In another thread quo vadis lobbied for a change in the way units are awarded. He proposed that instead of 1 unit for each team in the field, each conference should get 1 unit. This would reward conferences more for wins (which they earned) instead of selections, which are out of their control and based only on subjective opinions of the selection committee (which are subject to bias, either conscious or subconscious).

I kind of like that idea. So I recalculated how much revenue each conference would have earned using two alternative values per win.

My first alternative is to award 1 unit for each win in the Rounds of 64 and 32, 2 units for wins in the regionals, and 3 units for wins in the Final Four.

My second alternative steps this up to 2,3 and 4 instead of 1,2 and 3 units in those rounds.

Assuming a current value of $2MM per unit, spread over 6 years, and changing the per unit value assuming the total revenue to be distributed is unchanged, these were the results (in $MMs):

Conf...Current...Alt 1....Alt 2....Alt 3

ACC........36.0.....49.0.....51.0....38.9
B12........34.0.....46.7.....49.5....38.9
B1G........36.0.....21.0.....25.5....25.0
SEC........22.0.....16.4.....18.0....16.7
PAC........14.0.....11.7.....13.5....13.9
BE..........26.0.....23.4.....25.5....22.2

AAC........12.0.....14.0.....15.0....13.9
WCC.......12.0......9.3......10.5....11.1
MWC........8.0......2.3........1.5.....2.8
A10.........6.0.......4.7........4.5....5.6
MVC........2.0.......2.3........1.5....2.8

MAAC......8.0......11.7......12.0...11.1

The big winners would be the conferences who performed better in the tournament, especially those some felt were underrepresented in the field. The big losers were the underperforming conferences which some felt were overrepresented. If you were to apply this to prior years, it would likely balance out in the long run. But for a lightning in a bottle team like St. Peter's that one year is huge.

I doubt the P5 conference have any interest in changing the formula, despite the fact that this year they would collectively have earned $15MM more using Alternative 2 (there was no change in Alternate 1 in the aggregate). And theirs is probably the only opinion that matters.

What do you think? Good idea or bad?

EDIT: To add a third alternative suggested by quo vadis which awards 1 unit per win from the Round of 64 to the end.

(04-07-2022 07:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  In another thread quo vadis lobbied for a change in the way units are awarded. He proposed that instead of 1 unit for each team in the field, each conference should get 1 unit. This would reward conferences more for wins (which they earned) instead of selections, which are out of their control and based only on subjective opinions of the selection committee (which are subject to bias, either conscious or subconscious).

I kind of like that idea. So I recalculated how much revenue each conference would have earned using two alternative values per win.

My first alternative is to award 1 unit for each win in the Rounds of 64 and 32, 2 units for wins in the regionals, and 3 units for wins in the Final Four.

My second alternative steps this up to 2,3 and 4 instead of 1,2 and 3 units in those rounds.

Assuming a current value of $2MM per unit, spread over 6 years, and changing the per unit value assuming the total revenue to be distributed is unchanged, these were the results (in $MMs):

Conf...Current...Alt 1....Alt 2

ACC........36.0.....49.0.....51.0
B12........34.0.....46.7.....49.5
B1G........36.0.....21.0.....25.5
SEC........22.0.....16.4.....18.0
PAC........14.0.....11.7.....13.5
BE..........26.0.....23.4.....25.5

AAC........12.0.....14.0.....15.0
WCC.......12.0......9.3......10.5
MWC........8.0......2.3........1.5
A10.........6.0.......4.7........4.5
MVC........2.0.......2.3........1.5

MAAC......8.0......11.7......12.0

The big winners would be the conferences who performed better in the tournament, especially those some felt were underrepresented in the field. The big losers were the underperforming conferences which some felt were overrepresented. If you were to apply this to prior years, it would likely balance out in the long run. But for a lightning in a bottle team like St. Peter's that one year is huge.

