Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #21
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 01:07 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 11:54 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 11:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think nothing major changes. Only thing I can see is maybe another incremental creep in bracket size, like maybe from 68 to 72.

IMO, the public, the entity that makes the tournament worth a billion dollars, doesn't want significant changes.

Plus, there would likely be political issues if any efforts were made to downgrade the HBCU conferences like the SWAC and MEAC. In fact, all the trends in college athletics these days are to elevate these conferences, e.g. some P5 leagues signing scheduling deals with HBCU conferences.

And if you can't kick the SWAC down, you can't kick similar-level conferences down either.

I think it likely that the SWAC and MEAC would basically provide protection for other D1 conferences of similar level.

The political issues are deeper than the treatment of HBCUs. Cutting off more than half of current division 1 schools from tournament access is *clearly* anticompetitive behavior, and would probably spur Congress to act.

Eh, I'm not sure any conference has a legal right to be included in a tournament.

Maybe from the standpoint of kicking them out of an NCAA tournament if they remain members in good standing of the NCAA. But IMO the schools that want to form the elite tournament could just break away and form another league, outside the NCAA and leave some conferences behind.

So I think the HBCU issue is more important. Not that what I think matters, LOL.

No group of conferences has the right to form a cartel and put a stranglehold on college basketball (without an antitrust exemption). If there were two tournaments with comparable legitimacy, that would be a different issue. But this is not that.

To me, this is akin to when the issue of a "P5 breakaway" from the NCAA comes up, some say that this would violate anti-trust laws.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how. No entity has the right to piggyback on the brand value of another, and if someone says "well, the P5 event would be viewed as legitimate while the leftbehind G5 event would not", then if that's true it is IMO because the P5 event has high-brand schools and the G5 event does not, and there's nothing I can see that is legally wrong with that. The P5 schools aren't obligated to share their brand value with others.

Plus, cartels are usually about forcing others to join, not breaking away. E.g., from 1981-1984, the CFA, a group of the 65 or so most elite football schools, wanted to break away from the NCAA TV deal. The NCAA wanted to force them to remain in the larger group. The federal courts ruled it was the effort by the NCAA to keep the elite schools in the big NCAA TV contract that was anti-competitive, not the elite group wanting to break away and set up their own TV deal.

So IMO the same would apply to say the top 10 hoops conferences leaving and setting up their own event.

Now, if the elite P5 group did things to try and stifle the leftbehind G5 event, like try to convince arenas not to host their events, or cajole TV networks in to not televising the G5 event, then those would be anti-competitive actions.

BTW, I view all this as theoretical, because I don't see any hoops breakaway happening. IMO, the tourney will remain basically as it is. That's what the public wants. It wants Belmont vs Duke, Texas Stovepipe State vs Florida, etc. at least in the early rounds.

You don't try to modify a goose that lays golden eggs into a chicken, or even an eagle, IMO. Just let it be a goose and lay those eggs.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2022 01:41 PM by quo vadis.)
01-23-2022 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Scoochpooch1 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,331
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 125
I Root For: P4
Location:
Post: #22
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 10:40 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Based on comments made by Greg Sankey regarding championship access, comments made by the NABC about wanting college basketball to have more autonomy (similar to football), and Matt Brown's podcast referencing potential changes to the AQ status of the NCAA tournament, I will present three possible changes that I could see happening.

1) Division 1 basketball splits into 1-A and 1-AA like football. It will not be along football lines. If basketball is autonomous, it will be along basketball lines. 1-A will still have a 68-team March Madness with AQs for the leagues that make the cut. 1-AA will have the new 64-team NIT as its championship.

Leagues that have a good chance of making the cut:
ACC
Big East
Big 10
Big 12
Pac-12
SEC
AAC
Atlantic 10
Missouri Valley
Mountain West
WCC

League that could get in if it makes enough noise:
Ivy League

The last eight teams in the tournament would now be at-larges. Every conference champion would be guaranteed to play in the first round.

2) The NCAA introduces a merit system for AQs. Only the conference champions of the top 24 leagues get an auto bid. The other 8 league champs could still get in as at-larges. It would be based on the current years Sagarin or Massey conference rankings.

