NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:59 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:22 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
Now to show how this might play out, let's guess some play in winners.

1 Pitt (15-3) 29-4
2 UCONN (15-3) 29-4 2nd
3 OU (13-3) 29-5
4 Duke (11-5) 30-6 2nd
5 Missouri (12-4) 29-6 3rd
6 St. Mary's (10-4) 27-6 2nd
7 Villanova (13-5) 28-7
8 Dayton (11-5) 27-7 2nd
9 Creighton (14-4) 27-7 2nd
55 UTEP (10-6) 21-12)
54 Houston (10-6) 21-12
12 Syracuse (11-7) 27-9
52 Miss St. (9-7) 23-13 6th
14 VMI (13-5) 24-8 2nd
15 Purdue (11-7) 27-9 2nd
16 UCLA (13-5) 26-9
17 Niagra (14-4) 26-9 2nd
47 UNM (12-4) 22-12
19 SDSU (11-5) 25-9
20 ASU (11-7) 25-9
21 Marquette (12-6) 25-9
22 Cleveland St. (12-6) 26-10 3rd
42 Ohio St. (10-8) 22-11
24 FSU (10-6) 25-10
40 Green Bay (13-5) 22-11
26 Illinois St. (11-7) 24-10
27 TAMU (9-7) 24-10
28 Utah (12-4) 24-10 2nd
36 Rhode Island (11-5) 23-11
30 Tulsa (12-4) 25-11 2nd
34 Penn St. (10-8) 24-11
33 Auburn (10-6) 24-11

There were a lot of names that were not worthy of getting into the tourney (IMO) and would have likely been eliminated in a play-in round.

likely upsets, IMO...

UTEP (10-6) 21-12) d Wake Forest (11-5) 24-7
Houston (10-6) 21-12 d Charleston (15-5) 27-8
Miss St. (9-7) 23-13 6th d Vermont (13-3) 24-8 2nd
UNM (12-4) 22-12 d UALR (15-3) 23-8 2nd
Ohio St. (10-8) 22-11 d Clemson (9-7) 23-9
Green Bay (13-5) 22-11 d Illinois (11-7) 24-10
Rhode Island (11-5) 23-11 d PSU (11-5) 23-10
Penn St. (10-8) 24-11 d South Dakota (20-9)*
Auburn (10-6) 24-11 d ODU (12-6) 22-10


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:53 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
The remaining 64 teams would be loosely seeded by overall win/lost record. Just break them up by fours. Selection committee members would be able to tweak a bit say up to +/- 3 seeds to ease fan travel and reflect RPI when it is especially glaring. Additionally, as TV would run the show, in terms of top seeds, all things being more or less equal with the elite teams, the teams with the better star talents or more exciting brand of game might get the #1 seeds and teams that are good due to a good team effort would get #2 or possibly even #3 seeds. (ie. Memphis would be a #1 seeds. Duke and Pitt #2 seeds. Unfair? Sure, but TV would be driving the show.)

Sorted by pre-NCAA Tourney winning percentage, that would give you:

1 Memphis (16-0) 33-3
2 UNC (13-3) 30-4
3 Pitt (15-3) 29-4
4 UCONN (15-3) 29-4 2nd
5 Utah St. (14-2) 30-5
6 Louisville (16-2) 29-5
7 OU (13-3) 29-5
8 Gonzaga (14-0) 28-5
9 Duke (11-5) 30-6 2nd
10 Missouri (12-4) 29-6 3rd
11 MSU (15-3) 27-6
12 St. Mary's (10-4) 27-6 2nd
13 Butler (15-3) 26-6
14 Villanova (13-5) 28-7
15 Davidson (18-2) 27-7
16 Siena (16-2) 27-7
17 Dayton (11-5) 27-7 2nd
18 Creighton (14-4) 27-7 2nd
19 Kansas (14-2) 26-7
20 Xavier (12-4) 26-7
21 NDSU (16-2) 26-7
22 Wake Forest (11-5) 24-7
23 LSU (13-3) 27-8
24 Charleston (15-5) 27-8
25 BYU (12-4) 25-8
26 American (13-1) 24-8
27 SFA (13-3) 24-8
28 Syracuse (11-7) 27-9
29 Vermont (13-3) 24-8 2nd
30 VMI (13-5) 24-8 2nd
31 Purdue (11-7) 27-9 2nd
32 Washington (14-4) 26-9
33 UCLA (13-5) 26-9
34 Niagra (14-4) 26-9 2nd
35 UALR (15-3) 23-8 2nd
36 WKU (15-3) 25-9
37 SDSU (11-5) 25-9
38 ASU (11-7) 25-9
39 Marquette (12-6) 25-9
40 Seattle (21-8)*
41 Cleveland St. (12-6) 26-10 3rd
42 Binghampton (13-3) 23-9
43 Clemson (9-7) 23-9
44 FSU (10-6) 25-10
45 VCU (14-4) 24-10
46 Illinois (11-7) 24-10
47 Illinois St. (11-7) 24-10
48 TAMU (9-7) 24-10
49 Utah (12-4) 24-10 2nd
50 PSU (11-5) 23-10
51 Tulsa (12-4) 25-11 2nd
52 South Dakota (20-9)*
53 Tenn-Martin (14-4) 22-10
54 Alabama St. (16-2) 22-10
55 ODU (12-6) 22-10
56 Robert Morris (15-3) 24-11
57 Weber St (15-1) 21-10
58 Cornell (11-3) 21-10
59 UNI (14-4) 23-11
60 Morgan St. (13-3) 23-12
61 Buffalo (11-5) 21-12
62 Radford (15-3) 21-12
63 Jacksonville (15-5) 18-14
64 CS Northridge (11-5) 17-14