I doubt the P5 conference have any interest in changing the formula, despite the fact that this year they would collectively have earned $15MM more using Alternative 2 (there was no change in Alternate 1 in the aggregate). And theirs is probably the only opinion that matters.

What do you think? Good idea or bad?

What is the current formula? I thought it was one unit for a tournament berth and one unit for each win.

How about 2 units for a Round 1 win (you demonstrated that you belong in the tournament) and 1 unit for any conference that doesn't advance a team to the 2nd round (Sun Belt, MtW, Am E, Big Sky, Big W, MEAC, MAC, Ivy, Horizon, NEC, CUSA, SoCon, Big S, MVC, CAA, SWAC, S'land, Summit, Patriot, ASUN)

WCC: 2x2 + 1 = 5
AAC: 2x2 + 2 = 6
WAC: 1x2 = 2
ACC: 4x2 + 4 + 3 + 2 = 17
SEC: 3x2 + 2 = 8
B12: 6x2 + 5 + 1 + 1 = 19
B1G: 6x2 + 1 + 1 = 14
P12: 2x2 + 1 + 1 = 6
OVC: 1x2 = 2
MAAC: 1x2 + 2 = 4
BEAST: 3x2 + 3 + 1 = 10
A10: 1x2 = 2

So UConn, Marquette, Seton Hall, Rutgers, Indiana, Iowa, Virginia Tech, Wyoming, CSU, San Diego State, Boise State, etc. would get no units.

A similar question is, if the Power conferences recrafted the Tournament in their own image, what would the payouts be? Probably a large per team payout ($3M?) to all 60-80 "Power Teams", and a smaller ($300K?) bonus for each tournament game appearance. If the OVC doesn't want to endure travel expenses, they can withdraw.

(04-07-2022 07:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  In another thread quo vadis lobbied for a change in the way units are awarded. He proposed that instead of 1 unit for each team in the field, each conference should get 1 unit. This would reward conferences more for wins (which they earned) instead of selections, which are out of their control and based only on subjective opinions of the selection committee (which are subject to bias, either conscious or subconscious).

I kind of like that idea. So I recalculated how much revenue each conference would have earned using two alternative values per win.

My first alternative is to award 1 unit for each win in the Rounds of 64 and 32, 2 units for wins in the regionals, and 3 units for wins in the Final Four.

My second alternative steps this up to 2,3 and 4 instead of 1,2 and 3 units in those rounds.

(snip)

Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

But I am not a fan of escalating units, e.g., two units for wins in regionals, etc. IMO, units should be passed out on a one-for-win basis, as is currently done. To be clear, I'm saying any win (excluding the First Four) is worth one unit, whether it is a win from R64 to R32 or E8 to F4. You get a unit for a win, no escalation of units earned as you advance.

Would you mind doing the same thing with that so I could see what that would look like?

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

Isn't that the actual formula, 1 unit for each appearance? The only difference is that they recently began allowing First Four teams to collect a 2nd unit for their play-in win.

Hard to improve upon it, IMO. The only thought is that if the Power Conferences wrest control of the tournament from the NCAA, they'd need to assume the overhead costs. But we'd still count "units" the same. 'MAYBE' the controlling conferences would take a larger slice than the NCAA does and allocate fewer dollars-per-unit, but the 1 unit-per-appearance seems very fair.

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 07:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  In another thread quo vadis lobbied for a change in the way units are awarded. He proposed that instead of 1 unit for each team in the field, each conference should get 1 unit. This would reward conferences more for wins (which they earned) instead of selections, which are out of their control and based only on subjective opinions of the selection committee (which are subject to bias, either conscious or subconscious).

I kind of like that idea. So I recalculated how much revenue each conference would have earned using two alternative values per win.

My first alternative is to award 1 unit for each win in the Rounds of 64 and 32, 2 units for wins in the regionals, and 3 units for wins in the Final Four.

