NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 2:40 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7292
USA Today article reporting that NCAA is planning to study possibility of some future unspecified changes to D-1 structure at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... 52875162/1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:29 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1650
Interesting find, Freaked !

This should be exciting to follow.

We have 11 FBS conferences, 5 or 6 of which are power conferences for Football.
There are about 21 other conferneces in D-1 (FCS or no football).
The latter group does NOT want to chase away the big boys and completely split the divisions, as the NCAA BB tourney is a big cash cow for all involved,
and the little guys will still want to remain tied to the big boys for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:49 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7292
Tute79,thanks for the post.

Article out of Orlando discussing possibility for future NCAA changes at http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... ark-emmert


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7292
ESPN article with today's comments from NCAA President regarding possible D-1 governance changes at http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... division-i


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:26 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7292
Article out of Birmingham discussing possibility of future NCAA D-1 changes at http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012 ... i_wea.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:48 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
freaked4collegefb wrote:
Article out of Birmingham discussing possibility of future NCAA D-1 changes at http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012 ... i_wea.html


"I would suspect there's going to be either another subdivision or a separate division itself," Dempsey said. "Control and money are the driving forces."

That's what I said years ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:58 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
freaked4collegefb wrote:
Article out of Birmingham discussing possibility of future NCAA D-1 changes at http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012 ... i_wea.html


"I would suspect there's going to be either another subdivision or a separate division itself," Dempsey said. "Control and money are the driving forces."

That's what I said years ago.



I can't argue with the general idea.

At this point, it seems very simple:
* You get Louisville and BYU in the Big 12...the two clearly "BCS" level schools within the generla B12 footprint
* You get Uconn and Rutgers in the ACC to lock up the east coast, specifically the northeast (lots of TVs) as the ACC with the southern portion split fairly evenly with the SEC (SC/Clemson, UG/GT, Miami & FSU/UF).

And that's it.

Done.

No more.

Pac-12
Big 12
Big Ten+2
ACC 16
SEC 14

Yes, there are schools left out. And if the day ever comes where there is a massive improvement out west at places like Nevada, UNLV, UNM, etc...and these markets blow up, schools improve in academics, etc...I'm sure the Pac-12 would give a look if it were a sound business investment.

As for the Big East: remove Rutgers and it's the old CUSA plus Uconn who didn't have FBs football, and 2 FB only MWC schools.

So you've got your Premiere Division of the top 66 programs. Since football is the driver, that is the key. However, it would be interesting to see what happens in basketball. There is plenty of money there. There's no reason why these schools couldn't use their power in basketball as well, changing the setup of the basketball tourney to, perhaps, drop the autobids. Plain and simple: just invite the top 64 schools each year. This means that a 17-11 SEC school will not be left out in favor of some ASun, MEAC school that gets in as a 16 seed and is a 25 point underdog. Tell me that a 17-11 Mississippi program as a 16 seed playing a #1 seed Duke is going to be a 25 point underdog. If Xavier is ranked #12 in the county, of course they get in. If St. Marys has a strong RPI, they're a lock to. If Tulane had a strong season, losing on 7-8 games, they're in too. Drop the autobids, and the best schools get in. The early round games will have closer point spreads. There WILL be more "upsets". You WILL see #16 seeds beating #1 seeds and #15 wins over #2 won't be so rare where in a weekend when there are 2, it's considered a shocker like this year. #15 Maryland could dominate a #2 Michigan St. but you'll never see Jackson St. beat UNC be double digits in a 15 vs 2.

You've got the next tier of MWC, CUSA, SB, MAC, WAC in what would be the next football tier.

Then FCS wraps up the last of D1 before the next tiers of D2 and D3.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:09 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
Quinn wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
freaked4collegefb wrote:
Article out of Birmingham discussing possibility of future NCAA D-1 changes at http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012 ... i_wea.html


"I would suspect there's going to be either another subdivision or a separate division itself," Dempsey said. "Control and money are the driving forces."

That's what I said years ago.



I can't argue with the general idea.

At this point, it seems very simple:
* You get Louisville and BYU in the Big 12...the two clearly "BCS" level schools within the generla B12 footprint
* You get Uconn and Rutgers in the ACC to lock up the east coast, specifically the northeast (lots of TVs) as the ACC with the southern portion split fairly evenly with the SEC (SC/Clemson, UG/GT, Miami & FSU/UF).

And that's it.

Done.

No more.

