I thought I read somewhere that it's about $2 million, but I can't find that in any official announcement.

A different way of looking at conference performance is how much the average conference member would earn, assuming that the revenue from tourney units is divided equally by all conference members. Of course, not all conferences actually do this, but now that the Final Four is fixed and there are no more units to be earned, this is how the conferences rate.

Conf...# of teams...$000's/team

B12........10..............3,400
B1G........14..............2,571
ACC........15..............2,400
BE..........11..............2,364
SEC........14..............1,571
WCC.......10..............1,200
PAC........12..............1,167
AAC........11..............1,091
MWC.......11............... 727
MAAC......11............... 727
A10........14................ 429
OVC........10............... 400
SWC........11.............. 364
HOR........12.............. 333
WAC........14.............. 286
Other.....177.............. 192

For this year the number of credits earned is as follows (it's final, as you don't gain any more after making the final four):

ACC 18 (15 schools)
B1G 18 (14)
B12 17 (10)
BE 13 (11)
SEC 11 (14)
P12 7 (12)
AAC 6 (11)
WCC 6 (10)
MWC 4 (11)
A10 3 (14)

From single bid conferences:

MAAC 4 (11)
OVC 2 (10)
WAC 2 (13)
tHL 2 (11) // first four bonus
SWAC 2 (12) // first four bonus

All others 1 credit

Big 12 did the best on a per school basis, with the Big Ten, ACC and Big East all a bit more than 1 credit per school.

(03-27-2022 10:27 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  For this year the number of credits earned is as follows (it's final, as you don't gain any more after making the final four):

ACC 18 (15 schools) ..... 13 (12)
B1G 18 (14) ................. 9 (8)
B12 17 (10) .................. 11
BE 13 (11) .................. 7
SEC 11 (14) .................. 5
P12 7 (12) .................. 4
AAC 6 (11) .................. 4
WCC 6 (10) .................. 3
MWC 4 (11) .................. 0
A10 3 (14) .................. 1

The right-hand column shows how many credits were IMO actually "earned". I did this by subtracting the number of entrants from the credit totals.

This is because IMO, credits gotten for being entered in the tournament are not earned. You earn a credit by winning a game.

I further deleted one more credit from the ACC and B1G, as IIRC they got credit for winning a "first four" game, which IMO shouldn't count either.

I would then rank by overall performance based on wins per entrant. Because if you get more teams in you have more chances to win.

E.g., the ACC had 12 R64 or better wins on just 5 entrants, a stellar 2.4 wins per entrant.

The SEC on the other hand won 5 games on 6 entrants, a bad .83 WPE.

The B1G had 8 wins on 8 entrants (8 R64 entrants, as Rutgers lost a play-in game), for a bad 1.0 WPE.

Etc.

Of course, small numbers can skew this. E.g., if a conference gets just two teams in, and one goes to the E8, they will have a very good WPE, even though it was just one team, so I would limit analysis to conferences with 3 or 4 or more teams in.

(03-28-2022 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The right-hand column shows how many credits were IMO actually "earned".

They're "earned" by showing up and allowing a tournament to take place in the first place.

It's fairly arbitrary that one team is "earning" this credit and not another (conference tournament champs instead of regular season champ, 75th place Big Ten team over a more deserving second team from a one-bid conference, etc) but they're still earning money for the NCAA, and therefore earning that money back for their conference/themselves.

Kentucky "earned" their money in round one because people tuned in to watch them play. St. Peter's earned their money in the game they lost against Duke because people tuned in to root for them.

(03-28-2022 08:46 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The right-hand column shows how many credits were IMO actually "earned".

They're "earned" by showing up and allowing a tournament to take place in the first place.

It's fairly arbitrary that one team is "earning" this credit and not another (conference tournament champs instead of regular season champ, 75th place Big Ten team over a more deserving second team from a one-bid conference, etc) but they're still earning money for the NCAA, and therefore earning that money back for their conference/themselves.

Kentucky "earned" their money in round one because people tuned in to watch them play. St. Peter's earned their money in the game they lost against Duke because people tuned in to root for them.