My second alternative steps this up to 2,3 and 4 instead of 1,2 and 3 units in those rounds.

(snip)

Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

But I am not a fan of escalating units, e.g., two units for wins in regionals, etc. IMO, units should be passed out on a one-for-win basis, as is currently done. To be clear, I'm saying any win (excluding the First Four) is worth one unit, whether it is a win from R64 to R32 or E8 to F4. You get a unit for a win, no escalation of units earned as you advance.

Would you mind doing the same thing with that so I could see what that would look like?

Done by edit to the OP. I didn't do this earlier because it would result in the bottom 21 conferences gaining $16 million at the expense of the P6 and 5 mid-majors. Given my bias that the weak conferences at the bottom are already getting more than they "deserve", incentivizing even more D-II schools to move up in class, I didn't think there was much chance of this ever being adopted.

(04-08-2022 07:53 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

Isn't that the actual formula, 1 unit for each appearance? The only difference is that they recently began allowing First Four teams to collect a 2nd unit for their play-in win.

(snip)

As I understand it, right now, a conference gets a unit for each team that makes the field. So for example, the B1G started out with 9 units, and would have walked away with 9 units even if all 9 teams had lost their first games.

With my proposal, the B1G (and all other conferences) would have started with 1 unit. Then, they would only get more units if their teams won games. If all nine teams had lost in the first game, the B1G would have walked away with 1 unit, not 9.

(04-08-2022 08:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 07:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  In another thread quo vadis lobbied for a change in the way units are awarded. He proposed that instead of 1 unit for each team in the field, each conference should get 1 unit. This would reward conferences more for wins (which they earned) instead of selections, which are out of their control and based only on subjective opinions of the selection committee (which are subject to bias, either conscious or subconscious).

I kind of like that idea. So I recalculated how much revenue each conference would have earned using two alternative values per win.

My first alternative is to award 1 unit for each win in the Rounds of 64 and 32, 2 units for wins in the regionals, and 3 units for wins in the Final Four.

My second alternative steps this up to 2,3 and 4 instead of 1,2 and 3 units in those rounds.

(snip)

Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

But I am not a fan of escalating units, e.g., two units for wins in regionals, etc. IMO, units should be passed out on a one-for-win basis, as is currently done. To be clear, I'm saying any win (excluding the First Four) is worth one unit, whether it is a win from R64 to R32 or E8 to F4. You get a unit for a win, no escalation of units earned as you advance.

Would you mind doing the same thing with that so I could see what that would look like?

Done by edit to the OP. I didn't do this earlier because it would result in the bottom 21 conferences gaining $16 million at the expense of the P6 and 5 mid-majors. Given my bias that the weak conferences at the bottom are already getting more than they "deserve", incentivizing even more D-II schools to move up in class, I didn't think there was much chance of this ever being adopted.

Thanks. One thing all three alternatives do is they basically have the same pattern - the ACC and Big 12, who had good tournaments, do better. The B1G and SEC, which largely flopped, do significantly worse. The PAC and Big East, who had slightly disappointing tournaments, do slightly worse.

I like that, IMO the rewards should be skewed more towards winning, not just receiving a big gift via the selection committee.

I mean, IMO it is nutso that the B1G, a Floposaurus Rex, tied with the ACC, which had a great tournament, for most credits received.

(04-08-2022 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 08:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 07:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  In another thread quo vadis lobbied for a change in the way units are awarded. He proposed that instead of 1 unit for each team in the field, each conference should get 1 unit. This would reward conferences more for wins (which they earned) instead of selections, which are out of their control and based only on subjective opinions of the selection committee (which are subject to bias, either conscious or subconscious).

I kind of like that idea. So I recalculated how much revenue each conference would have earned using two alternative values per win.

My first alternative is to award 1 unit for each win in the Rounds of 64 and 32, 2 units for wins in the regionals, and 3 units for wins in the Final Four.

