Life on NCAA tourney bubble getting tougher for the little guys: 'The opportunity is disappearing'

[ISU86]

Interesting article that Includes graph showing at-large bids by conference by year since 2000.

http://sports.yahoo.com/march-sadness-life-ncaa-tournament-bubble-getting-tougher-little-guy-041832135.html

Nothing for hope in terms of ways to correct.

 

[ChiRedbirdfan]

Interesting article that Includes graph showing at-large bids by conference by year since 2000.

http://sports.yahoo.com/march-sadness-life-ncaa-tournament-bubble-getting-tougher-little-guy-041832135.html

Nothing for hope in terms of ways to correct.

Data skewed a bit by the expansion of the top conferences via poaching of the talent from the lower conferences....such as Creighton, Butler...etc (and most recently Wichita State). Big Ten is no longer 10, Pac is 12 vs 10, SEC now 14 vs 12 teams...etc

 

[Birdswin]

This is article is proof of what Mike DeCourcy, then of the Sporting News, predicted would happen after the 2006 tournament. The Power Conference would move to exclude and attempt to financially squeeze out the other conferences. The money is just too BIG for them not to do this. Led by Jim Delaney - you squeeze these conferences financially - in terms of regular season scheduling and in selection processes - it will have an affect on their attendance and alumni giving, along with AD and coach stability.

Just look at what "primary" stat has been highlighted over the years - prior to 2006 it was the "RPI" - then it was "SOS" even though that is a component of the RPI - then out of nowhere came the "eye-test" which I would contend is when CBS started to exert their influence on which teams get selected (non-sports executives all consumed with ratings) - then stratification of wins by RPI, then "BPI" and now this year, the advent of Quadrants.

The folks at CBS cannot figure out why ratings continue to go down - what made this tournament great, were teams from non-Power conferences beating the Power teams. DeCoury predicted that eventually the Tournament will only be for the Power Conferences - which is coming closer to reality every year.

 

[Redbrd1]

This is article is proof of what Mike DeCourcy, then of the Sporting News, predicted would happen after the 2006 tournament. The Power Conference would move to exclude and attempt to financially squeeze out the other conferences. The money is just too BIG for them not to do this. Led by Jim Delaney - you squeeze these conferences financially - in terms of regular season scheduling and in selection processes - it will have an affect on their attendance and alumni giving, along with AD and coach stability.

Just look at what "primary" stat has been highlighted over the years - prior to 2006 it was the "RPI" - then it was "SOS" even though that is a component of the RPI - then out of nowhere came the "eye-test" which I would contend is when CBS started to exert their influence on which teams get selected (non-sports executives all consumed with ratings) - then stratification of wins by RPI, then "BPI" and now this year, the advent of Quadrants.

The folks at CBS cannot figure out why ratings continue to go down - what made this tournament great, were teams from non-Power conferences beating the Power teams. DeCoury predicted that eventually the Tournament will only be for the Power Conferences - which is coming closer to reality every year.

Great Post! Very true.

 

[Birdswin]

Why do you think Syracuse is selected every year - as long as they have a winning record? Syracuse has a lot of alums in media and in the NYC area - thus, there is a thought - not proof - that ratings would be higher if Syracuse is playing instead of Middle Tennessee State or St. Mary's.

The problem with this thought process - it is NOT about an individual team - it is the Tournament, which is bigger than any one team. A lot of people watch the tournament to see upsets - not for the 6th place team from the BIG ten playing the 7th place team from the ACC.

 

[bb fan]

Excellent discussion.

Yep. 2006 was a watershed year. The year the power conferences said ENOUGH. And took the thing over. The NCAA is the lapdog of the P5. Their chosen Autonomous 5 as they call them.

And, they are hurting the game.

 

[Phantom]

The irony in a lot of this is the parity that exists in the college hoops landscape. But '06 was the zenith for the mids. You could almost just see the NCAA cringing at the amount of non-P5 teams that made deep runs that year, and since. It's a joke. Back then, there were ways for mid majors to get IN (ie: Bracket Buster game, which is exactly what earned UNI their at-large in 06), and since then they've pulled a 180 and now it's all about the ways they can keep mid majors OUT.

