NCAA College Basketball Talk

[VUGrad1314]

Exactly. Say whatever you will about Adams and his proposals and methods, but at least he's out there trying SOMETHING which is more than can be said about most mid-major advocates. Even if this doesn't result in more at-large bids, even if all we get out of this is better home games than we can generally find on our own, did we really lose? Wouldn't you rather watch Fresno State VCU Towson and Kent State than UCR SIUE and 2 non-D1s? I know I would.

[VULB#62]

This why I proposed all the mid-majors boycotting the NCAA tournament for 2 years to see where the ratings go--hopefully way south--and then renegotiating a deal that guarantees mid-majors more places in the tournament.

This would totally work, but it won't happen because it would be difficult for mid-majors to pass on tournament revenue for two years. 

Mids should at least threaten this and see what happens.  The NCAA certainly doesn't want another disaster like 2015 where the Final Four had Kentucky, Wisconsin, Michigan State and Duke.  Boring.   

  Boycotting from a position of weakness, to me, is an expression of desperation more like a hunger strike or the cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face situation.  It presupposes that people will take notice and create a ground swell of support. It also presupposes that the P-6+ will see the error of their ways and after two years of collecting the whole Dance pot willingly reincluding Mid Majors in the tournament and willingly splitting the pot again.  A boycott plays right into their greedy hands. Once that door is slammed, abetted by a boycott, mid majors will have successfully defaulted to a post season alternative that no one will really follow nationally. 

Valpo would play: 10-Colorado State (MWC), 10-James Madison (CAA), 10 Duquesne (A-10), 10-Bowling Green

To me that isn't much better than playing SIUE & UC Riverside. We would have to get lucky and one of those teams would win a lot more games than they did in 17-18. If we had to travel to Ft. Collins, CO & Harrisonburg, VA and play low D1s we aren't gaining anything and could lose.

Agreed.  Heck, we were a 10th place team.  But the Valpo example was predicated on our finish LAST YEAR.  I believe we will finish much higher this season and that would be the basis for a Fall 2019 Mid-Major Challenge.  Going back to the 2017-18 basis, if we had wound up 5th (Bradley's position), we would have had the following schedule:

Valpo RPI 106 (postulated using Bradley's RPI) plays: 5-Fresno State RPI 103 (MWC), 5-Towson State RPI 157 (CAA), VCU RPI 135 (A-10), 5-Kent State RPI 154 (MAC). [Average RPI ~ 137]

       vs.

Valpo RPI 174 (actual) plays: 10-Colorado State RPI 235 (MWC), 10-James Madison RPI 273 (CAA), 10 Duquesne RPI 259 (A-10), 10-Bowling Green RPI 195 (MAC). [Average RPI ~ 240]

This kind of challenge setup provides great incentive both inside and outside a conference:  Inside - the higher a team rises within the conference standings, the better the OOC becomes.  Outside - the more improved an entire conference's aggregate results are, the better the opponents for it's participating teams.

But, hey, this type of out-of-the-box thinking would require very many stars to alig, and, sadly,  Mid Majors have demonstrated a lack of cohesiveness except for complaining a lot.

I am going to take this even further.  In world soccer, they have divisions based on performance and poorly performing teams are relegated to a lower division while the better performing teams in the division below are promoted.  What better way to counter the P-6+ monopoly than loosely organize Mid Majors along this concept?  Why stop at just the top 5 Mid major conferences in a single challenge? Have tiers and have multiple challenges that include all mid-majors.  In this scenario, if conferences improve their ranking they get "promoted" to the next higher challenge rung on the ladder replacing poorly performing conferences that get relegated. And promotion/relegation is easily calculated based on the season end RPI (or whatever the conference rating system turns out to be). This system supports inclusion in the Dance and plays the scheduling game (and the need to increase at-large possibilities by essentially beating the P-6+ at their own game).  This still allows MMs to schedule buy games with P-6+ teams to fill out their OOC schedule, as well as commit to December holiday tournaments at glamorous places as well. 