seeds are a work in progress --- will finish up later.
seed - West, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast
1 - Memphis (16-0) 33-3, Louisville (16-2) 29-5, UCONN (15-3) 29-4, UNC (13-3) 30-4
2 - Gonzaga (14-0) 28-5, OU (13-3) 29-5, Pitt (15-3) 29-4, Duke (11-5) 30-6
3 - Kansas (14-2) 26-7, Missouri (12-4) 29-6, MSU (15-3) 27-6, Villanova (13-5) 28-7
4 - St. Mary's (10-4) 27-6, Butler (15-3) 26-6, Siena (16-2) 27-7, Davidson (18-2) 27-7
5 - Utah St. (14-2) 30-5, Creighton (14-4) 27-7, Dayton (11-5) 27-7, Wake Forest (11-5) 24-7
6 - NDSU (16-2) 26-7, LSU (13-3) 27-8, Xavier (12-4) 26-7, FSU (10-6) 25-10
7 - BYU (12-4) 25-8, Marquette (12-6) 25-9,Syracuse (11-7) 27-9, Charleston (15-5) 27-8
8 - Washington (14-4) 26-9, Purdue (11-7) 27-9, Vermont (13-3) 24-8, WKU (15-3) 25-9,
9 - UCLA (13-5) 26-9, UALR (15-3) 23-8, Niagra (14-4) 26-9, VMI (13-5) 24-8
10 - SDSU (11-5) 25-9, SFA (13-3) 24-8, Illinois (11-7) 24-10, American (13-1) 24-8
11 - ASU (11-7) 25-9, Cleveland St. (12-6) 26-10, Illinois St. (11-7) 24-10, Clemson (9-7) 23-9
12 - Seattle (21-8)*, TAMU (9-7) 24-10, Binghampton (13-3) 23-9, VCU (14-4) 24-10
13 - PSU (11-5) 23-10, Utah (12-4) 24-10, Tenn-Martin (14-4) 22-10, ODU (12-6) 22-10
14 - Weber St (15-1) 21-10, Alabama St. (16-2) 22-10, Cornell (11-3) 21-10, Robert Morris (15-3) 24-11
15 - South Dakota (20-9)*, Tulsa (12-4) 25-11, UNI (14-4) 23-11, Radford (15-3) 21-12
16 - CS Northridge (11-5) 17-14, Morgan St. (13-3) 23-12, Buffalo (11-5) 21-12, Jacksonville (15-5) 18-14


Swapped
Louisville & Pitt
Duke, Kansas, & Utah State
Wake & Xavier
ASU, Charleston, & FSU
SFA & Marquette
VMI & WKU
Seattle & Illinois
Binghamton & Illinois St.
American & FSU
Tulsa & Tennessee- martin
USD & ODU
Radford & Morgan State

Regular season conference champion teams moved up from lower seeding to a 14 seed (pushing down other teams one seed)
Webber State & Cornell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:06 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1567
panthersc97 wrote:
sec03 wrote:
Just pick Big East and ACC teams, with one or two from the Big Ten thrown in, and deal with 16 only. Not really for that, but in reality, it's heavily arranged for them.


Not sure what you mean here SEC. The SEC and Big 12 have averaged pretty close to the same # of teams for the past 7 years (including this one) with an average of ~ 5.25 teams per year or ~ 45% of their membership. Each of the BCS conferences are pretty close to that % of their conference membership as well. In addition, as far as I can remember, all the 6 BCS conferences earned about the same amount of money from the tournament (in the form of NCAA tourney credits).