Pac-12
Big 12
Big Ten+2
ACC 16
SEC 14

Yes, there are schools left out. And if the day ever comes where there is a massive improvement out west at places like Nevada, UNLV, UNM, etc...and these markets blow up, schools improve in academics, etc...I'm sure the Pac-12 would give a look if it were a sound business investment.

As for the Big East: remove Rutgers and it's the old CUSA plus Uconn who didn't have FBs football, and 2 FB only MWC schools.

So you've got your Premiere Division of the top 66 programs. Since football is the driver, that is the key. However, it would be interesting to see what happens in basketball. There is plenty of money there. There's no reason why these schools couldn't use their power in basketball as well, changing the setup of the basketball tourney to, perhaps, drop the autobids. Plain and simple: just invite the top 64 schools each year. This means that a 17-11 SEC school will not be left out in favor of some ASun, MEAC school that gets in as a 16 seed and is a 25 point underdog. Tell me that a 17-11 Mississippi program as a 16 seed playing a #1 seed Duke is going to be a 25 point underdog. If Xavier is ranked #12 in the county, of course they get in. If St. Marys has a strong RPI, they're a lock to. If Tulane had a strong season, losing on 7-8 games, they're in too. Drop the autobids, and the best schools get in. The early round games will have closer point spreads. There WILL be more "upsets". You WILL see #16 seeds beating #1 seeds and #15 wins over #2 won't be so rare where in a weekend when there are 2, it's considered a shocker like this year. #15 Maryland could dominate a #2 Michigan St. but you'll never see Jackson St. beat UNC be double digits in a 15 vs 2.

You've got the next tier of MWC, CUSA, SB, MAC, WAC in what would be the next football tier.

Then FCS wraps up the last of D1 before the next tiers of D2 and D3.


I wouldn't have the highest division be quite so small. Obviously you can't have a 68 team March Madness with 66 teams. And there's no way they they would reduce the tournament and it would be a hugely unfair advantage to the big 6 if you stay at 64 and just bring in some (new) division 2 schools to fill in the gaps.

I think the new highest level would need to contain about 150 schools. I would take the Big 6 add the MWC and C-USA (or whatever they combine into), a new east coast football playing conference, the A-10 (plus Butler, GMU, VCU), and the top of the WCC and Big West in one conference. I know the last one seems strange but those two conferences have some of the better teams in smaller sports like soccer, waterpolo, baseball ect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1650
My God Quinn, you're leaving out the Golden Domers !

Like most of us, I've never been partial to their quirky antics, however YOU KNOW that ND is not going to be left of of this.

So if the new division is just the Big 5, I see perhaps ACC to 16 and Big XII to 14, with UConn, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Louisville, BYU, and somebody else that could fit in the Big XII
(maybe a Houston, maybe a Boise State..).


The other solution could be to restructure so that all FBS conferences become all-sports....
Split the Big East.... Find a FB home for all the WAC FB schools and all the FBS independents (Notre Dame, BYU, Army).
and have 9 conferences that sponsor FBS be subject to their own regulatory structure:
ACC, SEC, B1G, Big XII, PAC12, MAC, BE, Sun-Belt, MWCUSA become D-1A again....

FCS and non-FB conferences become D-IAA again.

Only this time, the 2 groups could have different governances in areas that cover more than just Football.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:25 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Quinn wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
freaked4collegefb wrote:
Article out of Birmingham discussing possibility of future NCAA D-1 changes at http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012 ... i_wea.html


"I would suspect there's going to be either another subdivision or a separate division itself," Dempsey said. "Control and money are the driving forces."

That's what I said years ago.



I can't argue with the general idea.

At this point, it seems very simple:
* You get Louisville and BYU in the Big 12...the two clearly "BCS" level schools within the generla B12 footprint
* You get Uconn and Rutgers in the ACC to lock up the east coast, specifically the northeast (lots of TVs) as the ACC with the southern portion split fairly evenly with the SEC (SC/Clemson, UG/GT, Miami & FSU/UF).

And that's it.

Done.

No more.

Pac-12
Big 12
Big Ten+2
ACC 16
SEC 14

Yes, there are schools left out. And if the day ever comes where there is a massive improvement out west at places like Nevada, UNLV, UNM, etc...and these markets blow up, schools improve in academics, etc...I'm sure the Pac-12 would give a look if it were a sound business investment.

As for the Big East: remove Rutgers and it's the old CUSA plus Uconn who didn't have FBs football, and 2 FB only MWC schools.