My second alternative steps this up to 2,3 and 4 instead of 1,2 and 3 units in those rounds.

(snip)

Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

But I am not a fan of escalating units, e.g., two units for wins in regionals, etc. IMO, units should be passed out on a one-for-win basis, as is currently done. To be clear, I'm saying any win (excluding the First Four) is worth one unit, whether it is a win from R64 to R32 or E8 to F4. You get a unit for a win, no escalation of units earned as you advance.

Would you mind doing the same thing with that so I could see what that would look like?

Done by edit to the OP. I didn't do this earlier because it would result in the bottom 21 conferences gaining $16 million at the expense of the P6 and 5 mid-majors. Given my bias that the weak conferences at the bottom are already getting more than they "deserve", incentivizing even more D-II schools to move up in class, I didn't think there was much chance of this ever being adopted.

Thanks. One thing all three alternatives do is they basically have the same pattern - the ACC and Big 12, who had good tournaments, do better. The B1G and SEC, which largely flopped, do significantly worse. The PAC and Big East, who had slightly disappointing tournaments, do slightly worse.

I like that, IMO the rewards should be skewed more towards winning, not just receiving a big gift via the selection committee.

I mean, IMO it is nutso that the B1G, a Floposaurus Rex, tied with the ACC, which had a great tournament, for most credits received.

Gotta keep all parts of the country interested.

(04-08-2022 05:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:53 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

Isn't that the actual formula, 1 unit for each appearance? The only difference is that they recently began allowing First Four teams to collect a 2nd unit for their play-in win.

(snip)

As I understand it, right now, a conference gets a unit for each team that makes the field. So for example, the B1G started out with 9 units, and would have walked away with 9 units even if all 9 teams had lost their first games.

With my proposal, the B1G (and all other conferences) would have started with 1 unit. Then, they would only get more units if their teams won games. If all nine teams had lost in the first game, the B1G would have walked away with 1 unit, not 9.

Wait a second - this proposal means that a conference with 9 bids would get the same financial treatment at the outset of the NCAA Tournament as a 1-bid league???

Putting aside my personal disagreement with this for many reasons, the more practical matter is that the Big Ten and SEC would napalm the entire NCAA Tournament than ever allow this to happen.

Whatever changes to the NCAA Tournament revenue distribution will almost certainly need to end up having the exact opposite effect of this proposal: any changes would require *more* money to the most powerful conference with *less* variation in revenue from year-to-year. Essentially, leagues want larger smoothed out predictable annual earnings. They *don’t* want a system like the current 4-team CFP where the Pac-12 and Big 12 could actually be stronger leagues overall compared to the ACC but the ACC can ride a single elite team like Clemson for more exposure and money. The one good thing about the current NCAA Tournament revenue model is that it rewards conference depth just as much as a single elite team - that’s a feature as opposed to a bug from my standpoint.

As I’ve long said with respect to the CFP, conferences would rather get more guaranteed money in down years than to be able to shoot the moon revenue-wise in great years. Downside protection is simply much more important. That would be the same for the NCAA Tournament that is actually a much more egalitarian revenue distribution system by comparison as of now… but that may change and it certainly won’t be where the Big Ten and SEC somehow make less money than before.

(04-08-2022 07:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:53 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

Isn't that the actual formula, 1 unit for each appearance? The only difference is that they recently began allowing First Four teams to collect a 2nd unit for their play-in win.

(snip)

As I understand it, right now, a conference gets a unit for each team that makes the field. So for example, the B1G started out with 9 units, and would have walked away with 9 units even if all 9 teams had lost their first games.

With my proposal, the B1G (and all other conferences) would have started with 1 unit. Then, they would only get more units if their teams won games. If all nine teams had lost in the first game, the B1G would have walked away with 1 unit, not 9.

Wait a second - this proposal means that a conference with 9 bids would get the same financial treatment at the outset of the NCAA Tournament as a 1-bid league???

