Expansion

[houstontxbrave]

Remember, this is the NCAA talking about wanting to expand, not the individual power conferences.

I don't think the NCAA cares who the extra 32 teams are. I think they feel they'll get the same revenue no matter who they are.



Back to that .500 conference record thing......2 things:

1) If a conference has a really big year, you're actually punishing it by having teams good enough that won't qualify. Yes, we all know about the mid-major injustices, but there can be power conference injustices too. Just because mid majors get screwed doesn't mean majors should get screwed too.

2) The Law of Unintended Consequences. If we set that rule, you're going to basically give a free pass to EVERY team that finishes at .500 or better to the NCAA tournament. All of a sudden, Virginia Tech and their flaky 10-6 mark get a free pass and gets them heralded. You know, VT's 5 opponents they played twice were the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th best teams in the ACC? Several ACC members went 9-7 in league play, and their 9-7 was more impressive than VT's 10-6.

The point being, banning all sub-.500 teams actually means letting in every .500 team or better, which actually means MORE power conference teams get in.

TAS you seriously believe that the NCAA does not care who the other 32 teams are? Last year didnt a 16-14 or there about Arizona team make the field?

I look at the NCAA as the mouthpiece for ESPN, period. NCAA might not care so to speak but I guarantee you ESPN does, hence the NCAA cares.

VTech weren't they even this season a bubble team?

My bottom line is I think the NCAA is only expanding because it sees more revenue with more games... but thats not more UC Santa Barbara v Detroit. Its more games involving BCS schools with wide appeal, alumini bases and money. Advertisiers love more viewers and a game with NC State regardless of who they are playing will be better on the ratings then that UCSB v Detroit game.

[TheAsianSensation]

TAS you seriously believe that the NCAA does not care who the other 32 teams are? Last year didnt a 16-14 or there about Arizona team make the field?

I look at the NCAA as the mouthpiece for ESPN, period. NCAA might not care so to speak but I guarantee you ESPN does, hence the NCAA cares.

VTech weren't they even this season a bubble team?

My bottom line is I think the NCAA is only expanding because it sees more revenue with more games... but thats not more UC Santa Barbara v Detroit. Its more games involving BCS schools with wide appeal, alumini bases and money. Advertisiers love more viewers and a game with NC State regardless of who they are playing will be better on the ratings then that UCSB v Detroit game.

I honestly believe they think the revenue is coming no matter who plays. In fact, more potential Cinderella stories. They think the presence of the additional games in themselves will pull in the dough. Who plays in it is irrelevant. Or, it is relevant, but it isn't a deciding factor whatsoever.

[real fan]

It is going to happen because of revenue, because games are televised regionally it should not matter what teams get in as there will be a lot of interest in the regions these teams come from, I only hope they have more criteria to go from in that conf. champions should be automatic and you need to have an above 500 record in your conference.

[BUfan14]

Who wants to watch a possible 1/24 matchup or a 2/23 matchup?

Had time to think about this today, and I realize this wouldn't happen. the 1 seed would play the winner of the 16/17 matchup I assume? So I was wrong. This could create the first 16/17 seed over a 1 seed ever. One seeds will be playing what are now bubble teams like Illinois and Miss. St. rather than a low major conference winner. That means a 1 seed could actually not win a single game in this format. They are still likely to win, but it is more possible for them to lose. Interesting. I'm still not for it.

[SFP]

Thats BS...


They will now try to justify inviting 10-12 Big East teams and 10 ACC teams and blah blah blah...


Everything is about the money and making the BCS happy...


Frankly its just garbage because I could care less about watching the 9th Big East team face the 7th ACC team in the first round...

That will not happen because it will be a 1st place mid against a 3rd place mid. The 9th place BCS team will play a 4th place mid!

Frankly I could be OK with the expansion but the seeding is my biggest concern. If this year is any indication of the way they will seed then the mid-majors will enter the Tourney with a huge disadvantage from the get go. If they would have had the expansion this year, UNI would have had to play in the 1st round and it would have been the 3rd game in a week for them before they met Kansas.

[SaintLouBrave22]

Remember, this is the NCAA talking about wanting to expand, not the individual power conferences.

I don't think the NCAA cares who the extra 32 teams are. I think they feel they'll get the same revenue no matter who they are.



Back to that .500 conference record thing......2 things:

1) If a conference has a really big year, you're actually punishing it by having teams good enough that won't qualify. Yes, we all know about the mid-major injustices, but there can be power conference injustices too. Just because mid majors get screwed doesn't mean majors should get screwed too.