So you've got your Premiere Division of the top 66 programs. Since football is the driver, that is the key. However, it would be interesting to see what happens in basketball. There is plenty of money there. There's no reason why these schools couldn't use their power in basketball as well, changing the setup of the basketball tourney to, perhaps, drop the autobids. Plain and simple: just invite the top 64 schools each year. This means that a 17-11 SEC school will not be left out in favor of some ASun, MEAC school that gets in as a 16 seed and is a 25 point underdog. Tell me that a 17-11 Mississippi program as a 16 seed playing a #1 seed Duke is going to be a 25 point underdog. If Xavier is ranked #12 in the county, of course they get in. If St. Marys has a strong RPI, they're a lock to. If Tulane had a strong season, losing on 7-8 games, they're in too. Drop the autobids, and the best schools get in. The early round games will have closer point spreads. There WILL be more "upsets". You WILL see #16 seeds beating #1 seeds and #15 wins over #2 won't be so rare where in a weekend when there are 2, it's considered a shocker like this year. #15 Maryland could dominate a #2 Michigan St. but you'll never see Jackson St. beat UNC be double digits in a 15 vs 2.

You've got the next tier of MWC, CUSA, SB, MAC, WAC in what would be the next football tier.

Then FCS wraps up the last of D1 before the next tiers of D2 and D3.


I wouldn't have the highest division be quite so small. Obviously you can't have a 68 team March Madness with 66 teams. And there's no way they they would reduce the tournament and it would be a hugely unfair advantage to the big 6 if you stay at 64 and just bring in some (new) division 2 schools to fill in the gaps.

I think the new highest level would need to contain about 150 schools. I would take the Big 6 add the MWC and C-USA (or whatever they combine into), a new east coast football playing conference, the A-10 (plus Butler, GMU, VCU), and the top of the WCC and Big West in one conference. I know the last one seems strange but those two conferences have some of the better teams in smaller sports like soccer, waterpolo, baseball ect.



Please re-read my post. I thought I laid it out pretty clear when it comes to basketball:

* Drop the conference autobids
* Put the top 64 schools in the tourney

Canisus is not in FBS or BCS or FCS football, yet they are able to get in the tournament if they do well in a season. Nothing changes, just REWARDING the best basketball teams in a given year, rather than keeping 17-11 of 16-12 schools OUT from the most competitive conferences like the SEC, ACC, etc, just because they have to compete against the best of the best during the season. Meanwhile, we see 16-12 MEAN schools make the tourney because they won the conference.

Drop autobids = more bids for top conferences since they have the toughest schedules = more money for the top conferences.

Pretty straight forward, not sure how my initial post was so confusing that you'd infer it meant that the only schools to compete in the tourney would be from a football divisional split.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:30 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
tute79 wrote:
My God Quinn, you're leaving out the Golden Domers !

Like most of us, I've never been partial to their quirky antics, however YOU KNOW that ND is not going to be left of of this.

So if the new division is just the Big 5, I see perhaps ACC to 16 and Big XII to 14, with UConn, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Louisville, BYU, and somebody else that could fit in the Big XII
(maybe a Houston, maybe a Boise State..).


The other solution could be to restructure so that all FBS conferences become all-sports....
Split the Big East.... Find a FB home for all the WAC FB schools and all the FBS independents (Notre Dame, BYU, Army).
and have 9 conferences that sponsor FBS be subject to their own regulatory structure:
ACC, SEC, B1G, Big XII, PAC12, MAC, BE, Sun-Belt, MWCUSA become D-1A again....

FCS and non-FB conferences become D-IAA again.

Only this time, the 2 groups could have different governances in areas that cover more than just Football.


Indeed, you are correct. Just swap Rutgers or Uconn for ND in the ACC, since that's where they'd prefer to be. Of course, the Big 12 could also jump to 14 if they wanted some of the schools you mentioned.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:41 am 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:22 pm
Posts: 58
I remember watching last year's (2010) Coaches v. Cancer at MSG telecast and between games Jay Bilas editorialized on how there were too many D-I teams. I was rather shocked at the seething vitriol in his voice and the overall 'we'll take our ball and go home' tone. The thing is, Bilas was probably just voicing what many in the top tier believe: why share our loot with those who barely put in the resources.