Added benefit: Those two Challenge weeks prior to opening the conference schedule could also be viewed as more attractive to TV and cable  (November Madness???) than UK blowing out Little Sisters of the Poor U. It would have structure and would be very combative with a lot riding on those game results.  Because the games are all at campus sites, the atmosphere could be electric. Might even put a few bucks in MM pockets.

[VUGrad1314]

Yeah... Call it mid madness and sell it to the networks. As long as it's not diluted by too many bad games it could provide a nice revenue boost for mids.

[VULB#62]

Yeah... Call it mid madness and sell it to the networks. As long as it's not diluted by too many bad games it could provide a nice revenue boost for mids.

Catchy title.  In most cases I would think the networs/cable would only seek out the #1s and #2s in each teir for national exposure, but a fair split of revenue at each teir still might help to underwrite travel budgets for all participants. The non-national games would default to conference TV deals like any other game on the schedule.

[vusupporter]

Awfully optimistic to think networks would flock to this when the Loyola-Nevada rematch this season is being relegated to ESPNEWS.

[VULB#62]

I donno.  Single game vs. an across the nation package concentrated in two weeks?

[IrishDawg]

This why I proposed all the mid-majors boycotting the NCAA tournament for 2 years to see where the ratings go--hopefully way south--and then renegotiating a deal that guarantees mid-majors more places in the tournament.

This would totally work, but it won't happen because it would be difficult for mid-majors to pass on tournament revenue for two years. 

Mids should at least threaten this and see what happens.  The NCAA certainly doesn't want another disaster like 2015 where the Final Four had Kentucky, Wisconsin, Michigan State and Duke.  Boring.   

If you're being sarcastic Eddie, Bravo.  The 2015 Final 4 was the best rated Final 4's in the previous 2 decades and the entire tournament, which was very chalky after the first weekend, was also one of the best-rated tournaments in the last 2 decades.  Meanwhile last year's tourney ratings were tied for the lowest average ratings since 2009 (I'm not saying it's Loyola's fault either).  The NCAA's TV partners absolutely want it to be Kentucky, Duke, Kansas and North Carolina in the Final 4 every single year.

I'm coming around on the scheduling alliance, but only as it pertains to getting better matchups for mid-majors than they might otherwise get.  I don't think it results in more tourney bids or TV revenue for the schools.

[valpo95]

A scheduling alliance seems like a good thing, yet boycotting the NCAA tournament does not make sense.

The problem is not that the blue blood programs get to go to the tournament, it is the mediocre teams from the Power 5 that take slots away from deserving mid-Majors. Rather than a boycott, a better way to approach this is for athletic directors and presidents to band together, supporting a proposal to limit the number of teams from any conference. I've made this argument before, but a simple criteria for inclusion in the NCAA tournament might be as follows:
1) Be in the top 25 of one of the major polls.
2) Take first or second in your conference tournament.
3) Have a winning record in your conference.

This would prevent the teams with 8-10 conference records for being rewarded with NCAA tournament bids. It still allows teams that got hot in the end or who are well-ranked to get in, yet preserves more openings for teams like Illinois State, MTSU or St. Marys who have limited opportunities for P5 wins.

[wh]

A scheduling alliance seems like a good thing, yet boycotting the NCAA tournament does not make sense.

The problem is not that the blue blood programs get to go to the tournament, it is the mediocre teams from the Power 5 that take slots away from deserving mid-Majors. Rather than a boycott, a better way to approach this is for athletic directors and presidents to band together, supporting a proposal to limit the number of teams from any conference. I've made this argument before, but a simple criteria for inclusion in the NCAA tournament might be as follows:
1) Be in the top 25 of one of the major polls.
2) Take first or second in your conference tournament.
3) Have a winning record in your conference.

This would prevent the teams with 8-10 conference records for being rewarded with NCAA tournament bids. It still allows teams that got hot in the end or who are well-ranked to get in, yet preserves more openings for teams like Illinois State, MTSU or St. Marys who have limited opportunities for P5 wins.