Putting aside my personal disagreement with this for many reasons, the more practical matter is that the Big Ten and SEC would napalm the entire NCAA Tournament than ever allow this to happen.

Whatever changes to the NCAA Tournament revenue distribution will almost certainly need to end up having the exact opposite effect of this proposal: any changes would require *more* money to the most powerful conference with *less* variation in revenue from year-to-year. Essentially, leagues want larger smoothed out predictable annual earnings. They *don’t* want a system like the current 4-team CFP where the Pac-12 and Big 12 could actually be stronger leagues overall compared to the ACC but the ACC can ride a single elite team like Clemson for more exposure and money. The one good thing about the current NCAA Tournament revenue model is that it rewards conference depth just as much as a single elite team - that’s a feature as opposed to a bug from my standpoint.

As I’ve long said with respect to the CFP, conferences would rather get more guaranteed money in down years than to be able to shoot the moon revenue-wise in great years. Downside protection is simply much more important. That would be the same for the NCAA Tournament that is actually a much more egalitarian revenue distribution system by comparison as of now… but that may change and it certainly won’t be where the Big Ten and SEC somehow make less money than before.

If they want stability and predictability in their revenues, a simple way to do that is simply divide two thirds of the total revenue pool equally among the 80 P6 schools (about $2 million per school this year), one sixth among the 56 mid-major schools (about $800K each) and the remaining one sixth among the other 278 D-I schools in the one bid leagues (about $200K). I'm all for taking tournament performance out of the equation entirely. A school's revenue shouldn't depend on whether some 19 year old kid makes or misses a shot at the end of a game.

A distribution model like that would take at least some of the presumption of bias out of the selection process. And every AD would know in advance how much money his school will get every year whether they stink or catch lightning in a bottle.

My only thoughts on the change of tournament units is give the auto tournament money to the conference and any at large first round or play in round unit to equally divide among the conference schools. Should a team win a play in or first (second round?) Game the schools are guaranteed at least 50% of the value of each unit won after the intial unit. Basically the more a school wins the more they make from the tournament but the conference makes less money per extra unit earned.

(04-08-2022 07:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:53 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

Isn't that the actual formula, 1 unit for each appearance? The only difference is that they recently began allowing First Four teams to collect a 2nd unit for their play-in win.

(snip)

As I understand it, right now, a conference gets a unit for each team that makes the field. So for example, the B1G started out with 9 units, and would have walked away with 9 units even if all 9 teams had lost their first games.

With my proposal, the B1G (and all other conferences) would have started with 1 unit. Then, they would only get more units if their teams won games. If all nine teams had lost in the first game, the B1G would have walked away with 1 unit, not 9.

Wait a second - this proposal means that a conference with 9 bids would get the same financial treatment at the outset of the NCAA Tournament as a 1-bid league???

Putting aside my personal disagreement with this for many reasons, the more practical matter is that the Big Ten and SEC would napalm the entire NCAA Tournament than ever allow this to happen.

Whatever changes to the NCAA Tournament revenue distribution will almost certainly need to end up having the exact opposite effect of this proposal: any changes would require *more* money to the most powerful conference with *less* variation in revenue from year-to-year. Essentially, leagues want larger smoothed out predictable annual earnings. They *don’t* want a system like the current 4-team CFP where the Pac-12 and Big 12 could actually be stronger leagues overall compared to the ACC but the ACC can ride a single elite team like Clemson for more exposure and money. The one good thing about the current NCAA Tournament revenue model is that it rewards conference depth just as much as a single elite team - that’s a feature as opposed to a bug from my standpoint.

As I’ve long said with respect to the CFP, conferences would rather get more guaranteed money in down years than to be able to shoot the moon revenue-wise in great years. Downside protection is simply much more important. That would be the same for the NCAA Tournament that is actually a much more egalitarian revenue distribution system by comparison as of now… but that may change and it certainly won’t be where the Big Ten and SEC somehow make less money than before.