2) The Law of Unintended Consequences. If we set that rule, you're going to basically give a free pass to EVERY team that finishes at .500 or better to the NCAA tournament. All of a sudden, Virginia Tech and their flaky 10-6 mark get a free pass and gets them heralded. You know, VT's 5 opponents they played twice were the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th best teams in the ACC? Several ACC members went 9-7 in league play, and their 9-7 was more impressive than VT's 10-6.

The point being, banning all sub-.500 teams actually means letting in every .500 team or better, which actually means MORE power conference teams get in.

#1- Once again, like I said, I don't care who you play, if you can't finish at better than half your teams in your conference, you don't deserve to get in...that would stop the whole 9 team entry in you have 16 teams and such...

There's absolutely no reason regardless of how strong your conf. is that a 7-9 team should get in, even if they win 20 games...who is to say that they didn't beat DePaul, South Florida, Cincinnati, and maybe 2 of the upper echelon teams...mediocre conference play should not be rewarded!

#2- If you read all my criteria, you'd see that VTech still wouldn't get in because of their out of conf RPI that I believe was in the 300's...so yeah, they're out. So no, 10-6 wouldn't help them AND 9-7 was fine...just no 8-8 or 7-9 and what not...

[TheAsianSensation]

#1- Once again, like I said, I don't care who you play, if you can't finish at better than half your teams in your conference, you don't deserve to get in...that would stop the whole 9 team entry in you have 16 teams and such...

There's absolutely no reason regardless of how strong your conf. is that a 7-9 team should get in, even if they win 20 games...who is to say that they didn't beat DePaul, South Florida, Cincinnati, and maybe 2 of the upper echelon teams...mediocre conference play should not be rewarded!

Ok, maybe they beat up on DePaul, Rutgers, whatever. Or they play Syracuse, WVU, and Pitt twice apiece and go 3-3 in those games. The point is that they are most likely going to be a weak 7-9.....but every once in awhile, there's going to be a strong 7-9, and you can't deny a strong 7-9 team by making a rule for all the weak 7-9 teams.

#2- If you read all my criteria, you'd see that VTech still wouldn't get in because of their out of conf RPI that I believe was in the 300's...so yeah, they're out. So no, 10-6 wouldn't help them AND 9-7 was fine...just no 8-8 or 7-9 and what not...

For this particular example, sure.



Actually, before I respond, I should make sure: Are you talking about this rule for conference records in a 65 team field or a 96 team field? It makes a difference.

[SaintLouBrave22]

Ok, maybe they beat up on DePaul, Rutgers, whatever. Or they play Syracuse, WVU, and Pitt twice apiece and go 3-3 in those games. The point is that they are most likely going to be a weak 7-9.....but every once in awhile, there's going to be a strong 7-9, and you can't deny a strong 7-9 team by making a rule for all the weak 7-9 teams.



For this particular example, sure.



Actually, before I respond, I should make sure: Are you talking about this rule for conference records in a 65 team field or a 96 team field? It makes a difference.

Well, personally I would make it criteria that say IF you meet all youre certainly in and then go from there with say 5/6 and then 4/6....and it really could mean either 65 or 96....


The point really is that there need to be set criteria established so that coaches and schools can not say any longer "well, we weren't really sure what we needed to do to be selected" and "if we knew we had to do X we would've scheduled that way"....

I am so beyond tired of that!

[TheAsianSensation]

Well, personally I would make it criteria that say IF you meet all youre certainly in and then go from there with say 5/6 and then 4/6....and it really could mean either 65 or 96....


The point really is that there need to be set criteria established so that coaches and schools can not say any longer "well, we weren't really sure what we needed to do to be selected" and "if we knew we had to do X we would've scheduled that way"....

I am so beyond tired of that!

I agree that there should be set criteria. Not necessarily to use in a rigid format as you suggest, but yes.

I just don't think conference record, just the raw conference record, is reliable enough to use one of the criteria. There's too much potential fluctuation that is out of control of the team involved.

And, to be fair, in a 96-team field, you can forget using a .500 conference record as a benchmark. Bradley would make that field in that case, while, in theory, an 8-10 Big East team would miss. I'm biased towards mid-majors as you all know, but even that scenario would be ludicrous.

[SaintLouBrave22]

And, to be fair, in a 96-team field, you can forget using a .500 conference record as a benchmark. Bradley would make that field in that case, while, in theory, an 8-10 Big East team would miss. I'm biased towards mid-majors as you all know, but even that scenario would be ludicrous.

No not necessarily...

Like I suggested, just because Bradley had their conf record, it doesn't mean they'd meet the other criteria...


AND then you have to rank all the teams 1- such and such before Bradley even would have a chance to get in...

[TheAsianSensation]

No not necessarily...

Like I suggested, just because Bradley had their conf record, it doesn't mean they'd meet the other criteria...