This is good - really good. Simple, yet effective. If the NCAA were to adopt this, I think this whole fairness issue could be put to bed.

[VUGrad1314]

What about the P5 teams who finish with conference records of exactly .500? Are they in or out?

[valpo95]

What about the P5 teams who finish with conference records of exactly .500? Are they in or out?

I can't say for sure, yet I think that they would be eligible. I've thought about it, and could be convinced either way depending on the data. It is easy to say that .500 teams should NOT be in (unless otherwise satisfied by criteria 1 or 2). However, there could be years that where a major conference has four teams with winning records in conference play, and four teams tied at say 9-9; then the rule is too harsh. Perhaps the .500 teams could be assigned to the "first four" or play-in games.

Finally, I'd add that these are eligibility criteria, not necessarily saying that those teams are in. So, a P5 team that is 10-8 in conference but has lost 9 in a row after their star player got hurt might be tournament eligible, yet not be selected by the committee.

[EddieCabot]

A scheduling alliance seems like a good thing, yet boycotting the NCAA tournament does not make sense.

The problem is not that the blue blood programs get to go to the tournament, it is the mediocre teams from the Power 5 that take slots away from deserving mid-Majors. Rather than a boycott, a better way to approach this is for athletic directors and presidents to band together, supporting a proposal to limit the number of teams from any conference. I've made this argument before, but a simple criteria for inclusion in the NCAA tournament might be as follows:
1) Be in the top 25 of one of the major polls.
2) Take first or second in your conference tournament.
3) Have a winning record in your conference.

This would prevent the teams with 8-10 conference records for being rewarded with NCAA tournament bids. It still allows teams that got hot in the end or who are well-ranked to get in, yet preserves more openings for teams like Illinois State, MTSU or St. Marys who have limited opportunities for P5 wins.

This is good - really good. Simple, yet effective. If the NCAA were to adopt this, I think this whole fairness issue could be put to bed.

Great ideas.  This is essentially a quota system that limits bids from Power 5 conferences, leaving more opportunities for mid-majors.  You could argue that selection should be based on merit only, but I like this system as it would result in a tournament field that is more diverse and inclusive.

[VU2014]

A scheduling alliance seems like a good thing, yet boycotting the NCAA tournament does not make sense.

The problem is not that the blue blood programs get to go to the tournament, it is the mediocre teams from the Power 5 that take slots away from deserving mid-Majors. Rather than a boycott, a better way to approach this is for athletic directors and presidents to band together, supporting a proposal to limit the number of teams from any conference. I've made this argument before, but a simple criteria for inclusion in the NCAA tournament might be as follows:
1) Be in the top 25 of one of the major polls.
2) Take first or second in your conference tournament.
3) Have a winning record in your conference.

This would prevent the teams with 8-10 conference records for being rewarded with NCAA tournament bids. It still allows teams that got hot in the end or who are well-ranked to get in, yet preserves more openings for teams like Illinois State, MTSU or St. Marys who have limited opportunities for P5 wins.

This is good - really good. Simple, yet effective. If the NCAA were to adopt this, I think this whole fairness issue could be put to bed.

Great ideas.  This is essentially a quota system that limits bids from Power 5 conferences, leaving more opportunities for mid-majors.  You could argue that selection should be based on merit only, but I like this system as it would result in a tournament field that is more diverse and inclusive.

I'm not sure I'm totally for bid limits per conference. I just want deserving teams and stop giving bids to mediocre P6s. I really like the rule would be that you can only earn a at-large if you're above .500 in conference play. It's completely reasonable, but I highly doubt the P6 would allow that get passed as a rule.

Another rule I would implement is requiring teams to play certain % of their Non-conference schedule as true road games. Playing true road games in unfamiliar environments is good for evaluating if you truly are a at-large caliber team.

[4throwfan]

I would not include No. 1 (Top 25 in a poll).  This would limit the mid-majors, and then you might end up with a scenario where there are not enough teams to fill the field.  If I recall correctly, top mid-majors in the past have not been top 25 (including Valpo's year when they went to the NIT final). 

