NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:00 am

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
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:27 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:06 am
Posts: 156
I'm new hear but i have a idea that could work. I hear people want conferance champs during the regular seasson as auto bids. That's a bad idea mainly because it hurts the NIT allot and there needs to be a strong 2 tier tourny.

heres the list of additions needed to be done:

1) simply add three spots in the tournament with play in games for the 16th seeds. this could add teams from lower conferance.

2) No conferance tournament champ can play in the play in game. basically winning your conferance tourny gets you at least a 15th seed or higher.

3) put caps on conferance for how many teams they can get into the NCAA tourney. the max can be half of thier conferance.( teams moving up from division 2 or lower can count as half a team so conferance don't bulk up with weak teams)

4) The NCAA should give insentives to teams not to pick on weaker teams. like Kansas not playing a regular seasson game aginst a division 2 team or lower the same with Gonzaga last year.

5) Rank schools in division 1 into tiers based on RPI and region. Then try and have schools play amongest themselves. (i know this might bring rpi's down but can help local eccruting and get teams eligable for the NCAA tourny)

6) Have restrictions against schools playing against lower division schools. maybe allow 1 or two a year?

7)Add two regular seasson games for all schools that can be played whenever. thease two games can be schedualed at the schools leasuoire or be used for conferance game.



7

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:49 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
The biggest problem with RPI as a factor for tournament selection is how conference schedule effects it.

Schedule is now the biggest factor in who gets in and gets left out.

I think you cap the number of conference games with a very simple rule: "Conferences can not play an unbalanced conference schedule."

So, if you've got 10 teams, you can play 18 games. If you have 9 you can play 16, if you've got 8 you can play 14.
But if you have 16 teams, you can play 15 conference games; 14 teams is 13 conference games. If you have 12, you can play 11, 11, you can play 10.

Also, I'd put two tournaments in the middle of the season for every team
One right after Christmas and one in early Feb. In each window, there's 87 four-team tournaments with matchups determined by a committee to provide teams with games they need on their schedule.

We let teams who where not really sure how good they are play a BCS school who we know is a bubble team. Give the mid-major a chance to play their way in.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:31 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 9:02 pm
Posts: 1467
Location: Richmond, Virginia
MY EXAMPLE OF 96 BIDS:

If the conferences want the "regular season" to have more importance - they can stop inviting everybody to their own post season tourneys. Only invite the top eight schools. You have to finish in the top eight to qualify for post season (that would break up the Big East Megaconference!).
The NCAA would then not consider anyone that did not make their "own" post season tourney.
Have only automatic bids and have them the same every year with only where the conferences finish by the 1st of February determine where they rank and consequently how many bids they will get. The February games including conference tourney games will help determine individual school rankings.

conferences ranked 1-6 get automatic 6 bids
conferences ranked 7-11 get automatic 5 bids
conferences ranked 12-14 get automatic 4 bids
conferences ranked 15-16 get automatic 3 bids
conferences ranked 17-18 get automatic 2 bids
conferences ranked 19-31 get automatic 1 bid

Each conference will decide on February 2nd the formula for how they will distribute their bids - so no one can blame the NCAA for not getting in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:55 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
bige wrote:
MY EXAMPLE OF 96 BIDS:

If the conferences want the "regular season" to have more importance - they can stop inviting everybody to their own post season tourneys. Only invite the top eight schools. You have to finish in the top eight to qualify for post season (that would break up the Big East Megaconference!).
The NCAA would then not consider anyone that did not make their "own" post season tourney.
Have only automatic bids and have them the same every year with only where the conferences finish by the 1st of February determine where they rank and consequently how many bids they will get. The February games including conference tourney games will help determine individual school rankings.

conferences ranked 1-6 get automatic 6 bids
conferences ranked 7-11 get automatic 5 bids
conferences ranked 12-14 get automatic 4 bids
conferences ranked 15-16 get automatic 3 bids
conferences ranked 17-18 get automatic 2 bids
conferences ranked 19-31 get automatic 1 bid

Each conference will decide on February 2nd the formula for how they will distribute their bids - so no one can blame the NCAA for not getting in.