UCONN, Mich. St., UNC, & 'Nova. Thanks for highlighting my brillance, Panther.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:37 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
The main thing to realize is WHY mid-major bids are going down.

It's an RPI game. We can talk all we want about expanding the tournament, but I really think that's bad for the mid-majors (Will add post as to why).

The reason mid-major bids are dropping is because of two things:
The NCAA increase in regular season games from 28 to 30.
The Conference Effect of RPI.


Because you play more games vs your conference than OOC, all that matters to having a good RPI is your conference winning a lot of non-conference games. Say you have a mid-major conference which schedules tough, split 6 to 8 games against Top 100 OOC competition, their OOC SOS is good, but their OVERALL SOS isn't.

Because they're going to be 9-5 or 10-4 in OOC, and when they play each other and go 11-5 in conference, they are 20-10 teams playing each other. Now when they play each other in conference, it's 9, 10, 11 and 12 loss teams playing each other; and their RPIs are lower. Because at least 17 of their games are vs conference teams and that counts on EVERYONE'S SOS 17 times.

Because of that, a mid-major can't play a ridiculously tough schedule, because their RPIs would be low.

In the BCS conferences, they can schedule cupcakes, go 13-2 OOC, and then you had 23-6 teams playing each other in conference. Doesn't matter that they didn't beat anyone, because when two of them split a season series with each other, they each get a "good win."


Now, this wasn't a problem 2-3 years ago. Because the BCS schools in the middle of the pack in their leagues, teams .500 in conference, were usually at 19-10, 18-11, or 17-12 with a 3-6 record against Top 50 teams.

BUT THEN THE NCAA ADDED TWO GAMES TO THE SCHEDULE.

By adding two non-conference games, the majors can schedule two cupcakes, win those games and improve their RPIs by bringing in more wins which count 18 times on their conference mates' SOS.

This takes a team that was 18-11 three years ago, #54 in the RPI and 3-6 vs Top 50 teams and out of the tournament and makes them 20-11, #42 in the RPI, 5-9 vs the top 50 and in the tournament.


If you look at the last five years worth of data, the mid-majors are scheduling the same number of OOC top 50 games... it's their IN CONFERENCE Top 50 games that are diminishing.

Pick a major conference with an unchanged membership. The Big Ten. The .500 team in the Big Ten went:

2009: 13-1 in OOC, #42 RPI, Dance (187 OOC SOS)
2009: 11-3 in OOC, #47 RPI, Dance (47 OOC SOS)
2008: no .500 teams
2007: 10-2 in OOC, #54 RPI OUT (102 OOC SOS)
2006: 10-2 in OOC, #47 RPI OUT (147 OOC SOS)
2005: 9-3 in OOC, #51 RPI OUT (122 OOC SOS)

Those two extra wins they can schedule are the difference between them having a RPI in the 40s or an RPI in the 50s. Then they have 4 more games vs Top 50 opponents.



The selection process needs to adjust. They need to say "okay, you have to be ABOVE .500 in your conference to get an at-large."

That kicks out Michigan, Minnesota, Maryland and Arizona. Teams who would not have made the field without the NCAA adding two regular season games.

The other way the NCAA could fix this is by making all the conference carry the same number of teams and play the same schedule. The result would be another re-alignment of conferences which could even things out a bit.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:31 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
Here's why I'm against expanding the field:


Saying "we went to the NCAA Tournament" would become less special. "So what? Everyone makes it" would be the response, like the NHL or NBA playoffs.

BCS schools would probably just get more bids, putting about 62-65 of their 76 teams in. And seeding would give the BCS more chances to advance to the "round of 64" (R64).

Non-BCS teams would have 20-26 FEWER teams into R64. Teams seeded 13-16 are losing a round earlier.

Let's say they doubled it to 128. Based on this year's NIT results, six more BCS teams get into R64 by beating non-BCS schools in the R128: Kansas St, Kentucky, Notre Dame, Va Tech, Auburn, Penn St all beat non-BCS teams.

Seven "mid-majors" would face R128 upset challenges from the BCS: BYU, Siena, Butler, Utah St, Dayton, Western Kentucky and Northern Iowa.

In a 96 team field, with 31 more bids, you've got 16 more "mid-majors." But now only Memphis, Xavier and Gonzaga have a bye to the round of 64. The rest half to play their way in. Sure, Siena, Butler, Utah State and Dayton would be playing teams that are currently 13-16 seeds in the NCAA Tournament (one-bid champs). But A) there's a chance of an upset. and B), 29 of the 32 teams with a bye are BCS teams with more time to scout.