Additionally, No. 2 might have a negative impact on highly performing mid-majors.  I could easily see an MVC conference champ getting knocked out in an early round. 

I'm not sure that you want your criteria to be that the team has to fulfill all three.  If the criteria is that the candidate has to fulfill one or two of the three, then it may help mid-majors, but the P5 won't go for it.  They may have a valid argument.

I do like the idea of criteria, similar to the football criteria for bowl games, i.e., to be bowl-eligible, you must have a winning record.  Seems that if there was a requirement to have a winning record, mid-level teams in P5 conferences would only schedule low-majors in the OOC, which would have a negative impact on mid-major scheduling.

[valpo95]

...

I'm not sure that you want your criteria to be that the team has to fulfill all three.

...

In case I wasn't clear, I was suggesting that the criteria be one of the three. Any one of the three would make a team tournament-eligible, not guarantee an invitation. So, perhaps middling mid-major team knocks off the conference regular season champion early in the conference tournament, and makes it to the tournament championship. That team would be eligible for an invitation, but so would the conference champion because it had a winning record in conference - it would be up to the committee to decide if either or neither team made it.

[VULB#62]

I do think tourney champs get auto bids (as long as all qualifying conferences have tourneys — are you listening Ivy League). Your other criteria help to more fairly fill in the rest of the field which I fully support.

[IrishDawg]

I do think tourney champs get auto bids (as long as all qualifying conferences have tourneys — are you listening Ivy League). Your other criteria help to more fairly fill in the rest of the field which I fully support.

Ivy League has had a conference tournament the last 2 seasons.

[VULB#62]

I do think tourney champs get auto bids (as long as all qualifying conferences have tourneys — are you listening Ivy League). Your other criteria help to more fairly fill in the rest of the field which I fully support.

Ivy League has had a conference tournament the last 2 seasons.

Oops!

[VUGrad1314]

Article on possible changes to MTEs.

https://www.bloggingthebracket.com/2018/9/26/17898098/college-basketball-early-season-tournaments-multi-team-events-mte-reform-changes-2019-20-ncaa

[EddieCabot]

Article on possible changes to MTEs.

https://www.bloggingthebracket.com/2018/9/26/17898098/college-basketball-early-season-tournaments-multi-team-events-mte-reform-changes-2019-20-ncaa

Does anyone think these changes might help mid-majors in scheduling? 

[bigmosmithfan1]

For all the talk of changes to RPI, the easiest and fairest change to the system is: you must have a winning record in conference play to be eligible for an at-large bid. Simple, fair, sets a baseline standard that is universal and clear. If you can't win 10 of the 18 games in your conference, you have no plausible case to make that you should be in the field ahead of teams who met that very low bar. I don't give a crap how good your conference is -- at a certain point, you must win games.


I've yet to see a credible argument from P5 fans defending the ability to garner an at large with a .500 league record or worse that doesn't boil down to "our conference is good so we should be rewarded for mediocrity due to our proximity to said good teams and not winning games."

[IrishDawg]

For all the talk of changes to RPI, the easiest and fairest change to the system is: you must have a winning record in conference play to be eligible for an at-large bid. Simple, fair, sets a baseline standard that is universal and clear. If you can't win 10 of the 18 games in your conference, you have no plausible case to make that you should be in the field ahead of teams who met that very low bar. I don't give a crap how good your conference is -- at a certain point, you must win games.


I've yet to see a credible argument from P5 fans defending the ability to garner an at large with a .500 league record or worse that doesn't boil down to "our conference is good so we should be rewarded for mediocrity due to our proximity to said good teams and not winning games."

You're welcome to that opinion, and it's one that is common among fans of programs in mid-major leagues.

FWIW, by most predictive analytics (which ignores scheduling unlike the RPI), Loyola was ranked around 40th prior to the tournament.  In the Big 12, that would have put them 8th, which means they likely would not have had a winning record.