Regarding the bolded, in order:

1) Yes. Every conference would start out with one unit, just like every conference gets one automatic bid. Basically, you would get one "free" (unearned, not based on winning tourney games) for the one "free" entrant you get to the tourney, the auto-bid.

2) The SEC and B1G might very well laugh at my proposal. But this is what I think should happen, not what I think has any chance of actually happening.

3 and 4) I agree that conferences and schools prefer smoothed-out regular revenue (at a high level, of course) to revenue that allows more upside potential but also more downside risk. Administrators hate downside risk, they want a "high floor" even if that means a lower ceiling.

But I don't agree the current CFP is an example of something the big conferences don't like. For one thing, they all fairly-recently (2012-2013) agreed to it knowing how the revenue would be dispersed.

For another, I think the CFP is very much an example of the "high floor", low dpwnside risk that we both agree conferences want regarding money. In fact, I think it is considerably moreso than the current NCAA tournament model.

E.g. compare the 2019 CFP with this year's NCAA tournament on dimensions of getting paid for "existence", "participation" and "performance", which range from least-risky (high floor, low ceiling) to most risky (low floor, high ceiling)

2019 CFP revenue (playoffs and at-large bowls) ....

PAC ... $60m base CFP pay

B1G ... $60m base CFP pay, $6m OSU playoffs, $4m Penn State Cotton Bowl .... $70m total

The B1G had much more participation and performance than the PAC. The PAC had no playoff and no at-large teams, so it didn't participate at all and therefore could not perform (win games). The B1G had high participations, a team in the playoffs and a team in an at-large bowl. The B1G also had better performance, they won the Cotton Bowl. Yet, the B1G made just 17% more money than the PAC, $70m to $60m. The vast bulk of CFP money each conference made wasn't for "performance" (winning) or even "participations" (having a team in) but for the most socialistic thing of all, merely existing as a member of the system. This IMO is a very "high floor, low ceiling" model, the kinds admins like. It's very risk-averse. Heck, even if the B1G had performed better, if its team in the playoffs had won two games, giving it three CFP wins, it would have made zero more dollars for that. Winning, performance, means nothing in the CFP. You get a huge payout for merely existing ($60m base pay) a small amount for participation (for the B1G, $10m), and nothing for performance. Very socialistic, risk-averse, IMO.

And this analysis excludes the contract bowls. If we include that, the model is even more socialistic - the B1G and PAC both got $40m just for existing/participating in the Rose Bowl, putting a team in the game, which was guaranteed by their contract. Nothing extra for the winner.

2022 NCAA tourney ....

Big 12 ...... 6 teams in ............. 34 units

SEC ......... 6 teams in ............. 22 units

This is a much more "capitalistic" model. Existence? That meant nothing, you have to get teams in to make money and each conference is guaranteed just one unit merely for existing in the system. Participation? That mattered quite a bit, more teams in, more money. But winning means a lot too. The SEC and Big 12 were equal on existence and participation, but the Big 12 is getting 54% more money just from winning, the most risky aspect of the system.

So IMO, the current CFP model is much more in line, and objectively very much in line, with what you say (and I agree) that admins and conferences want - high floor, very little downside risk in terms of money.

I believe that there are three distinct tiers in D-I basketball (just as there are in FBS football). The six power conferences have demonstrated consistently over time that they outperform all other conferences by a lot. There are five mid-major conferences that have also demonstrated that they perform better than the 21 conferences that typically don't produce teams worthy of at large selection to the tournament, and consist largely of schools which moved up to D-I relatively recently.

Not coincidentally, those three tiers contribute to the value of and interest in the NCAA tournament in different measure, and that has been largely reflected in the way they have been compensated in the past. I have no problem with that. On further reflection, and giving weight to the arguments presented on this thread, I would tweak the suggested distribution formula in Post #11, which I believe also reflects past compensation.