That's LESS chance of Cinderella making the Sweet 16 than before. It's another hurdle in their path**


Right now, there's 125 shares of the TV money ($150 million pot). Each share is about $1.2m. You get one share for making the field, and one for each win up to the Final Four. It's paid over six years, but ignore that for a second.

In a 128-team field, there's 252 shares of the TV money. Even if the TV money went up to $202 million (four weekends instead of three) now shares are worth only $800k.

In a 96-team field, the money gets complicated. They'd either give a half share for making the field, and half share for winning the R96 game, with a half share for getting a bye. That's 140 shares (at $144,000 each; Assuming the pot then is $202 million because they could spread the 32 R96 games over four days and get a full weekend of programing).

More money is going to go to BCS schools. Based on this year's NCAA tournament field/NIT field, projecting some results:

65-team NCAA Tournament:
29 Non-BCS teams, 7 R64 wins, 3 Sweet 16 teams, 0 Elite 8 teams. 39 shares ($46.8m)
36 BCS teams, 25 R64 wins, 13 Sweet 16, 8 Elite Eight teams, 4 Final Four. 86 shares ($103.2m)

96 team NCAA Tournament
45 Non-BCS teams, 16 R96 wins, 7 R64 wins, 3 Sweet 16 teams, 0 Elite 8 teams, 42 shares ($60.5m)
51 BCS teams, 16 R96 wins, 25 R64 wins, 13 Sweet 16, 8 Elite Eight teams, 4 Final Four, 98 shares ($141.5m)

128 team NCAA Tournament:
70 Non-BCS teams, 16 R128 wins, 7 R64 wins, 3 Sweet 16 teams, 0 Elite Eight team. 95 shares ($76.8m)
58 BCS teams, 48 R128 wins, 25 R64 wins, 13 Sweet 16, 8 Elite Eight teams, 4 Final Four. 156 shares ($124.2m)

The BCS is raking in money. Now, each conference divides its money a different way, but the vast majority of Tournament purse is going to the 76 BCS teams, and very little to the 271 non-BCS schools.

Assuming each conference divides the loot evenly:
65-team: $1.4 million per BCS team, $172,000 per non-BCS school.
96-team: $1.94 million per BCS team, $222,000 per non-BCS school.
128-team: $1.7 million per BCS team, $283,000 per non-BCS school.

(Now, I know it doesn't work this way, in reality, you've got the one-bid leagues splitting $1.2 million per year among their membership, and conferences like the A-10 with fluctuating yearly revenues, splitting their shares where the school who earns it keeps it).

But any way you slice it, the rich get richer by expanding the field; and it's harder for Cinderella to make the Sweet 16**

The other thing it does is CEMENT the premise that the 6th-10th place teams in BCS conferences are better... because they are going to the NCAA tournament EVERY SINGLE YEAR. They'd be sending 58 of 73 teams this year.

And if you're in the BCS, you simply adjust to get more teams in: Reduce your conference schedule to 14 games. Now, you can have your last place team schedule the worst 14 teams in the country, and if they go 2-12 in conference, they could conceivably get in. Their RPI will be high enough solely because they are in a BCS conference. They could conceivably put all 73 teams in every year.



** Yeah, at least they're in a bigger field and not out of a smaller one, but there's a better way to fix it.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:38 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
The biggest reason the BCS is pummelling the non-BCS is because of the NCAA's rules on conference play creating all kinds of funky math and economic disparity.

Case in point: The NCAA's "if you have 12 teams in your conference, you can split into two divisions and have a football championship game"

The rule was designed to CROWN A CHAMPION. Because the schedule was capped at 10 games, a 12-team conference couldn't legally play a full round-robin. It wasn't designed for revenue. The SEC saw the opportunity and made serious money off it. But now they are playing eight league games, playing four OOC home games against FCS teams and no one plays anyone out of conference.


In basketball, the conference effect on RPI basically means if you play NO ONE OOC, and rack up wins, your RPI is high enough that anyone over .500 is in and anyone AT .500 is on the bubble and probably getting in.

The RPI was designed to determine the weight of a W-L record. But it no longer works because conference schedules are incestuous.



The NCAA could EASILY solve all the issues it faces in football and basketball with one fell swoop: "All conference members must play the exact same conference schedule."

See what this does to basketball:
More of your RPI/SOS is made up of OOC games. Which makes it an even playing field. Teams actually have to play someone OOC.