That's all well and good is there are no OOC games played. But you can't just give a conference bids based on a formula that excludes individual performance. For instance, the Pac-10 would get 5 bids in your scenario while they are currently a 1 bid conference.

_________________
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: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:16 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:06 am
Posts: 156
What are your guys thoughts on adding 3 spots to the tournament?(4 play i games for the #16 seed) With the exception that conferences cannot have 50% of their conference in the NCAA tournament. (IE. Big east can have 7 teams not 8 and so on.) This year it would open 4 spots in the NCAA tournament by taking spots away from the big east, ACC and 2 from the big 12.

in this way 7 teams would have been added this year to the tournament.

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:30 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
46566 wrote:
What are your guys thoughts on adding 3 spots to the tournament?(4 play i games for the #16 seed) With the exception that conferences cannot have 50% of their conference in the NCAA tournament. (IE. Big east can have 7 teams not 8 and so on.) This year it would open 4 spots in the NCAA tournament by taking spots away from the big east, ACC and 2 from the big 12.

in this way 7 teams would have been added this year to the tournament.


I'm all for it.
* I like the idea of 4 play-in games at one location on a Tuesday OR Tue & Wed, as long as the Wed winners would play on Friday.
* I like the idea of conference at-large caps, but I think it would have to be more than 50%. There might be years where a team is punished for being in the top conference. If Oregon has a #30 RPI and a #30 SOS but finishes 6th in the Pac-10, you can't leave them out.
* 3 more play-in games means the 3 bubble teams would be in: URI was announced at the first team out. Utah St. or UTEP seem to be the last 1 in. Perhaps VA Tech and Illinois would be the other 2.

* One thing...it would do much for mid-majors.

This year there might be a total of 8 non-BCS conference at-large teams (4 last year) but the match-ups are garbage.
There are 4 first round games that are (2) mid-majors playing against each other. So only 4 of those teams get to advance to generate another revenue share. The matchups this year are an easy way for the BCS to claim more money.

http://news.collegesportsinfo.com/2010/ ... kdown.html

_________________
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: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:13 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:06 am
Posts: 156
True it could hurt teams that are in better conferences but he purpose of the 50% was to better the chance of mid majors to get in. RPI will still be counted also with the champs of the conference tournament. So there could be a chance of that Oregon team getting in over the #5 team or #4 team. this year there was a 3 way tie for the 5th spot and 1 of them USC was out because of a post season ban. The purpose of this rule would be to stop the idea of since there from a tough conference so they have to be in.

In anything the RPI and SOS will have more of a weight on those borderline schools. It would make schools to decide to play schools like Houston Baptist or Seattle instead of schools like carver Bible college or hope invitational.

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:05 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
46566 wrote:
True it could hurt teams that are in better conferences but he purpose of the 50% was to better the chance of mid majors to get in. RPI will still be counted also with the champs of the conference tournament. So there could be a chance of that Oregon team getting in over the #5 team or #4 team. this year there was a 3 way tie for the 5th spot and 1 of them USC was out because of a post season ban. The purpose of this rule would be to stop the idea of since there from a tough conference so they have to be in.

In anything the RPI and SOS will have more of a weight on those borderline schools. It would make schools to decide to play schools like Houston Baptist or Seattle instead of schools like carver Bible college or hope invitational.


I for one am against more mid-majors getting in. I'm for qualified teams getting in, regardless of conference of existing media bias. But I'm against "affirmative action" for mid-majors. I can't argue about the 8 Big East teams getting in this year. I do think they were over-seeded, especially compared to other conferences like the A10 (Temple should have been a 3, but instead is a 5...has to play a 12 in Cornell, that should have been a 10). Teams will be moved up or down a single seed to make the brackets work.