The one thing I can say is that the NCAA tourney works precisely because of the egalitarian nature and 'Cinderella' moments. The overwhelming majority of these teams are just happy to compete, gain some exposure, and earn some crumbs in the process. And people like that. The have-nots have lots of alumni as well who in turn tune in and buy tickets and merchandise, etc. Be careful of what you wish for vis a vis a tourney of nothing but power conference teams. No one gets excited about a 7th place SEC team upsetting Duke or an 11th place Big East team going to the wire with Kansas regardless of seeding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:01 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
86mets wrote:
I remember watching last year's (2010) Coaches v. Cancer at MSG telecast and between games Jay Bilas editorialized on how there were too many D-I teams. I was rather shocked at the seething vitriol in his voice and the overall 'we'll take our ball and go home' tone. The thing is, Bilas was probably just voicing what many in the top tier believe: why share our loot with those who barely put in the resources.

The one thing I can say is that the NCAA tourney works precisely because of the egalitarian nature and 'Cinderella' moments. The overwhelming majority of these teams are just happy to compete, gain some exposure, and earn some crumbs in the process. And people like that. The have-nots have lots of alumni as well who in turn tune in and buy tickets and merchandise, etc. Be careful of what you wish for vis a vis a tourney of nothing but power conference teams. No one gets excited about a 7th place SEC team upsetting Duke or an 11th place Big East team going to the wire with Kansas regardless of seeding.



I disagree. The "cinderella" moments are a minor blip. It's the UPSETS that are the moments people get excited about. I remember a #10 seed Maryland team beating a #2 seeded UMass team when I was in school. And we've seen many other cases when a #12 seed Big Ten school upset a #5 ACC school. It's the numerical catalog in place in the tourney that drives the type of interest you mention. You are correct, when a #12 Murray St. beats a #5 Louisville, it's a big deal as it's a "small school" in the casual persons mind. But it's still the seeds that are key. Even better is that with no autobids, there won't be such a huge drop in quality between seeds. A #15 Missouri might be a 7 point underdog against a #2 Ohio St. Nothing wrong with making the early rounds better games. Might have years where you see an entire region have "upsets" in the 1st round as the point spreads would be closer than they are now. And the big boys get there money as they'll likely send more schools (are you going to pass on 17-11 ACC school like Pitt in favor of a 22-6 Duquesne?)

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:08 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
Quinn wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Quinn wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
freaked4collegefb wrote:
Article out of Birmingham discussing possibility of future NCAA D-1 changes at http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012 ... i_wea.html


"I would suspect there's going to be either another subdivision or a separate division itself," Dempsey said. "Control and money are the driving forces."

That's what I said years ago.



I can't argue with the general idea.

At this point, it seems very simple:
* You get Louisville and BYU in the Big 12...the two clearly "BCS" level schools within the generla B12 footprint
* You get Uconn and Rutgers in the ACC to lock up the east coast, specifically the northeast (lots of TVs) as the ACC with the southern portion split fairly evenly with the SEC (SC/Clemson, UG/GT, Miami & FSU/UF).

And that's it.

Done.

No more.

Pac-12
Big 12
Big Ten+2
ACC 16
SEC 14

Yes, there are schools left out. And if the day ever comes where there is a massive improvement out west at places like Nevada, UNLV, UNM, etc...and these markets blow up, schools improve in academics, etc...I'm sure the Pac-12 would give a look if it were a sound business investment.

As for the Big East: remove Rutgers and it's the old CUSA plus Uconn who didn't have FBs football, and 2 FB only MWC schools.

So you've got your Premiere Division of the top 66 programs. Since football is the driver, that is the key. However, it would be interesting to see what happens in basketball. There is plenty of money there. There's no reason why these schools couldn't use their power in basketball as well, changing the setup of the basketball tourney to, perhaps, drop the autobids. Plain and simple: just invite the top 64 schools each year. This means that a 17-11 SEC school will not be left out in favor of some ASun, MEAC school that gets in as a 16 seed and is a 25 point underdog. Tell me that a 17-11 Mississippi program as a 16 seed playing a #1 seed Duke is going to be a 25 point underdog. If Xavier is ranked #12 in the county, of course they get in. If St. Marys has a strong RPI, they're a lock to. If Tulane had a strong season, losing on 7-8 games, they're in too. Drop the autobids, and the best schools get in. The early round games will have closer point spreads. There WILL be more "upsets". You WILL see #16 seeds beating #1 seeds and #15 wins over #2 won't be so rare where in a weekend when there are 2, it's considered a shocker like this year. #15 Maryland could dominate a #2 Michigan St. but you'll never see Jackson St. beat UNC be double digits in a 15 vs 2.