Take the Big East. They had seven top 50 RPI teams, so a Big East team in an unbalanced 18-game schedule had between 7-10 games vs the Top 50 of the RPI.

In a 15-game round-robin Big East, each team has 6-7 six or seven games vs the top 50 Big East teams.

The Big Ten can't go to 20 conference games. That'd be 20 more losses for the league. The bottom three could only absorb six of those. That means their 5-6-7-8 teams would be 1-2 games worse. They'd be a five-bid league at best. So they're playing a 10-game schedule. That would give them six games vs the top 50 of the RPI, instead of the 12 most of them got.

The ACC and Big XII can't play a 22-game schedule, they'd have to play an 11-team schedule. They'd all lost top 50 games on their schedules... and actually have to play someone OOC to get more marquee wins.

The conference effect of the RPI is diminished and the RPI is a better indicator of record vs SOS, instead of funky math that helps the BCS.

The other thing it would do is clearly separate the teams within each conference. The middle of the power conferences split with each other and they all go based on "perceived conference strength." Now, the teams that in the middle have really crystal clear tie-breakers.


And in football, conferences with more than eight teams would all HAVE to go to 12 for a divisional format, or go to 16 teams with a divisional format, and that kicks off more conference realignment, and gets us closer to a playoff system.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:33 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:04 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
Morgan State has to play both Louisville AND Oklahoma? Poor kids.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:56 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
JPSchmack wrote:
Here's why I'm against expanding the field:


Saying "we went to the NCAA Tournament" would become less special. "So what? Everyone makes it" would be the response, like the NHL or NBA playoffs.

BCS schools would probably just get more bids, putting about 62-65 of their 76 teams in. And seeding would give the BCS more chances to advance to the "round of 64" (R64).

Non-BCS teams would have 20-26 FEWER teams into R64. Teams seeded 13-16 are losing a round earlier.

Let's say they doubled it to 128. Based on this year's NIT results, six more BCS teams get into R64 by beating non-BCS schools in the R128: Kansas St, Kentucky, Notre Dame, Va Tech, Auburn, Penn St all beat non-BCS teams.

Seven "mid-majors" would face R128 upset challenges from the BCS: BYU, Siena, Butler, Utah St, Dayton, Western Kentucky and Northern Iowa.

In a 96 team field, with 31 more bids, you've got 16 more "mid-majors." But now only Memphis, Xavier and Gonzaga have a bye to the round of 64. The rest half to play their way in. Sure, Siena, Butler, Utah State and Dayton would be playing teams that are currently 13-16 seeds in the NCAA Tournament (one-bid champs). But A) there's a chance of an upset. and B), 29 of the 32 teams with a bye are BCS teams with more time to scout.

That's LESS chance of Cinderella making the Sweet 16 than before. It's another hurdle in their path**


Right now, there's 125 shares of the TV money ($150 million pot). Each share is about $1.2m. You get one share for making the field, and one for each win up to the Final Four. It's paid over six years, but ignore that for a second.

In a 128-team field, there's 252 shares of the TV money. Even if the TV money went up to $202 million (four weekends instead of three) now shares are worth only $800k.

In a 96-team field, the money gets complicated. They'd either give a half share for making the field, and half share for winning the R96 game, with a half share for getting a bye. That's 140 shares (at $144,000 each; Assuming the pot then is $202 million because they could spread the 32 R96 games over four days and get a full weekend of programing).

More money is going to go to BCS schools. Based on this year's NCAA tournament field/NIT field, projecting some results:

65-team NCAA Tournament:
29 Non-BCS teams, 7 R64 wins, 3 Sweet 16 teams, 0 Elite 8 teams. 39 shares ($46.8m)
36 BCS teams, 25 R64 wins, 13 Sweet 16, 8 Elite Eight teams, 4 Final Four. 86 shares ($103.2m)

96 team NCAA Tournament
45 Non-BCS teams, 16 R96 wins, 7 R64 wins, 3 Sweet 16 teams, 0 Elite 8 teams, 42 shares ($60.5m)
51 BCS teams, 16 R96 wins, 25 R64 wins, 13 Sweet 16, 8 Elite Eight teams, 4 Final Four, 98 shares ($141.5m)

128 team NCAA Tournament:
70 Non-BCS teams, 16 R128 wins, 7 R64 wins, 3 Sweet 16 teams, 0 Elite Eight team. 95 shares ($76.8m)
58 BCS teams, 48 R128 wins, 25 R64 wins, 13 Sweet 16, 8 Elite Eight teams, 4 Final Four. 156 shares ($124.2m)

The BCS is raking in money. Now, each conference divides its money a different way, but the vast majority of Tournament purse is going to the 76 BCS teams, and very little to the 271 non-BCS schools.

