Split from the NCAA and form a new organization

[Vent]

Beating teams in the top 50 or even top 100 should be significant. In addition if you are playing more of those teams the chances of losing are going to be greater. The best thing mid majors can do is when they are given the opportunity to play a top 100 or top 50 team is to win. I don't know if Wichita had a win against a top 50 or 100 team going into the tournament. As for the selection and the seedings, you do realize the Power 5 conferences don't have a majority of members on the selection committee. The committee consisted of athletic directors from Kentucky, NC-Asheville, BYU, New Mexico, Stanford, Creighton, Northeastern, Ohio and Duke.

[MDCowboy]

Your points are both valid Vent about Top 50/Top 100 wins AND that the committee is represented by others and not just the Power 5. I can't explain everything, but it seems like the chairman has a lot of influence. I think the problem is that the criteria is not black and white. I have no issues if they make the criteria black and white and the Power 5 dominate the selections. What I don't like is having a sliding set of criteria where they change the criteria on a whim to benefit some schools like I believe they have done.

I personally think the higher-ups at the NCAA want nothing to do with a year like 2006 where you had a George Mason make the Final 4, and 4 MVC teams get in. That is a LOT of money not going to the Power 5. So the best way they can do things is to come up with criteria to favor the Power 5. The problem with Top 50/Top 100 is that there is no standard. There needs to be something like "must win atleast 30% of your games vs. the Top 100" or something like that. Instead you just get credit for wins, and mid-majors get dinged for a bad loss if they lose to someone outside the Top 150.

I just think all of this goes away as far as controversy if they just simply publish what criteria is important. KenPom would be very fair to be used and it would be easy to be understood. Or you could use multiple computer rating systems. The Power 5 doesn't want that though as they would like to keep it ambiguous and let them change the criteria as they see fit.

Don't you think a more uniform set of guidelines would be better and more fair? And if the end result is all Power 5 teams, I can live with that. I think it would be better to have more transparency.

[Vent]

The NCAA men's basketball tournament is comprised of teams that get an automatic bid by winning their post season conference tournament or if no tournament is held, by winning their league outright. The rest of the field consists of the remaining best at large teams as determined by the selection committee. The Power 5 conferences typically have the most at large births because they typically have the best teams. The tournament does not consist entirely of the best teams in the NCAA.

The selection committee is generally pretty good at picking the at large teams. The argument usually is around the seeding. If a team feels they get a bad seed, all they need to do is prove they did by winning. As to the MVC getting four teams in 2006, there were three teams that received at large bids. I don't recall all of the at large bids in the NCAA tournament that year, but I would be willing to bet the three MVC at large bids that year took at large bids away from other mid major teams instead of the Power 5 conferences.

[MacabreMob]

Vent - well stated and I agree with you that fans of Power 5 teams often root for their rivals to lose and enjoy when there are upsets and mid-major teams beat one of their rivals....

First of all... this is NOT a "rooting FOR a mid-major"... this is "rooting AGAINST another team"... so... this is schadenfreude.

These fans would STILL enjoy seeing the other team losing to ANYBODY, a mid-major or a Power 5. Doesn't matter - that is schadenfreude.