 

[Birdswin]

A great message sent out by Joe Lunardi today - he is saying that under today's standards, Larry Bird and the 1979 Indiana State team, which played in the National Championship game, would not be selected as an at-large. They played two non-D1 teams and had only ONE Quadrant 1 win.

WOW!

 

[bb fan]

Sobering point for sure, Birdswin. Good find. The P5's are destroying the spirit of this tournament.

 

[BTbird]

I know the big 12 is a good conference but Oklahoma won 4 out of their last 15 games and was under .500 in the conference. They should be playing in the NIT.

 

[FriscoBird90]

Remember how "Power 5" types complained about how the MVC had "broken the code" to scheduling in such a way that brought up teams' RPIs more in line with those of the "major conference" teams? Soon after that the selection committee started using things such as "eye tests" and "top 50 wins" as new criteria to replace the RPI when it was to the benefit of teams from the "Power 5."

 

[Red Rocker]

That is why they re wrote the code to quadrants which only the committee knows.

Tournament selection process is corrupt. If you can’t finish .500 in your conference, you don’t belong in under current format.

IL St received an at-large bid in the last year of the 48 team tournament in 1984. Times have certainly been manipulated by the money.

The only answer for us is to expand the tournament but it won’t happen.

 

[bb fan]

Great post Red Rocker.

 

[Bird Friend]

That is why they re wrote the code to quadrants which only the committee knows.

Tournament selection process is corrupt. If you can’t finish .500 in your conference, you don’t belong in under current format.

IL St received an at-large bid in the last year of the 48 team tournament in 1984. Times have certainly been manipulated by the money.

The only answer for us is to expand the tournament but it won’t happen.

Or . . . we win when we play power conference teams.

 

[bb fan]

Seems like we beat a couple of P5's just this season.

 

[ISU FAN 1]

https://sports.yahoo.com/harsh-reality-hitting-mid-major-schools-star-players-show-ncaa-tourney-001926275.html

Transferring up from mid-majors to higher-profile programs has gone from an anomaly to an expectation. But guys like Georgia State's D'Marcus Simonds are just fine playing at a small school

 

[Redbrd1]

That is why they re wrote the code to quadrants which only the committee knows.

Tournament selection process is corrupt. If you can’t finish .500 in your conference, you don’t belong in under current format.

IL St received an at-large bid in the last year of the 48 team tournament in 1984. Times have certainly been manipulated by the money.

The only answer for us is to expand the tournament but it won’t happen.

Expanding the tourney just helps the P5 more. You think if you expanded another 20 teams those 20 wouldn’t mostly come from the low echelons of the P5? Come on....

 

[Brick]

My ideal final four? All mid majors!!!! That would teach em!

 

[bb fan]

Right on, Brick.

 

[ISU86]

That is why they re wrote the code to quadrants which only the committee knows.

Tournament selection process is corrupt. If you can’t finish .500 in your conference, you don’t belong in under current format.

IL St received an at-large bid in the last year of the 48 team tournament in 1984. Times have certainly been manipulated by the money.

The only answer for us is to expand the tournament but it won’t happen.

Expanding the tourney just helps the P5 more. You think if you expanded another 20 teams those 20 wouldn’t mostly come from the low echelons of the P5? Come on....

Unfortunately, tend to agree.

Of the sixty-five power five teams, forty-nine went to either the NCAA or NIT (the ones that did not: California, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Northwestern, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Washington State); of those fifteen whose season ended at their conference tournament, only three (Georgia, Oregon State, South Carolina) had .500 or above records (and Georgia declined their NIT invitation). If you include the Big East it goes to 56 out of 75 schools (adding DePaul, Georgetown, and Saint John's to the stay at home list (Georgetown was .500 as well)).

That means only four schools from the top six conferences did not go to the NCAA/NIT that ended their regular season with .500 or above records.

As an aside, HCDM played two (Mississippi, South Carolina) and the possibility of a third (Iowa State, if our early season tournament bracket had gone our way) P5 schools ... and they were three of the sixteen that did not play in the NCAA/NIT. No valuable quadrant one opportunities to be had, as it turned out.

Talk about playing/scheduling on a thin line.