Assuming each conference divides the loot evenly:
65-team: $1.4 million per BCS team, $172,000 per non-BCS school.
96-team: $1.94 million per BCS team, $222,000 per non-BCS school.
128-team: $1.7 million per BCS team, $283,000 per non-BCS school.

(Now, I know it doesn't work this way, in reality, you've got the one-bid leagues splitting $1.2 million per year among their membership, and conferences like the A-10 with fluctuating yearly revenues, splitting their shares where the school who earns it keeps it).

But any way you slice it, the rich get richer by expanding the field; and it's harder for Cinderella to make the Sweet 16**

The other thing it does is CEMENT the premise that the 6th-10th place teams in BCS conferences are better... because they are going to the NCAA tournament EVERY SINGLE YEAR. They'd be sending 58 of 73 teams this year.

And if you're in the BCS, you simply adjust to get more teams in: Reduce your conference schedule to 14 games. Now, you can have your last place team schedule the worst 14 teams in the country, and if they go 2-12 in conference, they could conceivably get in. Their RPI will be high enough solely because they are in a BCS conference. They could conceivably put all 73 teams in every year.



** Yeah, at least they're in a bigger field and not out of a smaller one, but there's a better way to fix it.


An excellent post, but one I'd like to address point by point.

You'd still have to win 2/3 of your games to make the field, win greater than +1 in conference, and still have a reasonable RPI for tie breakers. Ultimately, you are talking about 96 teams out of what 341? That is 28%. That is not an accomplishment? If the NFL was so selective only 9 team would make the playoffs. It would still be a huge deal.

In the 96 team scenario I am suggesting, conferences would be limited at 40-45% (ie. less than half) of their membership making it, so the most the BCS schools could get in would be 40-45% of their membership; specifically, no more than 31 out of their 73 schools.

[Somehow I ended up with 32 FBS schools in the alternative BCS instead of the 31 schools max that my 40-45% rule lays out.

Atlantic Coast Conference (12 teams); max teams = 5 (as 6 would be 50%)
Big 12 Conference (12 teams); max teams = 5 (as 6 would be 50%)
Big East Conference (16 teams); max teams = 7 (as 8 would be 50%)
Big Ten Conference (11 teams); max teams = 5 (as 6 would be 55%)
Pacific-10 Conference (10 teams); max teams = 4 (as 5 would be 50%)
Southeastern Conference (12 teams); max teams = 5 (as 6 would be 50%)

that totals a maxium of 31 slots.

I'll have to figure out where I went wrong, but for now lets run with it...]

The cream of the BCS would make it and would still dominate the tournament, but this is about presenting opportunities for deserving small conference teams to EARN their money, not weird meritless liberal forced equality.

Additionally, You are missing that in my proposal all 32 (including the GW) DI schools would get a regular season champion into the tourney with a play in bye, so 26 non-BCS conferences get a bye into the 64 round for their best candidate to make a run.

Currently there are 127 shares = 64 first round participants + 32 second round+ 16 thrid round+8 Fourth round + 4 fifth round+ 2 Finalists + 1 champion share. (I THINK the play in teams are playing to earn their first round share currently.)

Lets say TV went up to 202M as you suggest for the 96 team tourney, rather than having 127 tourney team/games to divide 150M between. The goal has to be, to have the traditional share for making the tourney outweigh what you could get from winning a play in round while allowing teams that win the play in round to earn more than teams that lose.

Lets say 64 teams participating in the play in + 32 teams winning = 96 team/game shares.

Lets say you have the added 52M to divide between the 96 team/game shares in the play in round. $541,667 per team/game share or $541,667 per losing team; $1,083,333 per winning team. That still is problematic as a team that wins it's way in would get $1,083,333 for participating in the play in round and then get ANOTHER full share for making the field of 64. But supposing we eliminate their first round share for play-in teams....

32 first round participants who were regular season Champions + 32 second round+ 16 thrid round+8 Fourth round + 4 fifth round+ 2 Finalists + 1 champion share = 95 game/team shares of the 150M for the tourney proper@ $1,578,947 per team/game share for the tourney proper.

This would reward a regular season champ with a bye AND the chance to earn the difference between a play in victory total ($1,083,333) and a bye share ($1,578,947) = an added $495,614 bonus for winning the regular season championship.