Also Kentucky earned their money in round one because they were good in the regular season.

(03-28-2022 08:46 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The right-hand column shows how many credits were IMO actually "earned".

They're "earned" by showing up and allowing a tournament to take place in the first place.

It's fairly arbitrary that one team is "earning" this credit and not another (conference tournament champs instead of regular season champ, 75th place Big Ten team over a more deserving second team from a one-bid conference, etc) but they're still earning money for the NCAA, and therefore earning that money back for their conference/themselves.

Kentucky "earned" their money in round one because people tuned in to watch them play. St. Peter's earned their money in the game they lost against Duke because people tuned in to root for them.

Disagree. To me, "earned" means winning, not participation.

(03-28-2022 09:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:46 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The right-hand column shows how many credits were IMO actually "earned".

They're "earned" by showing up and allowing a tournament to take place in the first place.

It's fairly arbitrary that one team is "earning" this credit and not another (conference tournament champs instead of regular season champ, 75th place Big Ten team over a more deserving second team from a one-bid conference, etc) but they're still earning money for the NCAA, and therefore earning that money back for their conference/themselves.

Kentucky "earned" their money in round one because people tuned in to watch them play. St. Peter's earned their money in the game they lost against Duke because people tuned in to root for them.

Disagree. To me, "earned" means winning, not participation.

The guys getting paid disagree.

(03-28-2022 10:59 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 09:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:46 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The right-hand column shows how many credits were IMO actually "earned".

They're "earned" by showing up and allowing a tournament to take place in the first place.

It's fairly arbitrary that one team is "earning" this credit and not another (conference tournament champs instead of regular season champ, 75th place Big Ten team over a more deserving second team from a one-bid conference, etc) but they're still earning money for the NCAA, and therefore earning that money back for their conference/themselves.

Kentucky "earned" their money in round one because people tuned in to watch them play. St. Peter's earned their money in the game they lost against Duke because people tuned in to root for them.

Disagree. To me, "earned" means winning, not participation.

The guys getting paid disagree.

Of course they would. Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

They earned the credit by winning their conference or playing well enough to get an at large bid.

(03-29-2022 07:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 10:59 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 09:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:46 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The right-hand column shows how many credits were IMO actually "earned".

They're "earned" by showing up and allowing a tournament to take place in the first place.

It's fairly arbitrary that one team is "earning" this credit and not another (conference tournament champs instead of regular season champ, 75th place Big Ten team over a more deserving second team from a one-bid conference, etc) but they're still earning money for the NCAA, and therefore earning that money back for their conference/themselves.

Kentucky "earned" their money in round one because people tuned in to watch them play. St. Peter's earned their money in the game they lost against Duke because people tuned in to root for them.

Disagree. To me, "earned" means winning, not participation.

The guys getting paid disagree.

Of course they would. Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

Yep. But I actually meant the NCAA guys (who then turn around and give out the "earned" credits).

They know that you can't have a tv tournament that only features winning teams. You've got to have two teams to play each game.

(03-29-2022 07:51 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  They earned the credit by winning their conference or playing well enough to get an at large bid.

Are you SURE about that?

Rutgers finished 18-14 and lost their first game.
Alabama was 19-14 and lost in the first game.
Michigan finished 19-15 (no one knew the Wolverines would win those NCAAT games, you have to think back to what the Committee knew when they selected them!)

None of those teams won their conference (Iowa and Tennessee did).

You can talk about metrics, but really that's the ONLY argument for many NCAA picks. At some point, common sense has to come into play and you have to ask "if a team loses 8, 9, or more games in conference - and doesn't win its tournament either - do they really deserve a spot more than, say, at 26-win Texas A&M team?

Virginia Tech fans knew that the ONLY way the Hokies were getting into the NCAA Tournament was to win the conference tournament and get the auto bid - which they did. Everything else not based on winning is just a beauty contest.

(03-28-2022 10:59 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 09:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:46 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The right-hand column shows how many credits were IMO actually "earned".

They're "earned" by showing up and allowing a tournament to take place in the first place.