This is why power leagues still get the benefit of the doubt.  When your entire league is better than all but maybe one school in a mid-major league, the difference in your opponent on a nightly basis is very, very real.  The goal of the selection committee should be to get the best 68 teams in the field once the auto-bids have been decided.  Giving it to a team like Saint Mary's because they had a better conference record against weaker opponents (8 games against teams ranked in the 200s, and only 4 games against teams in the top 100) may make people feel better, but a better record (which is what RPI relied a lot upon) doesn't automatically make for a better team.  3 Sweet 16 teams and 1 Elite Eight team in this year's tourney would have kept out of the tournament under your proposal.

I'm not saying that performance shouldn't matter, because even the predictive models are based on the results of the games themselves, but there is such a massive gulf between the top 6 leagues and everyone else that conference records aren't comparable.

[4throwfan]

One repercussion of requiring a winning record for an at-large bid is that it could force middling P5 schools to abandon scheduling against OOC teams that could result in a loss.  This could make scheduling for high mid-majors even more difficult.  For example, if the Illini view themselves as mid-pack in conference, then they may refuse a game in Chicago against Loyola at the United Center.  Probably not common, but yet another headwind.

[EddieCabot]

For all the talk of changes to RPI, the easiest and fairest change to the system is: you must have a winning record in conference play to be eligible for an at-large bid. Simple, fair, sets a baseline standard that is universal and clear. If you can't win 10 of the 18 games in your conference, you have no plausible case to make that you should be in the field ahead of teams who met that very low bar. I don't give a crap how good your conference is -- at a certain point, you must win games.


I've yet to see a credible argument from P5 fans defending the ability to garner an at large with a .500 league record or worse that doesn't boil down to "our conference is good so we should be rewarded for mediocrity due to our proximity to said good teams and not winning games."

I see where  you're going, but I think you need to consider out of conference games also.  A team that starts 13-0 against a very good non-con schedule, then goes 9-9 in the best league in the country (B12 last year) would be ranked high in every metric, and IMO, should be eligible for the tournament.

Maybe a better way to make the selection process more fair would be to use a quota system designed to reward the best conferences while still providing opportunities to lesser teams who are often overlooked on Selection Sunday.  It could work like this:

Top 5 conferences - 4 teams each = 20
Conferences 6-10   - 3 teams each = 15
Conferences 11-15 - 2 teams each = 10
Conferences 16-32 - 1 team each = 17
"Wild Card" =                                 6  (would allow for "exceptional" teams above and beyond the quotas listed to be included)

Total Teams =                        68

By limiting bids to the top conferences and mandating a minimum number of participants from conferences 6 to 15, the NCAA tournament would immediately become more diverse and inclusive, providing opportunities for schools facing obstacles (like finances/fan base) not faced by the Power 5 schools.

[FWalum]

This is why power leagues still get the benefit of the doubt.  When your entire league is better than all but maybe one school in a mid-major league, the difference in your opponent on a nightly basis is very, very real.  The goal of the selection committee should be to get the best 68 teams in the field once the auto-bids have been decided.  Giving it to a team like Saint Mary's because they had a better conference record against weaker opponents (8 games against teams ranked in the 200s, and only 4 games against teams in the top 100) may make people feel better, but a better record (which is what RPI relied a lot upon) doesn't automatically make for a better team.  3 Sweet 16 teams and 1 Elite Eight team in this year's tourney would have kept out of the tournament under your proposal.

Here is the main fallacy in your observation, there would be less of a need for the subjective review and selection of teams if the Power Leagues would be less incestuous and more willing to play Mid Majors on neutral courts or actual away games.  Giving bids to Power League teams that have not played any significant teams in an away situation other than teams in their own league is not a way to truly measure the worthiness of teams.  Who is to say that deserving Mid Majors, who did not make the tournament, could not have advanced to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8, especially if they were not burdened with low seeds because marginal Power League teams were given higher seeds.  Do you really think that Loyola, the best team in the 8th ranked conference deserved to be an 11 seed?  The "metrics" are clearly wrong because those being judged are not all playing under the same circumstances.