Now looking at the alternative proposal results...

96 team NCAA Tournament
64 Non-BCS teams, 38 R96 participants, 16 R96 wins, ($29,250,018) + 26 R64 reg season champs, 15 R32 participants, 5 Sweet 16 teams, 2 Elite 8 teams, 1 Final Four team = 49 regular tourney shares for an added ($77,368,403) bringing the non-BCS total to $106,618,421, or on average $4,100,007 per non BCS conference, or $397,829 on average for each of their 268 schools.
32 BCS teams, 26 R96 participants, 16 R96 wins, ($22,750,014) + 6 R64 reg season champs, 17 R32 participants, 11 Sweet 16, 6 Elite Eight teams, 3 Final Four teams, 2 Finalists, 1 Champion = 46 regular tourney shares for an added ($72,631,562)bringing the BCS total to $95,381,576, or on average $15,896,929 per conference, or $1,306,596 on average for each of their 73 schools.

again, for the 96 team proposal that is on average:

$15,896,929 per BCS conference, $1,306,596 per BCS team
$4,100,007 per non BCS conference, $397,829 per non-BCS school

vs. your numbers in the existing 65 team tourney

$103.2M = $17.2M per BCS conference, $1,413,698 per BCS team
$46.8M = $1.8M per non-BCS conference, $174,626 per non-BCS school


(The above numbers are slightly off due to me inexplicably putting 32 BCS schools in, instead of their max of 31, but gives you a good idea of how much money the small schools are potentially leaving on the table by not taking up their complaints with the TV folks.)

With regards to the idea that Cinderella would have a harder time, I disagree. I think Davidson, St. Mary's, & SDSU all were capable of making long tourney runs --- beating most teams outside of the top 16 --- BUT THEY WEREN'T LET INTO THE BALL. Every year there are deserving small schools who either get a crappy seed their season record suggests they don't deserve and are early victims of the top 16 or like Davidson, St. Mary's, & SDSU don't even make the field.

Lets get very clear what we are mostly discussing for everyone else. I get very passionate about deserving teams having a chance to succeed, but there is a larger arguement that the non-BCS schools really care about more. We are talking about eliminating the BCS schools' ability to soak up tourney revenue by putting their also-rans, instead of the cream of small conferences, into the role of "team likely to be creamed by the top 16". It is all about representation in the 64, 32, and 16 rounds and the revenue that brings.

Although adding the play-in round helps improve competitiveness in the tourney, adds another week of top tv, as well as adds to the non-BCS revenue stream.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:18 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
JPSchmack wrote:
Morgan State has to play both Louisville AND Oklahoma? Poor kids.


That's the problem with non-BCS schools --- they are always trying to take more than their share of the money.

Fixed. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:12 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
Finite, I should probably clarify that my three posts were independent of your previous posts in the thread.

In reading what you're saying, that'd be great in a sense. I'm all for limiting BCS inclusion in the NCAA Tournament.

But while most of us are on this site mainly because we want to see the conferences realign and the playing field leveled, NCAA committees are made up with half their numbers representing BCS conferences. There's no way it would/could ever happen that they exclude a team based solely on conference affiliation (Ha. They are doing it now! You know what I mean, they aren't going to PASS A RULE. They'll rely on the perception).

EVERY RULE CHANGE benefits the BCS conferences.

The non-BCS schools simply need to out-smart the BCS schools by proposing legislation that appears to benefit the BCS schools, but really benefits the non-BCS schools more.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:08 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:41 am
Posts: 118
Location: Chicago, IL
finiteman,

Limiting conferences to their top 40ish% of teams in your post should work to open up more spots for the mid-majors in the current set up. You have the Big East with 7, ACC with 5, Big 12 with 5, SEC with 5, Big Ten with 5 and the Pac 10 with 4. That equals 31. There are currently 31 auto bids and 34 at-large bids. That 31 for the BCS isn't correct though. Six of those teams will take auto bids so you have the BCS schools limited to only 25 spots and you have 9 open spots for the mid-majors every year. I would also like to see a rule that says you have to finish above .500 in your conference or yiu aren't elligible. I actually would like to see .600. That should keep some more BCS teams out of it. Honestly if you can only go 10-8 in conference play do you really expect me to buy the arguement that you can win the national title.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:38 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 707
Location: Louisville, KY
1) Eliminate the conference tournament, and add 2 games to the schedule. Conferences with divisions can add 2 games to their schedule (unlikely) or schedule some more non-conference games. It adds value to the regular season, and prevents some team that went 2-14 in conference play from embarrassing their 1-bid conference by making the tournament.