The current bottom 8 leagues are:
Ohio Valley
America East
Big South
Patriot
NEC
Southland
SWAC
MEAC

If this were to go through, I think you would see consolidation of leagues and certain programs that only joined Division 1 for the NCAA credits might rethink that decision.

3) The NCAA expands the tournament to 96 teams. This would allow more major conference teams to get in.

Like I said before, this makes too much sense to happen. People just want to be stuck watching the same crap over and over.

I have the bids for 2013-2021 in front of me. It would be a a close call which conferences would go forth. I think it would be less than you've selected.

Big East, ACC, B12, P12, B10, SEC have all had multiple bids each year with Pac-12 at lowest with only 2 in 2018.

WCC - nor more than 2 and I believe that's mainly due to BYU, with them leaving this will be a tough call. Plus Gonzaga should almost be forced to leave at this point anyway.

A10 - high of 6 in 2014 to roughly 2 each season now. I would include them but they have been struggling recently.

MVC - 2 bids last year but only 1 the previous 3 years. Losing WSU, Creighton, and L-C has/will hurt but maybe Belmont and Murray State will help. Let's see if they still only get 1 bid in 2023.

AAC - usually anywhere between 2-4. Losing Cincinnati and Houston isn't going to help their case. I think this is another wait and see once they leave.

MWC - from a high of 5 in 2013 to usually 2 (only 1 in 16 and 17). I would keep them.

OVC - always one except 2019, loss of Belmont and Murray State means there's no way they can be considered here.

Not counting Ivy but including AAC for now, that puts the total under 140 schools which is definitely solid.

You could probably make the Tournament 48 teams now. The P6 getting roughly 6 per each conference and then 2x for the Next 5 brings us to 46 teams. We can figure out the next 2 - Ivy and ?

Much better system, much better Tournament.
01-23-2022 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Milwaukee Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,787
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 212
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #23
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 10:40 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Based on comments made by Greg Sankey regarding championship access, comments made by the NABC about wanting college basketball to have more autonomy (similar to football), and Matt Brown's podcast referencing potential changes to the AQ status of the NCAA tournament, I will present three possible changes that I could see happening.

1) Division 1 basketball splits into 1-A and 1-AA like football. It will not be along football lines. If basketball is autonomous, it will be along basketball lines. 1-A will still have a 68-team March Madness with AQs for the leagues that make the cut. 1-AA will have the new 64-team NIT as its championship.

Leagues that have a good chance of making the cut:
ACC
Big East
Big 10
Big 12
Pac-12
SEC
AAC
Atlantic 10
Missouri Valley
Mountain West
WCC

That stinks!

You know why? Because a bunch of teams like Abilene Christian and Oral Roberts and North Texas just proved last March that they can beat teams from the top tier conferences.

Further, they're not alone. Teams from less prestigious conferences have been upsetting power conference teams since the first NCAA tournament in 1939.

Moreover, those upsets are what make the NCAA tournament as compelling and fascinating as it is. What some are proposing to do with the NCAA tournament is the theme of the story of "The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs."

In the story, there was once a goose that laid golden eggs, making life better for all. However, foolish, greedy people in town thought that the goose must have a lot of gold inside her body, and so they killed her, only to find no gold, and never got another golden egg, as a result.

What Sankey and his foolish, crooked cohorts are trying to do is tantamount to killing the golden goose in the story, motivated by pure greed, thinking that they can get all the "gold" that way.

What they don't realize is that when you klll the golden goose, you gain nothing and lose all of the wealth that you were counting on.

.

The only justification for separating FCS from FBS was that it's not fair to have FCS teams playing FBS teams week in and week out, due to their much smaller rosters. It's a justification based on trying to prevent too many "body bag" games; i.e., too many young men sustaining severe, career-ending physical injuries.

That "fairness" argument doesn't apply to D1 basketball, and Sankey knows that!

Hopefully, all 27 of the non-P5 D1 conferences will oppose this travesty, this sham of a proposal.

