

Cincinnati (47) v. Northern Kentucky (128)
Clemson (50) v. Murray State (73)

A conference may convert one of its regular berths for two play-in berths. For example, the ACC could convert its 6th berth, for two play-in berths. North Carolina, Clemson, and Notre Dame would be in play-ins. Play-ins would never match conference teams. The decision on conversion would be made before the season. So in this example, the ACC could choose to have a guarantee of five, but an opportunity for up to eight.

The above sets 46 berths to the top 14 conferences. This is not fixed, but could change based on future performance.

Fascinating. I kind of like it. You put some thought into this. Good work.

The other 18 conferences would be placed in regional groups:

Northeast: American East, Ivy League, MAAC, Northeast, Patriot
Southeast: Big South, Colonial, MEAC, and Southern
Central: ASUN, Horizon, Summit, Sun Belt, and SWAC
West: Big Sky, Big West, Southland, and WAC.

Each region should have at least four conferences. The southern conferences are divided in the way they are because the four in the Southeast are almost entirely in coastal states, and the Southland is furthest west, and the three more central roughly match up with the two Midwestern conferences.

In each region the conference tournaments would be replaced with qualifying tournaments matching teams from different conferences. This in effect expands the NCAA tournament out to all teams. In the Northeast you might have:

Group E1:
(1) Colgate
(8) Columbia-Central Connecticut
(5) Stony Brook
(4) Fairfield
(3) Harvard
(6) NJIT
(7) Monmouth-Holy Cross
(2) Bryant

Group E2:
(1) Iona
(8) Lafayette-Albany
(5) Penn
(4) Mt. St. Mary's
(3) Boston U.
(6) Brown
(7) Monmouth-Holy Cross
(2) UMass Lowell

Group E3:
(1) Vermont
(8) Canisius-Siena
(5) Sacred Heart
(4) Army West Point
(3) St. Peters
(6) LIU
(7) Lehigh-Maine
(2) Yale

Group E4:
(1) Princeton
(8) FDU-Rider
(5) Loyola (MD)
(4) UMBC
(3) St Francis (PA)
(6) Bucknell
(7) Hartford
(2) Monmouth

Group E5:
(1) Wagner
(8) Binghampton-American
(5) Niagara
(4) Cornell
(3) UNH
(6) Marist
(7) Dartmouth
(2) Navy

Each bracket has one of the top 5 teams from each conference.

So Group E1 has:

Patriot 1
Northeast 2
Ivy 3
MAAC 4
American East 5

Colgate as the overall seed, is placed in the group with the lowest #2, the highest #3, the lowest #4, and highest #5 - except some of these may be rearranged to avoid placing any of the top 5 from a conference in the same group. Other teams from the same conference are placed in the same group but opposite half, So Patriot 1 and 10 are in a group, as are 2 and 9, 3 and 8, 4 and 7, and 5 and 6. This leaves the groups with Ivy 1 and Ivy 2 short a team since their are no Ivy 9 and 10. And three MAAC teams are placed in one group since it has 11 teams.

Conceivably you could limit each conference to 8 teams, but why not let every team dream of a 10-game streak culminating in the NCAA championship.

The region might be played in NYC with MSG and Barclays Center being used. UBS Center or Prudential Center might also be used.

Tuesday: 2 preliminary games at MSG, 2 preliminary at BC.
Wednesday: 4 1st round at MSG, 4 1st round at BC, 2 preliminary at MSG, 2 preliminary at BC.
Thursday: 6 1st round at MSG, 6 first round at BC.
Friday: 6 2nd round at MSG, 4 2nd round at BC
Saturday: 5 finals at MSG.

Reclassifying schools aren't allowed in NCAA championship competitions, so the eight teams might play in separate tournament. First round at campus sites:

UC San Diego @ Cal Baptist
Dixie State @ Tarleton State
North Alabama @ Merrimack
Saint Thomas @ Bellarmine

I agree that an expanded tournament (which I definitely favor), would allow BOTH a conference tournament and RS champ to “dsnce”. But I’d prefer a result of the expanded NCAAT be the nuking of the CBIT and CIT.