It's fairly arbitrary that one team is "earning" this credit and not another (conference tournament champs instead of regular season champ, 75th place Big Ten team over a more deserving second team from a one-bid conference, etc) but they're still earning money for the NCAA, and therefore earning that money back for their conference/themselves.

Kentucky "earned" their money in round one because people tuned in to watch them play. St. Peter's earned their money in the game they lost against Duke because people tuned in to root for them.

Disagree. To me, "earned" means winning, not participation.

The guys getting paid disagree.

Well, that's not very meaningful to me, because if I was getting a free check in the mail just for showing up, I would love for that to continue as well.

But it wouldn't mean anyone else should think I "earned" it.

(03-29-2022 07:51 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  They earned the credit by winning their conference or playing well enough to get an at large bid.

Actually, I agree with you about the "winning conference" part. I do think each conference should get one guaranteed money-unit, just like they get one guaranteed bid to the tournament. The team that earns a conference's auto-bid earned their way in, so their conference also deserves an earned unit for that.

But IMO, there should be no units given for at-large teams merely for getting selected. As "Hokie" says that's a beauty contest. At-large teams should only earn credits for their conferences by, well, earning them, which means winning games after being selected.

So, even if a conference gets 9 bids, like the B1G this year, it should start out the Round of 64 (I don't believe units should be given for winning "first four" games either) with 1 unit. Then, if any of those 9 teams win games in the tournament, then those are earned units on top of that.

(03-29-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 10:59 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 09:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:46 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The right-hand column shows how many credits were IMO actually "earned".

They're "earned" by showing up and allowing a tournament to take place in the first place.

It's fairly arbitrary that one team is "earning" this credit and not another (conference tournament champs instead of regular season champ, 75th place Big Ten team over a more deserving second team from a one-bid conference, etc) but they're still earning money for the NCAA, and therefore earning that money back for their conference/themselves.

Kentucky "earned" their money in round one because people tuned in to watch them play. St. Peter's earned their money in the game they lost against Duke because people tuned in to root for them.

Disagree. To me, "earned" means winning, not participation.

The guys getting paid disagree.

Well, that's not very meaningful to me, because if I was getting a free check in the mail just for showing up, I would love for that to continue as well.

But it wouldn't mean anyone else should think I "earned" it.

You can't have a 64 (or, gross, 68) team tournament without 64 (or, horribly, 68) teams.

The NCAA "earns" their money from CBS by having the games. The teams "earn" that money by putting on the televised event. Somebody has to lose.

If CBS paid you to air your sit-com, the third lead still "earns" their paycheck. That's the way they see the tournament (although they naturally want the stars around in the end).

And you do "earn" more by advancing (but not really as a platonic ideal reward for greatness or victory per se, it's just because you're still around providing content). The fact that the winners advance is just a nice bonus (if CBS could choose, I'm not sure they'd always want it this way, except that it would undercut the whole thing and lose viewers).

Now, who "earns" the right to "earn" the money? Sure, I have plenty of cavils with that. But once you're there, sure - you get the credit and you and your conference and divide it up. If a conference thinks their regular season champ is getting screwed out of the auto-bid too often they can always award it differently (or divide the money up evenly or based on regular season standings or NET or whatever they want).

(03-29-2022 09:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2022 07:51 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  They earned the credit by winning their conference or playing well enough to get an at large bid.

Actually, I agree with you about the "winning conference" part. I do think each conference should get one guaranteed money-unit, just like they get one guaranteed bid to the tournament. The team that earns a conference's auto-bid earned their way in, so their conference also deserves an earned unit for that.

But IMO, there should be no units given for at-large teams merely for getting selected. As "Hokie" says that's a beauty contest. At-large teams should only earn credits for their conferences by, well, earning them, which means winning games after being selected.

So, even if a conference gets 9 bids, like the B1G this year, it should start out the Round of 64 (I don't believe units should be given for winning "first four" games either) with 1 unit. Then, if any of those 9 teams win games in the tournament, then those are earned units on top of that.

I still disagree, but I care a heck of a lot less about at-larges getting a unit (since my school always seems to be in one-bid conferences that in my always unbiased assessment ought to be multi-bid conferences most of the time).