.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2022 02:05 PM by Milwaukee.)
01-23-2022 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,271
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 108
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #24
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
I can't help but ask if Shizzle has an issue with UC Santa Barbara? Because we would make tge cut given our location and 19 sports offered
01-23-2022 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #25
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 01:21 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 11:00 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 10:49 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 10:45 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  68 teams in a new division 1 which sheds 70% of its members is not going to be a viable format.

Why not? That would be 68 teams out of 142. Less than half.

Assume the following bids:

ACC: 9
Big East: 8
Big 10: 10
Big 12: 8
Pac-12: 7
SEC: 9
AAC: 4
Atlantic 10: 4
Missouri Valley: 2
Mountain West: 4
WCC: 3

I suspect that the first two days (at least) become a lot less desireable for the casual viewer with the inclusion of sub-.500 teams largely replaying the types of matchups which dominated the final two months of the regular season.

Except that the games will actually count now. All games between Nov-March are pointless. Duke loses 2 games by 50 points to D2 schools, they are still getting in to the Tournament.

Not true at all. The reason those games dont matter has nothing to do with the NCAA tournament. Its because the conference regular season is nothing but a seeding mechanism for the end of year conference tournaments---which actually determine the auto-bids. It you want to make those conference games matter---then eliminate the conference tournaments and give the auto-bids to the regular season winner of each conference. But they arent going to do that because the post season tournament is a money maker for many of the conferences.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2022 02:27 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-23-2022 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shizzle787 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,212
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 103
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #26
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 02:03 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I can't help but ask if Shizzle has an issue with UC Santa Barbara? Because we would make tge cut given our location and 19 sports offered

Funny enough UCSB was the school I wanted to go for graduate school but they didn’t have my program.
01-23-2022 02:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Milwaukee Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,787
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 212
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #27
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
.

Worse, still, Sankey is proposing to condemn 20 of the D1 conferences to perpetual oblivion in a NIT conference that fewer people will watch.

In 1938 and 1939, the NIT was considered better than the NCAA. From 1940 to the mid-1950's, it was considered equally prestigious, according to many sources.

Then, the NCAA tournament organizers started to throw their weight around, and the NCAA pulled ahead, although even as late as 1970, there were outstanding teams that chose to play in the NIT, rather than in the NCAA tournament.

After 1970, the NCAA started adding at-large bids to prevent many power conference teams from playing in the NIT, but even that didn't satisfy them.

Finally, THEY BOUGHT the NIT outright, because only then could they alone dictate which teams played in which tournament.

In the process, they took a great, wonderful tournament, and made it what it is today - a second-tier tournament, still interesting and worthwhile, but just a shadow of its former self.

.

Now what they're proposing is to turn a NIT tournament that has lost much of its former relevance into a tournament that is almost completely irrelevant to 90% of college basketball fans.

The Presidents of the 270+ non-P5 universities and all of the conference commissioners should be outraged by Sankey's proposal. They should not only oppose the proposal in the NCAA convention, but in addition, they should file a class-action federal lawsuit to block it, because this proposal will cause them great harm if implemented.

That should include the Presidents of the non-P5 conferences (AAC, MWC, A-10, etc.) that would be included in a revamped NCAA basketball tournament, as well.

Why? For two reasons:

First, they should oppose it on principle because it is so unfair and so harmful to the 20 other D1 conferences, and because it has no legitimate justification.

Second, they should oppose it because there is no evidence whatsoever that they will stop being screwed over by the NCAA selection committees just as badly as they've been screwed over for the past 50 years.

This is a NCAA selection system that has disenfranchised the non-P5 conferences systematically, taking more and more of the at-large bids and handing them over to the P5 conferences.

In 2010, there were almost as many non-P5 at-large teams as there were P5 at-large teams.

Not any more! Last year, there were only 8 non-P5 at-large teams and 29 P5 at-large teams. This was no accident. The P5 conferences have grabbed more and more of those bids every year.

There are P5 supporters who have had the unremitting gall to demand that all of the at-large bids to go to the P5 teams.

I hope the AAC and MWC and other conferences offer them a few ideas about where they can put this proposal, and tell them to get lost.

Let the P5 conferences hold their own tournament. If the AAC, MWC, A-10 etc. stay on with the 20 other conferences, the NCAA tournament will go on very successfully.