2) Force schools to schedule opponents from a minimum of 10 conferences (I'd even be willing to go as high as 12). Even if you're in the BCS, you'll still be forced to play 5 schools from outside the BCS-odds are 1 of those 5 should be a tournament-caliber team.

3) Force schools to play a minimum of 9 non-conference games away from home over a two-year period (half-credit for neutral site games). Kentucky at Western Carolina or UCLA at Chicago State instead of the other way around would do more for bringing competitive equity in college basketball than expanding the NCAA tournament.

4) Encourage all Division I members to add football, preferably FBS football. It may seem strange to think of football improving the health of basketball, but as long as there are schools pulling down huge paydays on the gridiron, non-football schools will always be at a disadvantage when it comes to athletic spending in all sports.

5) Limit summer overseas exhibition seasons-the haves don't need more practice time and extra games. The other alternative is that the NCAA mandates that at least one team from every conference does this each year.

6) Require a set number of wins for NCAA tournament eligibility-with a 32 game schedule, a team should realistically win at least 21 games to make the tournament.

7) Require a winning record in conference play.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:15 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
wbyeager wrote:
1) Eliminate the conference tournament, and add 2 games to the schedule. Conferences with divisions can add 2 games to their schedule (unlikely) or schedule some more non-conference games. It adds value to the regular season, and prevents some team that went 2-14 in conference play from embarrassing their 1-bid conference by making the tournament.

2) Force schools to schedule opponents from a minimum of 10 conferences (I'd even be willing to go as high as 12). Even if you're in the BCS, you'll still be forced to play 5 schools from outside the BCS-odds are 1 of those 5 should be a tournament-caliber team.

3) Force schools to play a minimum of 9 non-conference games away from home over a two-year period (half-credit for neutral site games). Kentucky at Western Carolina or UCLA at Chicago State instead of the other way around would do more for bringing competitive equity in college basketball than expanding the NCAA tournament.

4) Encourage all Division I members to add football, preferably FBS football. It may seem strange to think of football improving the health of basketball, but as long as there are schools pulling down huge paydays on the gridiron, non-football schools will always be at a disadvantage when it comes to athletic spending in all sports.

5) Limit summer overseas exhibition seasons-the haves don't need more practice time and extra games. The other alternative is that the NCAA mandates that at least one team from every conference does this each year.

6) Require a set number of wins for NCAA tournament eligibility-with a 32 game schedule, a team should realistically win at least 21 games to make the tournament.

7) Require a winning record in conference play.


I'm big time against this. You can't penalize a school for being in a touch conference. If say the 11 team Big Ten had 8 top 25 schools because they are all loading up on tough OCC games and winning against other top 25 non Big Ten schools. so what if a team has a .500 or .400 record? They still are better than all but say, 25 teams in the country.

_________________
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 Jun 08, 2009 4:46 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
wbyeager wrote:
1) Eliminate the conference tournament, and add 2 games to the schedule. Conferences with divisions can add 2 games to their schedule (unlikely) or schedule some more non-conference games. It adds value to the regular season, and prevents some team that went 2-14 in conference play from embarrassing their 1-bid conference by making the tournament.

2) Force schools to schedule opponents from a minimum of 10 conferences (I'd even be willing to go as high as 12). Even if you're in the BCS, you'll still be forced to play 5 schools from outside the BCS-odds are 1 of those 5 should be a tournament-caliber team.

3) Force schools to play a minimum of 9 non-conference games away from home over a two-year period (half-credit for neutral site games). Kentucky at Western Carolina or UCLA at Chicago State instead of the other way around would do more for bringing competitive equity in college basketball than expanding the NCAA tournament.

4) Encourage all Division I members to add football, preferably FBS football. It may seem strange to think of football improving the health of basketball, but as long as there are schools pulling down huge paydays on the gridiron, non-football schools will always be at a disadvantage when it comes to athletic spending in all sports.

5) Limit summer overseas exhibition seasons-the haves don't need more practice time and extra games. The other alternative is that the NCAA mandates that at least one team from every conference does this each year.

6) Require a set number of wins for NCAA tournament eligibility-with a 32 game schedule, a team should realistically win at least 21 games to make the tournament.

7) Require a winning record in conference play.


I'm big time against this. You can't penalize a school for being in a touch conference. If say the 11 team Big Ten had 8 top 25 schools because they are all loading up on tough OCC games and winning against other top 25 non Big Ten schools. so what if a team has a .500 or .400 record? They still are better than all but say, 25 teams in the country.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  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:  
 

 




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