Before making payments to the 358 schools in D-I, I would first take off the top direct payments to the teams selected for the tournament adequate to cover their travel costs for participating. By adequate I mean enough to pay the ticket, transportation, hotel and meal costs (per diem) for every team member and coach along with their families (up to four per player or coach) plus student managers and pep bands for each week of the tournament they qualify for. So, Thursday through Sunday for the round of 64, the same for the Sweet 16 round and Friday through Monday for the Final Four.

(04-07-2022 07:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  In another thread quo vadis lobbied for a change in the way units are awarded. He proposed that instead of 1 unit for each team in the field, each conference should get 1 unit. This would reward conferences more for wins (which they earned) instead of selections, which are out of their control and based only on subjective opinions of the selection committee (which are subject to bias, either conscious or subconscious).

I kind of like that idea. So I recalculated how much revenue each conference would have earned using two alternative values per win.

My first alternative is to award 1 unit for each win in the Rounds of 64 and 32, 2 units for wins in the regionals, and 3 units for wins in the Final Four.

My second alternative steps this up to 2,3 and 4 instead of 1,2 and 3 units in those rounds.

Assuming a current value of $2MM per unit, spread over 6 years, and changing the per unit value assuming the total revenue to be distributed is unchanged, these were the results (in $MMs):

Conf...Current...Alt 1....Alt 2....Alt 3

ACC........36.0.....49.0.....51.0....38.9
B12........34.0.....46.7.....49.5....38.9
B1G........36.0.....21.0.....25.5....25.0
SEC........22.0.....16.4.....18.0....16.7
PAC........14.0.....11.7.....13.5....13.9
BE..........26.0.....23.4.....25.5....22.2

AAC........12.0.....14.0.....15.0....13.9
WCC.......12.0......9.3......10.5....11.1
MWC........8.0......2.3........1.5.....2.8
A10.........6.0.......4.7........4.5....5.6
MVC........2.0.......2.3........1.5....2.8

MAAC......8.0......11.7......12.0...11.1

The big winners would be the conferences who performed better in the tournament, especially those some felt were underrepresented in the field. The big losers were the underperforming conferences which some felt were overrepresented. If you were to apply this to prior years, it would likely balance out in the long run. But for a lightning in a bottle team like St. Peter's that one year is huge.

I doubt the P5 conference have any interest in changing the formula, despite the fact that this year they would collectively have earned $15MM more using Alternative 2 (there was no change in Alternate 1 in the aggregate). And theirs is probably the only opinion that matters.

What do you think? Good idea or bad?

EDIT: To add a third alternative suggested by quo vadis which awards 1 unit per win from the Round of 64 to the end.

IMO, alternatives 1 or 2 are improvements over the current formula. Given that there are 68 teams and seven rounds of play, there should be some incremental rewards for advancing. Alternative 3 doesn’t make financial sense.

(04-08-2022 07:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:53 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

Isn't that the actual formula, 1 unit for each appearance? The only difference is that they recently began allowing First Four teams to collect a 2nd unit for their play-in win.

(snip)

As I understand it, right now, a conference gets a unit for each team that makes the field. So for example, the B1G started out with 9 units, and would have walked away with 9 units even if all 9 teams had lost their first games.

With my proposal, the B1G (and all other conferences) would have started with 1 unit. Then, they would only get more units if their teams won games. If all nine teams had lost in the first game, the B1G would have walked away with 1 unit, not 9.

Wait a second - this proposal means that a conference with 9 bids would get the same financial treatment at the outset of the NCAA Tournament as a 1-bid league???

Putting aside my personal disagreement with this for many reasons, the more practical matter is that the Big Ten and SEC would napalm the entire NCAA Tournament than ever allow this to happen.