WHAT SANKEY IS ASKING THE AAC, MWC, ET AL. TO DO IS TO COLLUDE WITH THEM.

They should give a clear and unequivocal answer: "We Shall Not."

Screw 'em. Let the P5 set up their own football league too.

If ESPN/Disney didn't think that the G5 conferences could function successfully, even they were to end up playing in a league of their own, they never would have committed to spending billions to broadcast their games years and years from now.

.
01-23-2022 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 314
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 30
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #28
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 01:21 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 11:00 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 10:49 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 10:45 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  68 teams in a new division 1 which sheds 70% of its members is not going to be a viable format.

Why not? That would be 68 teams out of 142. Less than half.

Assume the following bids:

ACC: 9
Big East: 8
Big 10: 10
Big 12: 8
Pac-12: 7
SEC: 9
AAC: 4
Atlantic 10: 4
Missouri Valley: 2
Mountain West: 4
WCC: 3

I suspect that the first two days (at least) become a lot less desireable for the casual viewer with the inclusion of sub-.500 teams largely replaying the types of matchups which dominated the final two months of the regular season.

Except that the games will actually count now. All games between Nov-March are pointless. Duke loses 2 games by 50 points to D2 schools, they are still getting in to the Tournament.

In what way will they "actually count"? The proposed format will result in, say, St John's or Colorado making the tournament with a 13-17 record.
01-23-2022 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #29
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 01:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 01:07 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 11:54 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 11:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think nothing major changes. Only thing I can see is maybe another incremental creep in bracket size, like maybe from 68 to 72.

IMO, the public, the entity that makes the tournament worth a billion dollars, doesn't want significant changes.

Plus, there would likely be political issues if any efforts were made to downgrade the HBCU conferences like the SWAC and MEAC. In fact, all the trends in college athletics these days are to elevate these conferences, e.g. some P5 leagues signing scheduling deals with HBCU conferences.

And if you can't kick the SWAC down, you can't kick similar-level conferences down either.

I think it likely that the SWAC and MEAC would basically provide protection for other D1 conferences of similar level.

The political issues are deeper than the treatment of HBCUs. Cutting off more than half of current division 1 schools from tournament access is *clearly* anticompetitive behavior, and would probably spur Congress to act.

Eh, I'm not sure any conference has a legal right to be included in a tournament.

Maybe from the standpoint of kicking them out of an NCAA tournament if they remain members in good standing of the NCAA. But IMO the schools that want to form the elite tournament could just break away and form another league, outside the NCAA and leave some conferences behind.

So I think the HBCU issue is more important. Not that what I think matters, LOL.

No group of conferences has the right to form a cartel and put a stranglehold on college basketball (without an antitrust exemption). If there were two tournaments with comparable legitimacy, that would be a different issue. But this is not that.

To me, this is akin to when the issue of a "P5 breakaway" from the NCAA comes up, some say that this would violate anti-trust laws.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how. No entity has the right to piggyback on the brand value of another, and if someone says "well, the P5 event would be viewed as legitimate while the leftbehind G5 event would not", then if that's true it is IMO because the P5 event has high-brand schools and the G5 event does not, and there's nothing I can see that is legally wrong with that. The P5 schools aren't obligated to share their brand value with others.

Plus, cartels are usually about forcing others to join, not breaking away. E.g., from 1981-1984, the CFA, a group of the 65 or so most elite football schools, wanted to break away from the NCAA TV deal. The NCAA wanted to force them to remain in the larger group. The federal courts ruled it was the effort by the NCAA to keep the elite schools in the big NCAA TV contract that was anti-competitive, not the elite group wanting to break away and set up their own TV deal.

So IMO the same would apply to say the top 10 hoops conferences leaving and setting up their own event.

Now, if the elite P5 group did things to try and stifle the leftbehind G5 event, like try to convince arenas not to host their events, or cajole TV networks in to not televising the G5 event, then those would be anti-competitive actions.

BTW, I view all this as theoretical, because I don't see any hoops breakaway happening. IMO, the tourney will remain basically as it is. That's what the public wants. It wants Belmont vs Duke, Texas Stovepipe State vs Florida, etc. at least in the early rounds.