AND then you have to rank all the teams 1- such and such before Bradley even would have a chance to get in...

Hmm. Well, it'd depend on the other criteria and it could get messy.

Could work in the right hands. However, the NCAA, I'm relatively certain, are not the right hands

[Bravesfan]

Sorry if I sounded argumentative, didn't mean to.

I'm hoping the same thing!

Oh no, you didn't. Just was enthusiastically agreeing with you.

[Bravesfan]

I did this Selection Sunday, using my own projections:

1) Kansas (32-2), Kentucky (32-2), Syracuse (28-4), Duke (29-5)
2) West Virginia (27-6), Kansas St (25-7), Ohio St (27-7), Villanova (24-7)
3) New Mexico (29-4), Pittsburgh (24-8 ), Purdue (27-5), Temple (29-5)
4) Georgetown (23-10), Baylor (24-7), Tennessee (25-8 ), Wisconsin (23-8 )
5) Michigan St (24-8 ), Maryland (22-8 ), Vanderbilt (23-8 ), Texas A&M (22-9)
6) Butler (28-4), BYU (28-5), Richmond (26-8 ), Northern Iowa (28-4)
7) Xavier (24-8 ), Gonzaga (25-6), Texas (24-9), Marquette (22-11)
8 )San Diego St (23-8 ), Missouri (22-10), Clemson (21-10), Louisville (20-12)
9) Florida St (22-9), Oklahoma St (22-10), Old Dominion (26-8 ), Notre Dame (23-11)
10) St Mary's (25-5), Georgia Tech (21-12), Cornell (25-4), UNLV (24-8 )
11) Wake Forest (19-10), Washington (23-9), UTEP (26-6), California (23-10)
12) Siena (27-6), Utah St (26-7), Minnesota (21-13), Illinois (19-14)
13) Virginia Tech (23-8 ), Mississippi St (23-10), Florida (21-12), Seton Hall (19-12)
14) Arizona St (22-10), Mississippi (21-10), Wichita St (24-9), Rhode Island (23-9)
15) Memphis (23-9), New Mexico St (21-11), Kent St (22-9), UAB (23-8 )
16) Connecticut (17-15), Dayton (20-12), Murray St (28-4), William & Mary (21-10)
17) Cincinnati (18-15), Oakland (24-8 ), Wofford (25-8 ), St Louis (19-11)
18 )Northeastern (20-10), South Florida (20-12), Charlotte (19-12), Arizona (16-15)
19) Sam Houston St (21-7), Marshall (20-9), Houston (18-15), Illinois St (22-10)
20) Fairfield (22-10), Wright St (20-12), VCU (22-9), Northwestern (20-13)
21) Tulsa (22-11), Nevada (19-12), North Carolina (16-16), Creighton (16-15)
22) Portland (19-10), UC-Santa Barbara (19-9), Montana (20-9), Morgan St (27-9)
23) Ohio (20-14), North Texas (22-8 ), Vermont (25-9), Robert Morris (23-11)
24) East Tennessee St (19-14), Lehigh (22-10), Winthrop (17-13), Arkansas-Pine Bluff (17-15)


Last 4 in
Nevada
North Carolina
Creighton
Portland (team #85 on S-Curve)

Last 4 out
St John's
Akron
Green Bay
Louisiana Tech


Break it down!

Big East 12
ACC 8
Big 12 7
Big 10 7
A-10 7
CUSA 6
SEC 6
MWC 4
MVC 4
CAA 4
Pac 10 4
WCC 3
WAC 3
Horizon 2
MAAC 2
MAC 2

By percentage:
Big East 75% of league gets in
ACC 67% of league gets in
Big 10 63% of league gets in
Big 12 58% of league gets in
SEC 50% of league gets in
A-10 50% of league gets in
CUSA 50% of league gets in
MWC 44% of league gets in
Pac 10 40% of league gets in
MVC 40% of league gets in
WCC 38% of league gets in
WAC 33% of league gets in

Notice 2 things:

1) There's a spike at the top with the Big East, but the top ranked conference should expect to get 75%. It sounds worse saying "12 of 16" than "9 of 12", but those are EQUIVALENT. Remember that about the Big East specifically.
2) The best non-power conferences make big, big headway. 40% of the Valley. Half of the A-10 and CUSA. Look at those percentages.


Personally, I'm ok with those distributions. 1 top conference getting 75%. Two other top conferences getting over 60%. That's not as terrible as it sounds, actually.

Great analysis as usual TAS! It actually looks like a decent field in that only one team out of the bottom 12 to 15 conferences will make it in, which would be bad for them, but good for the top non-BCS conferences. I still worry about the selection committee getting the seedings right and the extra round of games. But it would still be a good field and entertaining to watch.