(12-01-2021 12:34 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

Whether or not the P5 will stay in the NCAA tournament or split off and set up its own tournament is something none of us can predict. It could go either way.

.

However, there would be tremendous resistance to demoting all the D1 schools to a separate class below the P5 schools. It would be a very unpopular move, and it would fundamentally undermine the NCAA tournament, as we have come to know it.

.

The basic questions are these:

1. Are 68 NCAA bids sufficient for a Division I that now has 358 teams?

2. If 68 bids are sufficient today, how much longer will they be sufficient at the current growth rate (30 new D1 programs per decade)?

3. With the pressure to expand the size of the NCAA tournament field (to make more at-large bids available to high quality non-P5 teams) likely to grow in the coming years, hasn't the time come to at least begin discussing some options for NCAA tournament expansion that could be put into effect by 2030?

..............................................................................................

• In 2030, it is likely that there will be at least 380 D1 basketball programs.
  .
• When there are 380-400 D1 programs, the idea of expanding the play-in round or adding another full round (a field of 96 or 128 teams) will begin to be discussed by more and more fans.
  .
• A 96-team field would allow 28 more teams to participate in the tournament. A 128-team field would allow 60 more teams to participate, and would also eliminate the need for play-in games.
  .
• With a 128-team field, each D1 conference's regular season and conference tournament champion could be guaranteed a bid (no more 1-bid conferences).
  .
• That would leave the tournament with 64 at-large bids - - up from the current number of 40-44 at-large bids, making it possible for a lot more non-P5 teams to earn at-large bids.
  .
• The losers of the first round games would be eligible to play in one of three consolation tournaments - - the NIT, the CBI, and the CIT.
  .
• A 128-team field would be a long-term solution, which would probably last for at least another 50 years.
  .
• Whether the expansion comes in 2025, or 2030, or in 2035, one thing is clear -- there is likely to be some expansion in the size of the NCAA tournament field within the next 10-15 years.
  
  

..............................................................................................

.

No thanks. Maybe the NCAA should have stricter requirements for moving up to Division I

72 at most.

Gramz: 72 promotions or 72 total teams)

72 team tournament. 8 play-in games.

I made a small change. My rules are that performance credits go to the conference, and not the individual schools. If a school leaves a conference, they leave the credits behind.

An exception is if there is not continuity in conference membership. Continuity from (2011)-2012 means to (2021)-2022 requires at least half of the 2022 members to have been in the conference continuously since 2012 AND at least half of the 2012 members to have been continuously in the conference until 2022. So if a conference loses a large share of its membership or there is large influx of new members or a combination, they are not considered continuous. In that case, the conference credits from 2012 would be distributed among the individual schools from 2012 (all credits would be distributed equally among the schools without regard to which schools won them).

This rule applies to (Old) Big East for 2012 and 2013. CUSA for 2012 and 2013. Southland for 2012, Summit for 2012, WAC for 2012 and 2013, and Great West for 2012 and 2013.

The effect of this adjustment is primarily that some of the (Old) Big East credits are distributed based on current alignment (for 2012) 8/16 to (New) Big East, ACC 4/16, AAC 2/16, B1G 1/16, B12 1/16. For 2013, 8/15 to (New Big Wast), ACC 4/15, AAC 2/15, B1G 1/15.

While these credits were at one time considerable they have decayed over time due to the 1-2-3-...-8-9-10 weighted averaged.

Nonetheless it was enough to tweak the AAC up to 2+ berths and reduce the SEC to 5 even (the SEC is actually entitled to about 5-1/4 berths so they lose the play-in due to rounding.