You don't try to modify a goose that lays golden eggs into a chicken, or even an eagle, IMO. Just let it be a goose and lay those eggs.

Pretty well said. Much like you can't force conferences to admit a particular school. There is freedom of association.
01-23-2022 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #30
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 01:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 01:07 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 11:54 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 11:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think nothing major changes. Only thing I can see is maybe another incremental creep in bracket size, like maybe from 68 to 72.

IMO, the public, the entity that makes the tournament worth a billion dollars, doesn't want significant changes.

Plus, there would likely be political issues if any efforts were made to downgrade the HBCU conferences like the SWAC and MEAC. In fact, all the trends in college athletics these days are to elevate these conferences, e.g. some P5 leagues signing scheduling deals with HBCU conferences.

And if you can't kick the SWAC down, you can't kick similar-level conferences down either.

I think it likely that the SWAC and MEAC would basically provide protection for other D1 conferences of similar level.

The political issues are deeper than the treatment of HBCUs. Cutting off more than half of current division 1 schools from tournament access is *clearly* anticompetitive behavior, and would probably spur Congress to act.

Eh, I'm not sure any conference has a legal right to be included in a tournament.

Maybe from the standpoint of kicking them out of an NCAA tournament if they remain members in good standing of the NCAA. But IMO the schools that want to form the elite tournament could just break away and form another league, outside the NCAA and leave some conferences behind.

So I think the HBCU issue is more important. Not that what I think matters, LOL.

No group of conferences has the right to form a cartel and put a stranglehold on college basketball (without an antitrust exemption). If there were two tournaments with comparable legitimacy, that would be a different issue. But this is not that.

To me, this is akin to when the issue of a "P5 breakaway" from the NCAA comes up, some say that this would violate anti-trust laws.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how. No entity has the right to piggyback on the brand value of another, and if someone says "well, the P5 event would be viewed as legitimate while the leftbehind G5 event would not", then if that's true it is IMO because the P5 event has high-brand schools and the G5 event does not, and there's nothing I can see that is legally wrong with that. The P5 schools aren't obligated to share their brand value with others.

Plus, cartels are usually about forcing others to join, not breaking away. E.g., from 1981-1984, the CFA, a group of the 65 or so most elite football schools, wanted to break away from the NCAA TV deal. The NCAA wanted to force them to remain in the larger group. The federal courts ruled it was the effort by the NCAA to keep the elite schools in the big NCAA TV contract that was anti-competitive, not the elite group wanting to break away and set up their own TV deal.

So IMO the same would apply to say the top 10 hoops conferences leaving and setting up their own event.

Now, if the elite P5 group did things to try and stifle the leftbehind G5 event, like try to convince arenas not to host their events, or cajole TV networks in to not televising the G5 event, then those would be anti-competitive actions.

BTW, I view all this as theoretical, because I don't see any hoops breakaway happening. IMO, the tourney will remain basically as it is. That's what the public wants. It wants Belmont vs Duke, Texas Stovepipe State vs Florida, etc. at least in the early rounds.

You don't try to modify a goose that lays golden eggs into a chicken, or even an eagle, IMO. Just let it be a goose and lay those eggs.

Id be careful there. The NCAA was going to kick Oklahoma out of the NCAA if they signed a separate deal. Citing right to free association, the NCAA said that was their right. Oklahoma argued that there was no other organization that would be a reasonable competitior to the opportunities in the NCAA top division---thus barring them from membership amounted to an unfair anti-competitive action on the part of the NCAA. The courts agreed with Oklahoma on that point. I suspect the best bet would be to create substantive objective criteria for membership that would hold up in court as existing for competitive balance reasons. Thus, budget, number of sports sponsored, and certain minimum compensation levels for players/staff would be criteria that might make sense in that arena. Such criteria could at least limit the number of schools that could reasonably petition for admittance.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2022 02:39 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-23-2022 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #31
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 02:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 01:21 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 11:00 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 10:49 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 10:45 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  68 teams in a new division 1 which sheds 70% of its members is not going to be a viable format.

Why not? That would be 68 teams out of 142. Less than half.