You've got the next tier of MWC, CUSA, SB, MAC, WAC in what would be the next football tier.

Then FCS wraps up the last of D1 before the next tiers of D2 and D3.


I wouldn't have the highest division be quite so small. Obviously you can't have a 68 team March Madness with 66 teams. And there's no way they they would reduce the tournament and it would be a hugely unfair advantage to the big 6 if you stay at 64 and just bring in some (new) division 2 schools to fill in the gaps.

I think the new highest level would need to contain about 150 schools. I would take the Big 6 add the MWC and C-USA (or whatever they combine into), a new east coast football playing conference, the A-10 (plus Butler, GMU, VCU), and the top of the WCC and Big West in one conference. I know the last one seems strange but those two conferences have some of the better teams in smaller sports like soccer, waterpolo, baseball ect.



Please re-read my post. I thought I laid it out pretty clear when it comes to basketball:

* Drop the conference autobids
* Put the top 64 schools in the tourney

Canisus is not in FBS or BCS or FCS football, yet they are able to get in the tournament if they do well in a season. Nothing changes, just REWARDING the best basketball teams in a given year, rather than keeping 17-11 of 16-12 schools OUT from the most competitive conferences like the SEC, ACC, etc, just because they have to compete against the best of the best during the season. Meanwhile, we see 16-12 MEAN schools make the tourney because they won the conference.

Drop autobids = more bids for top conferences since they have the toughest schedules = more money for the top conferences.

Pretty straight forward, not sure how my initial post was so confusing that you'd infer it meant that the only schools to compete in the tourney would be from a football divisional split.


Yeah...you say just have three classifications for football (the first part of the quote) I think they should just split D-I in half (the second part of the quote). We aren't talking about the same thing bud.

What you're suggesting is fine, logical even. But why even have division 1 that large if smaller schools have virtually no chance to make the tournament? Don't you think it would be better to put them in a whole different division where they could actually compete in the playoffs and have a chance to win? Creating this new "Premiere" league as you call it will make the top schools that much better. I'd almost prefer SJSU be in the new D-II so they might compete for championships once in awhile.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:15 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:50 pm
Posts: 268
Quinn wrote:
86mets wrote:
I remember watching last year's (2010) Coaches v. Cancer at MSG telecast and between games Jay Bilas editorialized on how there were too many D-I teams. I was rather shocked at the seething vitriol in his voice and the overall 'we'll take our ball and go home' tone. The thing is, Bilas was probably just voicing what many in the top tier believe: why share our loot with those who barely put in the resources.

The one thing I can say is that the NCAA tourney works precisely because of the egalitarian nature and 'Cinderella' moments. The overwhelming majority of these teams are just happy to compete, gain some exposure, and earn some crumbs in the process. And people like that. The have-nots have lots of alumni as well who in turn tune in and buy tickets and merchandise, etc. Be careful of what you wish for vis a vis a tourney of nothing but power conference teams. No one gets excited about a 7th place SEC team upsetting Duke or an 11th place Big East team going to the wire with Kansas regardless of seeding.



I disagree. The "cinderella" moments are a minor blip. It's the UPSETS that are the moments people get excited about. I remember a #10 seed Maryland team beating a #2 seeded UMass team when I was in school. And we've seen many other cases when a #12 seed Big Ten school upset a #5 ACC school. It's the numerical catalog in place in the tourney that drives the type of interest you mention. You are correct, when a #12 Murray St. beats a #5 Louisville, it's a big deal as it's a "small school" in the casual persons mind. But it's still the seeds that are key. Even better is that with no autobids, there won't be such a huge drop in quality between seeds. A #15 Missouri might be a 7 point underdog against a #2 Ohio St. Nothing wrong with making the early rounds better games. Might have years where you see an entire region have "upsets" in the 1st round as the point spreads would be closer than they are now. And the big boys get there money as they'll likely send more schools (are you going to pass on 17-11 ACC school like Pitt in favor of a 22-6 Duquesne?)



I think you are COMPLETELY off base, and if the powers that be think like you, they will slay the Golden Goose.
March Madness EXISTS because of the mix of small guys and big guys.
I'd rather see Norfolk or Lehigh in the tourney that a mediocre Big 5 team. And face it, if you can't break .500 in your conference, you are a mediocre team.

The early games are good all ready.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 

cron




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group