(11-30-2021 10:24 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(11-30-2021 10:20 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(11-24-2021 09:08 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(11-24-2021 05:06 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  I had once mused about determining the number of berths for each conference based on past performance. Conferences with two or more berths would determine their own qualifiers which might take into account both regular season and tournament play.

Those would roughly 1-1/2 berths would qualify one and choose a second team with a play-in against another similar conference.

Those with 1 or fewer would play in regional tournaments, instead of conference tournaments.

You could have the #1 team from Conference A, #2 from Conference B and so on.

I've never heard that concept put forth. Very interesting.

So here it is. Berths for top conferences (based on actual performance over 10 previous season). Qualifying teams based on predictions of teamrankings.com.

ACC (6+): Duke, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Louisville, Virginia, North Carolina, (Clemson).
B1G (6+) Purdue, Iowa, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Indiana, (Illinois)
B12 (5+) Baylor, Texas, Kansas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, (Oklahoma)
SEC (5): Florida, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky
BE (4): UConn, Villanova, Seton Hall, Xavier
P12 (4): Arizona, UCLA, USC, Washington
A10 (2+): St.Bonaventure, Rhode Island, (Saint Louis)
AAC (2+): Houston, Memphis, (Cincinnati)
WCC (2): Gonzaga, BYU
MVC (1+): Loyola (IL), (Drake)
MTW (1+): Utah State, (San Diego State)
CUSA (1+): UAB, Western Kentucky
MAC (1+): Buffalo, (Ohio)
OVC (1+): Belmont, (Murray State)

Each conference, prior to the season, will define the procedure used to select its teams. The ACC might qualify the regular season and tournament champions, and use a combination of regular season and tournament wins.

The +teams will be placed in play-in games, but these would be played prior to the bracket being set. I've seeded the Top 5 based on national rankings, and then arranged matchups based on regions:

Illinois (32) v. Ohio (85)

Oklahoma (34) v. Saint Louis (62)
San Diego State (52) v. Drake (56)

Cincinnati (47) v. Northern Kentucky (128)
Clemson (50) v. Murray State (73)

A conference may convert one of its regular berths for two play-in berths. For example, the ACC could convert its 6th berth, for two play-in berths. North Carolina, Clemson, and Notre Dame would be in play-ins. Play-ins would never match conference teams. The decision on conversion would be made before the season. So in this example, the ACC could choose to have a guarantee of five, but an opportunity for up to eight.

The above sets 46 berths to the top 14 conferences. This is not fixed, but could change based on future performance.

Fascinating. I kind of like it. You put some thought into this. Good work.

The other 18 conferences would be placed in regional groups:

Northeast: American East, Ivy League, MAAC, Northeast, Patriot
Southeast: Big South, Colonial, MEAC, and Southern
Central: ASUN, Horizon, Summit, Sun Belt, and SWAC
West: Big Sky, Big West, Southland, and WAC.

Each region should have at least four conferences. The southern conferences are divided in the way they are because the four in the Southeast are almost entirely in coastal states, and the Southland is furthest west, and the three more central roughly match up with the two Midwestern conferences.

In each region the conference tournaments would be replaced with qualifying tournaments matching teams from different conferences. This in effect expands the NCAA tournament out to all teams. In the Northeast you might have:

Group E1:
(1) Colgate
(8) Columbia-Central Connecticut
(5) Stony Brook
(4) Fairfield
(3) Harvard
(6) NJIT
(7) Monmouth-Holy Cross
(2) Bryant

Group E2:
(1) Iona
(8) Lafayette-Albany
(5) Penn
(4) Mt. St. Mary's
(3) Boston U.
(6) Brown
(7) Monmouth-Holy Cross
(2) UMass Lowell

Group E3:
(1) Vermont
(8) Canisius-Siena
(5) Sacred Heart
(4) Army West Point
(3) St. Peters
(6) LIU
(7) Lehigh-Maine
(2) Yale

Group E4:
(1) Princeton
(8) FDU-Rider
(5) Loyola (MD)
(4) UMBC
(3) St Francis (PA)
(6) Bucknell
(7) Hartford
(2) Monmouth

Group E5:
(1) Wagner
(8) Binghampton-American
(5) Niagara
(4) Cornell
(3) UNH
(6) Marist
(7) Dartmouth
(2) Navy

Each bracket has one of the top 5 teams from each conference.