Assume the following bids:

ACC: 9
Big East: 8
Big 10: 10
Big 12: 8
Pac-12: 7
SEC: 9
AAC: 4
Atlantic 10: 4
Missouri Valley: 2
Mountain West: 4
WCC: 3

I suspect that the first two days (at least) become a lot less desireable for the casual viewer with the inclusion of sub-.500 teams largely replaying the types of matchups which dominated the final two months of the regular season.

Except that the games will actually count now. All games between Nov-March are pointless. Duke loses 2 games by 50 points to D2 schools, they are still getting in to the Tournament.

Not true at all. The reason those games dont matter has nothing to do with the NCAA tournament. Its because the conference regular season is nothing but a seeding mechanism for the end of year conference tournaments---which actually determine the auto-bids. It you want to make those conference games matter---then eliminate the conference tournaments and give the auto-bids to the regular season winner of each conference. But they arent going to do that because the post season tournament is a money maker for many of the conferences.
Well if you finish in the top half of the 6 main conferences you get in the tourney, so that also detracts from the regular season.
01-23-2022 02:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cyniclone Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,302
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 813
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #32
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
What if this circle was a triangle made out of poop?
01-23-2022 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,176
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #33
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
Frankly a split, if it happens, will come down to power. The Autonomous conferences will all move forward. And that means their own post season tournament. The Big East almost certainly be invited to join. Others like the American will try. But not every school in the new American, nor every school in the MWC, and certainly not every school in the MVC, A10 or WCC will be willing to play by the same rules and level as the autonomous schools. So it's hard to see those conferences included.

A breakaway is likely to just be the 6 major conferences, with their own tournament. There wont be any automatic berths for Conference champions beyond their own. Anyone else getting in will be as an individual school. The talent and the money say that is how it will split.

"Making the cut" would mean your conference gets an automatic qualifier. But I do not see any chance that gets extended by an Autonomous group breakaway beyond their own members and the Big East. Everyone else would have to get in their tournament as an at-large. That is not "making the cut."
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2022 03:45 PM by Stugray2.)
01-23-2022 03:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #34
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 01:16 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 10:52 AM)danieldemer Wrote:  Separating D1 basketball into two divisions would ruin any interest I have in March Madness.

AQs for every conference is a *good* thing.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

It would be too good and make too much sense to happen.

I'm sure you are not alone in feeling this way. I also believe you would be part of a small minority.

Some people believe that casual fans are interested in the tournament because they want to see Podunk U have a chance (however remote) to beat Duke, or Kentucky or Kansas. I believe instead that they are interested for two reasons: they want to see if a #16 seed can beat a #1 seed and they want to be part of their office (or some other group's) bracket pool because it fosters a sense of belonging. I don't think they care if #16 has a Massey rating of 90 or 250. In fact, many casual fans who join their office pool don't even know who some of these teams are or where they are located.

My interest wouldn't be reduced in the slightest if the field were expanded to 80 with the top 48 seeds (without special treatment for conference champs) getting a bye into the Thursday/Friday round. In that scenario, the #20 seeds would be playing the #13 seeds on Tuesday/Wednesday. Then teams from the bottom 20 conferences would have a decent chance of actually winning a tournament game and advancing. Those who do win will still be cinderellas, and the casual fan won't know the difference.
01-23-2022 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,271
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 108
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #35
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 02:29 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 02:03 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I can't help but ask if Shizzle has an issue with UC Santa Barbara? Because we would make the cut given our location and 19 sports offered

Funny enough UCSB was the school I wanted to go for graduate school but they didn’t have my program.

That explains it.
01-23-2022 03:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #36
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 10:45 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  68 teams in a new division 1 which sheds 70% of its members is not going to be a viable format.

The field would have no reason to be at 68 in that case. It would go back to 64 teams.

Unless its a P5 split then the tournament would have to be no bigger than 32.
01-23-2022 03:18 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #37
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 10:40 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Based on comments made by Greg Sankey regarding championship access, comments made by the NABC about wanting college basketball to have more autonomy (similar to football), and Matt Brown's podcast referencing potential changes to the AQ status of the NCAA tournament, I will present three possible changes that I could see happening.