Whatever changes to the NCAA Tournament revenue distribution will almost certainly need to end up having the exact opposite effect of this proposal: any changes would require *more* money to the most powerful conference with *less* variation in revenue from year-to-year. Essentially, leagues want larger smoothed out predictable annual earnings. They *don’t* want a system like the current 4-team CFP where the Pac-12 and Big 12 could actually be stronger leagues overall compared to the ACC but the ACC can ride a single elite team like Clemson for more exposure and money. The one good thing about the current NCAA Tournament revenue model is that it rewards conference depth just as much as a single elite team - that’s a feature as opposed to a bug from my standpoint.

As I’ve long said with respect to the CFP, conferences would rather get more guaranteed money in down years than to be able to shoot the moon revenue-wise in great years. Downside protection is simply much more important. That would be the same for the NCAA Tournament that is actually a much more egalitarian revenue distribution system by comparison as of now… but that may change and it certainly won’t be where the Big Ten and SEC somehow make less money than before.

Quo, got it. I misunderstood. 1/appearance is the current model. You were saying 1/win + 1/conference. Frank is right, though. Any change will be toward more consistent revenues, and revenues skewed more toward the Power conferences, especially if they excise the NCAA.

I suspect "units" or something similar were a part of the CFP expansion discussion too, kinda like the G5 performance-based payouts. Units were invented to spread out feast/famine across 6 years instead of having them occur all at once. Of course 90% of the CFP money will continue to be guaranteed, regardless of how much a conference stinks.

(04-09-2022 03:59 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:53 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Obviously, I like the idea of a single guaranteed unit to each conference to match the single guaranteed bid they get to the tournament, then thereafter units for wins from R64 onwards.

Isn't that the actual formula, 1 unit for each appearance? The only difference is that they recently began allowing First Four teams to collect a 2nd unit for their play-in win.

(snip)

As I understand it, right now, a conference gets a unit for each team that makes the field. So for example, the B1G started out with 9 units, and would have walked away with 9 units even if all 9 teams had lost their first games.

With my proposal, the B1G (and all other conferences) would have started with 1 unit. Then, they would only get more units if their teams won games. If all nine teams had lost in the first game, the B1G would have walked away with 1 unit, not 9.

Wait a second - this proposal means that a conference with 9 bids would get the same financial treatment at the outset of the NCAA Tournament as a 1-bid league???

Putting aside my personal disagreement with this for many reasons, the more practical matter is that the Big Ten and SEC would napalm the entire NCAA Tournament than ever allow this to happen.

Whatever changes to the NCAA Tournament revenue distribution will almost certainly need to end up having the exact opposite effect of this proposal: any changes would require *more* money to the most powerful conference with *less* variation in revenue from year-to-year. Essentially, leagues want larger smoothed out predictable annual earnings. They *don’t* want a system like the current 4-team CFP where the Pac-12 and Big 12 could actually be stronger leagues overall compared to the ACC but the ACC can ride a single elite team like Clemson for more exposure and money. The one good thing about the current NCAA Tournament revenue model is that it rewards conference depth just as much as a single elite team - that’s a feature as opposed to a bug from my standpoint.

As I’ve long said with respect to the CFP, conferences would rather get more guaranteed money in down years than to be able to shoot the moon revenue-wise in great years. Downside protection is simply much more important. That would be the same for the NCAA Tournament that is actually a much more egalitarian revenue distribution system by comparison as of now… but that may change and it certainly won’t be where the Big Ten and SEC somehow make less money than before.

Quo, got it. I misunderstood. 1/appearance is the current model. You were saying 1/win + 1/conference. Frank is right, though. Any change will be toward more consistent revenues, and revenues skewed more toward the Power conferences, especially if they excise the NCAA.

(snip)

Yes, and FWIW I have not had any illusions about my plan being adopted. My proposal is what I would like to see happen. What I would do if I was a dictator with absolute power to impose my views on college athletics.

For the reasons FT gave, which I agree with, it has close to zero chance of actually happening.