I think that the selection criteria needs to be more automated. The RPI system can be tweaked to favor road wins vs home wins and to even better incorporate wins vs top 25, 50, 100 RPI schools.

I just dont' like a situation where a power conference team could be penalized for being in a power conference. I don't want them to be favored with the current bias, but wouldn't want the reverse put in place. If anything, the mid-majors should drop their conference tourneys ala the Ivy, so that the best team in the year is given the autobid. That way a team like Cornell, a great team, won't be left out because they didn't play anyone tough in a given year.

_________________
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: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:24 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
Quinn wrote:
46566 wrote:
True it could hurt teams that are in better conferences but he purpose of the 50% was to better the chance of mid majors to get in. RPI will still be counted also with the champs of the conference tournament. So there could be a chance of that Oregon team getting in over the #5 team or #4 team. this year there was a 3 way tie for the 5th spot and 1 of them USC was out because of a post season ban. The purpose of this rule would be to stop the idea of since there from a tough conference so they have to be in.

In anything the RPI and SOS will have more of a weight on those borderline schools. It would make schools to decide to play schools like Houston Baptist or Seattle instead of schools like carver Bible college or hope invitational.


I for one am against more mid-majors getting in. I'm for qualified teams getting in, regardless of conference of existing media bias. But I'm against "affirmative action" for mid-majors. I can't argue about the 8 Big East teams getting in this year. I do think they were over-seeded, especially compared to other conferences like the A10 (Temple should have been a 3, but instead is a 5...has to play a 12 in Cornell, that should have been a 10). Teams will be moved up or down a single seed to make the brackets work.

I think that the selection criteria needs to be more automated. The RPI system can be tweaked to favor road wins vs home wins and to even better incorporate wins vs top 25, 50, 100 RPI schools.

I just dont' like a situation where a power conference team could be penalized for being in a power conference. I don't want them to be favored with the current bias, but wouldn't want the reverse put in place. If anything, the mid-majors should drop their conference tourneys ala the Ivy, so that the best team in the year is given the autobid. That way a team like Cornell, a great team, won't be left out because they didn't play anyone tough in a given year.


Quinn, you have to understand that the reason "mid-majors" are really getting "screwed" is just a simple mathematical formula and not necessarily "quality of play"

For example, Dayton's been left out twice in three years. Now, the reason they are left out is because of RPIs in the 25-55 range and the perceived inferiority of the A-10 to BCS conferences.

But if that was true, then you'd think Dayton wouldn't be very good against BCS teams. They are just dominating bad teams.

Well, they are 5-2 in the last five years against RANKED Big East teams. Their last 18 games vs current Big East teams (including DePaul when they were an NCAA team, not when they are 0-16 DePaul) is 10-8. The idea that UD couldn't compete with the Big East is absurd.

Yet, .500 in the Big East gets you an RPI in the 20s... based solely on the math of the SOS portion of the RPI and how it relates to conferences.

SOS snowballs as teams play each other. When the Big East, which features 12 quality programs and four bad teams; plays 18 conference games, all their RPI/SOS goes up because they're all 20-12 teams.

When the A-10 plays, they have 7 good teams, but the RPI/SOS goes down when the bottom 7 teams play.

We're letting teams into the tournament based on "Who's got the fewest horrible teams in their conference" and not an apples-to-apples measurement.

If it was "affirmative action" then you're starting from "a non-BCS school is inferior and undeserving." But you're assuming that from a flawed measure which doesn't rate teams on quality at all.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:38 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
JP, as an A10 fan, I can say this: Dayton sucked. They WERE in. But they blew it at the end of the year, as did URI. They would likely have been in under the 68 team scenario though. But the only argument I had was Florida getting in and as a 10 seed. Dayton controlled it's own destiny and blew it. Add Charlotte to the list too. Gotta win at the end of the year.

_________________
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

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