One of the problems in the 1 bids leagues is that its generally 3 schools that are competitive D1 and the remainder are operating DII like programs.

The only non-FBS conference that top to bottom deserves inclusion in a new top division of D1 basketball is the BE. Programs like Gonzaga, Dayton, VCU are going to have to latch on to G5 conferences to have a chance at the top level.
01-23-2022 03:28 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #38
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 10:40 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Based on comments made by Greg Sankey regarding championship access, comments made by the NABC about wanting college basketball to have more autonomy (similar to football), and Matt Brown's podcast referencing potential changes to the AQ status of the NCAA tournament, I will present three possible changes that I could see happening.

1) Division 1 basketball splits into 1-A and 1-AA like football. It will not be along football lines. If basketball is autonomous, it will be along basketball lines. 1-A will still have a 68-team March Madness with AQs for the leagues that make the cut. 1-AA will have the new 64-team NIT as its championship.

Leagues that have a good chance of making the cut:
ACC
Big East
Big 10
Big 12
Pac-12
SEC
AAC
Atlantic 10
Missouri Valley
Mountain West
WCC

League that could get in if it makes enough noise:
Ivy League

The last eight teams in the tournament would now be at-larges. Every conference champion would be guaranteed to play in the first round.

2) The NCAA introduces a merit system for AQs. Only the conference champions of the top 24 leagues get an auto bid. The other 8 league champs could still get in as at-larges. It would be based on the current years Sagarin or Massey conference rankings.

The current bottom 8 leagues are:
Ohio Valley
America East
Big South
Patriot
NEC
Southland
SWAC
MEAC

If this were to go through, I think you would see consolidation of leagues and certain programs that only joined Division 1 for the NCAA credits might rethink that decision.

3) The NCAA expands the tournament to 96 teams. This would allow more major conference teams to get in.


It will be along the lines of football.

ACC
Big 10
Big 12
Pac 12
SEC
AAC
CUSA
MAC
MWC
SBC
Big Sky
MVFC
And insert certain FCS football schools here. Football is the factor because the basketball schools don't have football.

Big East, A10, MVC and WCC don't sponsor football. If it go along football? You might see pressure be put on Villanova to upgrade to an FBS conference for all sports and join the ACC. Might see some schools out west start adding football to be up there.
01-23-2022 03:54 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #39
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 02:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 01:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 01:07 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 11:54 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  The political issues are deeper than the treatment of HBCUs. Cutting off more than half of current division 1 schools from tournament access is *clearly* anticompetitive behavior, and would probably spur Congress to act.

Eh, I'm not sure any conference has a legal right to be included in a tournament.

Maybe from the standpoint of kicking them out of an NCAA tournament if they remain members in good standing of the NCAA. But IMO the schools that want to form the elite tournament could just break away and form another league, outside the NCAA and leave some conferences behind.

So I think the HBCU issue is more important. Not that what I think matters, LOL.

No group of conferences has the right to form a cartel and put a stranglehold on college basketball (without an antitrust exemption). If there were two tournaments with comparable legitimacy, that would be a different issue. But this is not that.

To me, this is akin to when the issue of a "P5 breakaway" from the NCAA comes up, some say that this would violate anti-trust laws.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how. No entity has the right to piggyback on the brand value of another, and if someone says "well, the P5 event would be viewed as legitimate while the leftbehind G5 event would not", then if that's true it is IMO because the P5 event has high-brand schools and the G5 event does not, and there's nothing I can see that is legally wrong with that. The P5 schools aren't obligated to share their brand value with others.

Plus, cartels are usually about forcing others to join, not breaking away. E.g., from 1981-1984, the CFA, a group of the 65 or so most elite football schools, wanted to break away from the NCAA TV deal. The NCAA wanted to force them to remain in the larger group. The federal courts ruled it was the effort by the NCAA to keep the elite schools in the big NCAA TV contract that was anti-competitive, not the elite group wanting to break away and set up their own TV deal.

So IMO the same would apply to say the top 10 hoops conferences leaving and setting up their own event.