So Group E1 has:

Patriot 1
Northeast 2
Ivy 3
MAAC 4
American East 5

Colgate as the overall seed, is placed in the group with the lowest #2, the highest #3, the lowest #4, and highest #5 - except some of these may be rearranged to avoid placing any of the top 5 from a conference in the same group. Other teams from the same conference are placed in the same group but opposite half, So Patriot 1 and 10 are in a group, as are 2 and 9, 3 and 8, 4 and 7, and 5 and 6. This leaves the groups with Ivy 1 and Ivy 2 short a team since their are no Ivy 9 and 10. And three MAAC teams are placed in one group since it has 11 teams.

Conceivably you could limit each conference to 8 teams, but why not let every team dream of a 10-game streak culminating in the NCAA championship.

The region might be played in NYC with MSG and Barclays Center being used. UBS Center or Prudential Center might also be used.

Tuesday: 2 preliminary games at MSG, 2 preliminary at BC.
Wednesday: 4 1st round at MSG, 4 1st round at BC, 2 preliminary at MSG, 2 preliminary at BC.
Thursday: 6 1st round at MSG, 6 first round at BC.
Friday: 6 2nd round at MSG, 4 2nd round at BC
Saturday: 5 finals at MSG.

Reclassifying schools aren't allowed in NCAA championship competitions, so the eight teams might play in separate tournament. First round at campus sites:

UC San Diego @ Cal Baptist
Dixie State @ Tarleton State
North Alabama @ Merrimack
Saint Thomas @ Bellarmine

Possible brackets for the Southeast: Big South, Colonia, MEAC, and Southern:

Group SE1:
(1) Furman
(8) SC State
(5) Delaware
(4) Gardner-Webb
(3) James Madison
(6) Radford-Samford
(7) VMI-Charleston Southern
(2) Howard

Group SE2:
(1) Hofstra
(8) High Point
(5) Mercer-SC Upstate
(4) NC Central
(3) Wofford
(6) Coppin State-Elon
(7) UNCW
(2) Campbell

Group SE3:
(1) Winthrop
(8) College of Charleston
(5) UMES-William & Mary
(4) ETSU
(3) Morgan State
(6) UNCG-NC A&T
(7) Presbyterian
(2) Northeastern

Group SE4:
(1) Norfolk State
(8) The Citadel-Hampton
(5) UNCA-West Carolina
(4) Towson
(3) Longwood
(6) Drexel
(7) Delaware
(2) UTC

Games could be played at two arenas, likely in Virginia or the Carolinas.

The NCAA Tournament at 68 teams is fine as is (or go back to 64).

It's how to determine at-large bids that is severed Effed up.

They'd be better off going by straight win percentage than their stupid NET/Quad system, which completely ignores the role that conference schedules play in SOS; and is totally worthless in trying to rank-order teams 1-75 for an S-curve.

There are two different universes in college sports: Those who put together a group of rich schools, and those who have groups of not rich schools; and it is mathematically impossible to reconcile the two. You can't get good data in an SOS-based system. (And yes, the same flaw exists in Ken Pom and KPI and other dumb stats).

You need a "Strength of Resume" metric, but it either needs two sets of criteria, OR you need to accept that someone outside the BCS might actually deserve a 5 seed...

Or you can just take the teams that actually win games, which is better because that influences behavior, and if P5 teams don't like that their SOS makes it too tough to make the dance, they can either (a) go play good non-P5 teams on the road for the first time in 40 years or (b) leave their TV cartels for an easier path, both of which would make college basketball better.