Now, if the elite P5 group did things to try and stifle the leftbehind G5 event, like try to convince arenas not to host their events, or cajole TV networks in to not televising the G5 event, then those would be anti-competitive actions.

BTW, I view all this as theoretical, because I don't see any hoops breakaway happening. IMO, the tourney will remain basically as it is. That's what the public wants. It wants Belmont vs Duke, Texas Stovepipe State vs Florida, etc. at least in the early rounds.

You don't try to modify a goose that lays golden eggs into a chicken, or even an eagle, IMO. Just let it be a goose and lay those eggs.

Id be careful there. The NCAA was going to kick Oklahoma out of the NCAA if they signed a separate deal. Citing right to free association, the NCAA said that was their right. Oklahoma argued that there was no other organization that would be a reasonable competitior to the opportunities in the NCAA top division---thus barring them from membership amounted to an unfair anti-competitive action on the part of the NCAA. The courts agreed with Oklahoma on that point. I suspect the best bet would be to create substantive objective criteria for membership that would hold up in court as existing for competitive balance reasons. Thus, budget, number of sports sponsored, and certain minimum compensation levels for players/staff would be criteria that might make sense in that arena. Such criteria could at least limit the number of schools that could reasonably petition for admittance.

That's a good point, but my understanding of that case - which might be very faulty - was that it wasn't the NCAA's threatened boycott against Oklahoma that was problematic per se, it was what the point of the threatened boycott was - to support what the court determined to be a price-fixing and restraint of trade regime.

Also, the NCAA wasn't actually trying to 'get rid' of Oklahoma, it was threatening that to try and compel them to associate with the NCAA, to participate in the NCAA price-fixing deal. I'm not sure what the parallel would be between that and the P5 leaving the NCAA for its own organization. In that case, the P5 wouldn't be threatening the G5 to get them to bend to their will, like participate in a cartel. To the contrary, they would be doing the opposite, seeking to get away from them.

I also don't think there would be an objective test established, because if that happened, undesirables might very well do what they have to to meet it, which would undermine the goal of membership. It's like if you want to have a party at your house with only certain guests, you wouldn't advertise it publicly with objective criteria, because some people you don't want in your house might meet the criteria.

Anyway, as I said, this is all IMO theoretical, because I think that once the P5 were granted autonomy, they have had no desire to break away from the G5. IMO, the existence of the G5 is useful to the P5. I mean, if you are Alabama, you want games against lesser teams. If a school like USA or UAB is willing to sock its students with $25m in fees each year for the privilege of being in the same division for you to play OOC, well, that's alright with you, I imagine.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2022 10:21 PM by quo vadis.)
01-23-2022 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #40
RE: How Division 1 college basketball could change going forward
(01-23-2022 03:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 01:16 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-23-2022 10:52 AM)danieldemer Wrote:  Separating D1 basketball into two divisions would ruin any interest I have in March Madness.

AQs for every conference is a *good* thing.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

It would be too good and make too much sense to happen.

I'm sure you are not alone in feeling this way. I also believe you would be part of a small minority.

Some people believe that casual fans are interested in the tournament because they want to see Podunk U have a chance (however remote) to beat Duke, or Kentucky or Kansas. I believe instead that they are interested for two reasons: they want to see if a #16 seed can beat a #1 seed and they want to be part of their office (or some other group's) bracket pool because it fosters a sense of belonging. I don't think they care if #16 has a Massey rating of 90 or 250. In fact, many casual fans who join their office pool don't even know who some of these teams are or where they are located.

My interest wouldn't be reduced in the slightest if the field were expanded to 80 with the top 48 seeds (without special treatment for conference champs) getting a bye into the Thursday/Friday round. In that scenario, the #20 seeds would be playing the #13 seeds on Tuesday/Wednesday. Then teams from the bottom 20 conferences would have a decent chance of actually winning a tournament game and advancing. Those who do win will still be cinderellas, and the casual fan won't know the difference.

I don't pay much attention to most of the first round. 1 16 seed has ever won. 9 15 seeds have won and only 1 won in the 2nd round. There are only 22 of 122 14 seeds to win and only 2 won in the 2nd round and only 1 in the 3rd.
01-23-2022 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.